Viewpoint: Splenda scare? Should we be concerned about reports linking artificial sweeteners to strokes?

Credit: OvulifeMD
Credit: OvulifeMD

I’ve learned to allow my patients to have strange tastes in beverages. Should I be tolerant towards their drive to consume artificially sweetened foods and drinks, though? A new study joins a mixed bag of older research which suggests that I should not. I don’t think my Splenda-swilling patients have cause for alarm, however.

The work, published in the British Medical Journal, tracked over 100,000 French adults prospectively for more than a decade. Dietary consumption of several artificial sweeteners, primarily aspartame (Equal/Nutrasweet), acesulfame potassium (Sunett/Sweet One) and sucralose (Splenda), was determined via questionnaire, and then health outcomes in regard to heart events like anginal pain, stent, or heart attack, or brain events like TIA or stroke were followed both through participant report (with physician confirmation) and national health records.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

What they found was a rather modest increase in cardiovascular events among those who consumed artificial sweeteners. Indeed, it barely reached statistical significance for the composite measure.

In their middle aged cohort, high consumers — who averaged about 2 packets of sweetener per day — had about 1 cardiovascular event every 290 person-years, while non-consumers spaced out their events only to about every 320 years. The average middle aged person would need to live over 3000 years to reap the benefits of that responsible choice to forego Nutrasweet. Put from a physician’s or nutritionist’s perspective, we’d have to counsel 60 patients each with 50 years of tread on their tires to avoid artificial sweeteners in order to prevent one cardiovascular event.

We’ve got bigger fish to fry.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot 2026-05-26 at 10.15
Viewpoint: Double standard—Why does the wellness industry get a free pass while Big Healthcare is treated as morally suspect?
Screenshot 2025-07-30 at 10.48
Can gene editing eliminate Down syndrome? Scientists have done it in lab-grown cells
tick-DNA
GLP podcast: Spread meat allergy with gene-edited ticks? Bioethicists pose vile ‘thought experiment’
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-01_27_58-PM
Viewpoint—N.A.D.+: Why Gwenyth Paltrow’s heralded anti-aging supplement doesn’t work
Screenshot-2026-06-03-at-1.24.46-PM
Challenging anti-GMO disinformation: Why genetically-tweaked crops offer bushels of benefits
downsyndrome_compilation_MID_1
CRISPR breakthrough that can remove the chromosome responsible for Down syndrome raises ethical questions
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-4-2026-11_49_36-AM-2
‘You don’t understand Tolkien’: Skeptic Pope trolls tech giants about the exaggerated, risk-less benefits of AI
ChatGPT-Image-May-26-2026-07_51_21-AM-2
Viewpoint: There are more than 1,000 chemicals in a cup of coffee—including many substances that can cause cancer. Why isn’t it banned?
Screenshot-2026-06-04-at-12.05.08-PM
Cases of brain inflammation surge as U.S. measles pandemic approaches 2000

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.