Perfect Storm for Food

We are facing the beginning of a perfect storm, and most people have not yet realized the imminent danger. It's time for a collective awakening to combat the coordinated attack on food safety. The stage is set, and if we don't act now, the future of the food ingredients and additives industry, and food in general, is seriously threatened. The case of the war on aspartame brought by FOODWATCH is the perfect example of everything that is wrong with this process.

For over a decade, many considered the NOVA classification and the concept of “ultra-processed” absurd and doomed to oblivion. But negligence has allowed this monster to grow. While scientists and industries underestimated the danger, the media, activists, and misinformation overtook public discourse. Now, the word “ultra-processed” has become synonymous with poison, and there are a few questions about where this narrative came from. This destructive advance did not happen by chance: it is the result of the inability of the industry and the scientific community to communicate in a clear and accessible way, the sensationalism of the media that prioritizes alarmist headlines, and the passivity of regulatory agencies, and the WHO, which avoid taking a clear stance. After all, these bodies approve food ingredients, and the industry only uses them within the rules. Why don't they defend their own decisions?

The WOKE activist agenda has also infiltrated the food debate, imposing arbitrary restrictions based on ideology, not science. What began as a movement to raise awareness about social injustices has turned into a radical force that demonizes everything that doesn't fit into its utopian vision, ignoring the real impacts on society. And the case of aspartame exemplifies this problem. The Foodwatch, Cancer League, and Yuka campaign mobilized European consumers by petitioning to ban aspartame from the market, claiming that government inaction is intolerable and that “an additive with so many risks has no place in our food and drink.”

Everything is wrong here. The WHO was wrong to endorse the IARC classification, which does not assess risk but danger. The IARC placed aspartame in category 2B, possibly carcinogenic, the same level of risk as using a cell phone or eating pickled vegetables common in the oriental diet. The problem is that few people know the difference between risk and danger. Risk is the probability of something causing harm; danger is only the potential to cause harm under specific conditions.

Furthermore, the WHO itself issued a contradictory recommendation on sweeteners in 2023. The document suggests that the general public should not consume these additives, claiming that they do not help with weight loss and may be associated with chronic non-communicable diseases such as diabetes. However, in the same document, the WHO admits that this recommendation is not related to safety issues since JECFA, a committee of experts in food toxicology of the WHO itself, approves the sweeteners. As if this inconsistency wasn't enough, the WHO also states that people with diabetes don't need to follow this recommendation. In other words, according to the organization, sweeteners should be avoided because they can increase the risk of NCDs. Still, paradoxically, people already more likely to develop these diseases would be exempt from these restrictions. This lack of coherence leads to confusion among consumers, inconsistent regulations, and compromises the institution's credibility.

In the same year that the IARC evaluated aspartame, the JECFA, also of the WHO, re-evaluated aspartame and reaffirmed its safety, maintaining its ADI at 40 mg/kg of weight, and regional and local agencies continued to maintain the same ADI, including ANVISA. However, this omission by scientific and regulatory agencies, industry bodies, toxicologists, and food safety experts allows the activist narrative to gain traction. This campaign is not just against aspartame but against all food additives. These activists do not know how toxicological tests are carried out and the rigorous stages these compounds must undergo before approval.

The case of aspartame is especially ironic, as it is one of the easiest sweeteners to explain. It comprises two amino acids - aspartic acid and phenylalanine - which are part of the structure of proteins common in the diet. When metabolized, aspartame releases a small amount of methanol, which is generated naturally by eating fruit and vegetables. The amount of methanol released by aspartame is insignificant compared to common foods: a liter of diet soda generates around 50 mg of methanol, while a glass of orange juice can contain up to 100 mg, a glass of tomato juice up to 200 mg, and an apple can reach 100 mg. The human body efficiently metabolizes small amounts of methanol, converting it into formaldehyde and then formic acid, which is eliminated without harm to the body. If aspartame were dangerous for this reason, banning the consumption of fruit and natural juices would also be necessary.

The studies linking aspartame to cancer are methodologically weak. They are all observational studies, full of bias, and unable to establish causality. In addition, laboratory studies in vitro and animals use completely unrealistic doses, thousands of times higher than those consumed by humans. No human being would ingest the quantities tested in these studies. And yet, the world's leading regulatory agencies—FDA, EFSA, JECFA, and ANVISA—have extensively reviewed the data and confirmed the safety of aspartame within recommended consumption levels.

This movement is a path of no return if experts, food technology professionals, and industry scientists don't take a clear stand. Banning aspartame would be a huge step backward in the evolution of food technology. It would also set a dangerous precedent: if there is no reaction, the same argument will be used against any other additive. The IARC does not assess risk, only danger, leading to distortions in public perception. If we took this classification literally, we would have to ban cell phones, pickled vegetables, and hundreds of other substances standard daily.

On the global scene, the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made this situation even worse. He has no scientific background and a history of promoting misinformation about vaccines and food. He advocates severe restrictions on ultra-processed foods, calling them “poisons” without scientific basis. If his proposals go ahead, we will see a giant step backward in food technology, increased costs, and a risk to food and food safety. Food additives not only guarantee the safety of the food we find in supermarkets but also of food ready to fight hunger, to help in areas of war and natural disasters. Without additives, these products will be unviable.

If industry, scientists, and regulatory agencies don't react now, activists will win this war. As Martin Luther King said: “What worries me is not the cry of the bad, but the silence of the good.”

Márcia Terra