Trial clears sweetener of reactions

There is no evidence to suggest that the artificial sweetener aspartame produces adverse effects among consumers, a new test has concluded.

Dr Thozhukat Sathyapalan, a researcher from Hull York Medical School, England, conducted a trial that compared 48 people who self-reported as being sensitive to aspartame with 48 control participants with no sensitivity.

Using two specially prepared cereal bars, one of which included aspartame, participants were asked to rate their symptoms over a four-hour period after eating each of the bars. They were then measured for a range of biological and psychological responses.

Throughout the test, sensitive participants rated more symptoms but these did not correlate as to whether or not they consumed the bar containing aspartame.

A number of blood and urine biological tests were also done, none of which revealed any changes among the participants, says Dr Sathyapalan, whose study is published in PLOS One.

“We used a variety of state of the art tests to monitor the response of our participants throughout the trial,” he said.

“With customer concern over the safety of this sweetener in food and drink products, the results of this trial should be reassuring to the public.”

Since aspartame became commonly used by the food and drink industry in the 1980s, it has been the subject of considerable scrutiny. It has been reviewed several times, most recently in 2013 when the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) undertook a full re-evaluation.

The latest study was backed by the UK Food Standards Agency.

Chief scientific adviser Guy Poppy said: "While the best available evidence shows that aspartame can be consumed safely, a number of individuals have reported adverse reactions after consuming food and drink containing aspartame. Given this anecdotal evidence it was appropriate to see if more could be found out about these reported effects."

Sathyapalan T et al. Aspartame Sensitivity? A Double Blind Randomised Crossover Study/ PLOS One 20 March 2015; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116212

,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search

Categories

Monthly Posts

Our Clients

BSH
Practice Index