European Food Safety Authority slams Ramazzini study, finds (yet again) sucralose sweetener not carcinogenic

[F]or some reason, some folks don’t want to leave the issue alone and keep trying to “prove” that [sucralose and other approved sweeteners] aren’t safe, or cause cancer, and so on. One group that seems addicted to this meme is the Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, which has published generally disproven data indicting aspartame for bogus health effects. So, recently they’ve attacked sucralose with similarly poor data.The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has now weighed in (in the EFSA Journal) on the reliability of the Institute’s latest effort. 

The report was issued by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS), and basically said that the data supplied by the Ramazzini Foundation in a paper by Soffritti, et. al. last year can not be construed to show a causal relationship between consumption of sucralose and the incidence of hematopoietic cancers (leukemia and lymphomas).

The panel therefore concluded, “[T]he available data did not support the conclusions of the authors (Soffritti et al., 2016) that sucralose induced haematopoietic neoplasias in male Swiss mice.”

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Sucralose Safety Confirmed Again

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.

19 thoughts on “European Food Safety Authority slams Ramazzini study, finds (yet again) sucralose sweetener not carcinogenic”

  1. Of course, sucralose causes cancer. It was developed by an insecticide researcher and I found it on a web site still being sold as an insecticide until I pointed it out. When Dr. Soffritti did the aspartame studies the head of EFSA resigned, Dr. Herman Kohler. He said they were pressured by industry to hijack science. Rather than say the prestigious Ramazzini study was wrong he resigned. Dr. Soffritti got one of the most prestigious awards for the study , only given twice before in history. Be assured industry is releasing this absurd statement. Go to and rad about aspartame, especially “Eat, Drink and Be Buried, National Health Federation. Even the FDa, Dr. Adrian Gross admitted to congress to violated the Delaney Amendment because it caused cancer, The congressional records are on this web site. Dr. Betty Martini, Founder, Mission Possible Intl.

          • Tell you what go to U-Tube and put in “Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, Listen to some world experts on aspartame. You’ll see me too showing what the CDC did dishonestly. Have an appointment now but we have it all. Betty

          • A youtube video isn’t proof. Vague fluff pieces aren’t proof. Claims without links to scientific studies isn’t proof.

            For those that claim there’s been “research” that supports their claims, why don’t they link them? For animal tests, what dosages were used? How did the studies stand up to peer review?

            Don’t just read stuff that tells you what you want to believe, find actual peer-reviewed studies for information.

          • The U-Tube is a documentary about aspartame with world experts commenting on studies. Dt. H. J. Roberts wrote the 1000 page medical text, “Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic”, On just click the button for Peer Reviewed research, peer reviewed. The Bressler Report by FDA Compliance Officer goes into the brain tumor issue and one of the reasons they tried to indict the company. They were caught excising the brain tumors, putting the rats back in the study, then when they died they resurrected them on paper. Both US Prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. FDA lead scientist and toxicologist testified before the Senate on 8/1/1985 testified aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment because it caused cancer. You are quoting a front group. They have received all the proof and peer reviewed studies in the past but refuse to post it If you go to the Aspartame Toxicity Center you will see all the propaganda rebutted and it shows you how they fixed the studies. President Reagan wrote an executive order making the FDA powerless to sign the revoked petition into law until he could get a new FDA Commissioner there to over-rule the Board of Inquiry of the FDA. Arthur Hull Hayes over-ruled it and then went to work for the PR Agency of the manufacturer. at $1000 a day on a ten year contract and according to one article he only went there about 15 times. Don Rumsfeld got aspartame on the market through political; chicanery and received 12 million when it was sold. Almost 100% of independent peer reviewed research show the aspartame problems and aspartame cancers. Put in google – “Dangers of aspartame” and read some of the peer reviewed research like the Trocho study showing the formaldehyde converted from the free methyl alcohol embalms living tissue and damages DNA. I’ve been out of town but I’ve told everyone where to get the facts. Even Harvard showed links to cancer. Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder Mission Possible World Health Intl,

          • Go to the Ramazzini Institute in Italy on line and read the study for yourself. Dr. Morando Soffritti’s aspartame study was peer reviewed by 7 world experts and he received an award for it. The one on sucralose has been peer reviewed. Look it up. Dr. Bowen wrote an excellent article on
            sucralose. At 03:47 PM

          • How about sharing those links?
            You made the claim, it’s up to YOU to provide he evidence.

      • Dr. To the European Food Safety Authority Since Dr. Soffritti, lead Scientist in the 36 month aspartame study on rats rebutted EFSA’s bizarre criticism of his impeccable work there has been nothing but silence. The Ramazzini study was peer reviewed by 7 world experts, who unquestionably know that respiratory disease is part of the normal dying process. Dr. Soffritti’s rebuttal explains: “As reported in a previous paper (Soffritti et al. 1999), one of the most important issues in environmental and industrial carcinogenesis is how to deal with diffused carcinogenic risks, to which most of the planet’s population may be exposed. These carcinogenic risks are represented by a) agents that are slightly carcinogenic at any dose; b) low or extremely low doses of a carcinogenic agent of any kind; or c) mixtures of small doses of carcinogenic agents. “Epidemiologic and experimental studies are fundamental in the identification and quantification of diffused carcinogenic risks, but they must be designed and conducted to be as powerful as possible with adequate methodology. In the case of experimental studies, it is not sufficient to follow the standard protocol used in ordinary experiments. Instead, it is necessary to conduct studies that may be defined as “mega-experiments,” using a vast number of animals (at least 2001,000 per experimental group) in order to express a marked difference in the variation of effects, and exposing the animals in all phases of development to allow the agent to express its full carcinogenic potential. “It is based on this rationale that the European Ramazzini Foundation performed a mega-experiment on 1,800 rats and demonstrated that, in our experimental conditions, aspartame is a multipotential carcinogenic agent (Soffritti et al. 2005; Soffritti et al. 2006). “The results of our study (Soffritti et al. 2005; Soffritti et al. 2006) attracted the attention of the scientific community, consumer and industry associations, and the national and international agencies responsible for food safety. Among various comments, the opinion expressed on 5 May 2006 by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2006) and the general interpretation of an epidemiologic study conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI 2006) necessitate comment on our part. “In examining the raw data of our study, the EFSA (2006) observed a high incidence of chronic pulmonary inflammation in males and females in both treated groups and in the control group. Based on this observation, it was concluded that “the increased incidence of lymphomas/leukemias reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame, given the high background incidence of chronic inflammatory changes in the lungs . . . .” In my opinion, this conclusion is bizarre for the following reasons: “First, the EFSA (2006) overlooked the fact that the study was conducted until the natural death of the rodents. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT INFECTIOUS PATHOLOGIES ARE PART OF THE NATURAL DYING PROCESS IN BOTH RODENTS AND HUMANS. “Second, if the statistically significant increased incidence of lymphomas/leukemias observed were indeed caused by an infected colony, one would expect to observe an increased incidence of lymphomas/leukemias not only in females but also in males. The EFSA (2006) did not comment on this discrepancy in their logic. “Finally, in support of the hypothesis regarding the safety of aspartame, the EFSA (2006) cited the negative results of recent carcinogenicity studies carried out in transgenic mice by the NTP; the ESFA did not mention that, because the NTP studies on genetically altered mice were performed using a new experimental model, the NTP subcommittee unanimously agreed “there is uncertainty whether the study possessed sufficient sensitivity to detect a carcinogenic effect” (NTP 2005). “Interestingly, the same scrutiny applied to our study has not been applied to a recent abstract published by Lim et al. (2006) from the NCI diet questionnaire survey (NCI 2006) in which self-reported aspartame consumption showed no increases in either leukemia/lymphomas or in brain cancer. These results have been used by industry, the EFSA, and others to argue that aspartame is not a risk for humans, in spite of our animal study results. Without specific information on each individual’s consumption rate and duration it is difficult to assess the power of the survey, in spite of the large number of participants. The second related issue is whether aspartame is an early- or late-stage carcinogen. If it is an early-stage initiator of cancer, then reporting the lack of effects in older individuals who have not consumed aspartame since early childhood would be expected to show little or no increased cancer (Hoel 1985). “The safety-in particular, the noncarcinogenicity-of today’s most widely diffused artificial sweeteners and their blends is largely based on studies conducted decades ago. I second Karstadt’s nomination of acesulfame K for further study; however, I add that it should be evaluated using a long-term mega-experiment. “The author declares he has no competing financial interests.”Morando SoffrittiCesare Maltoni Cancer Research CenterEuropean Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences”B. Ramazzini”Bologna, ItalyE-mail: [email protected] __________________ Soffritti rebuttal on aspartame:

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend