Watchman News

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published May 21, 2019.

I’ve written about the collusion between industry and the U.S. federal regulatory agencies on many occasions throughout the years, and how industry-funded research simply tends to promote and support the industry agenda rather than shed truthful light on the benefits or risks of any given product.

In recent years, the hidden influence of The Coca-Cola Company over health and sugar science has been highlighted several times and, according to recent findings, it appears the company has not changed its secretive and deceptive ways, despite public assurances of transparency.

Documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests reveal Coca-Cola’s research agreements with certain universities give the company questionable rights over the research process, while other FOIA documents show Coca-Cola has an unreasonable amount of influence over the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Truly, having a public health organization that protects and supports industry rather than looking out for public health is worse than having no public health protection agency at all, and making health decisions on Coca-Cola funded research is bound to lead public health in the wrong direction — which is exactly what’s been happening.

Coke’s Research Agreements Allow It to Bury Unfavorable Findings

Big Soda’s core message has been that the obesity epidemic is driven by a lack of activity, as opposed to indulging in sugar-based foods and beverages, despite overwhelming scientific evidence you will never be able to out-exercise your diet.

Recent FOIA documents obtained by the nonprofit consumer and public health watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) offer an explanation as to how the company can influence research to support and promulgate this false idea.1,2,3,4 As noted in a commentary in The British Medical Journal:5

“The research team, from the University of Cambridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the University of Bocconi, and non-profit group US Right to Know, looked at five research agreements made with four universities: Louisiana State University, University of South Carolina, University of Toronto, and the University of Washington.

They found that, although the contracts show that Coca-Cola does not have day-to-day control of the research, it has various rights throughout the process … This is despite Coca-Cola’s website stating that ‘in no event does The Coca-Cola Company have the right to prevent the publication of research results’ …

The authors are now calling on corporate funders to publish lists of terminated studies and on scientists to publish industry agreements to show that their findings are free from influence.”

Just how much influence do the agreements grant Coca-Cola? According to the featured paper,6 published in the Journal of Public Health Policy, the research contract provisions give Coke:7

The right to review and comment on studies before publication

Intellectual property rights connected to the research8,9

Control over study data

Control over disclosure of results

Control over acknowledgment of Coca-Cola funding, meaning the company could prevent the researchers from disclosing that their funding came from Coke

Power to terminate studies early for any reason, including no reason

Coke-Funded Science Cannot Be Trusted

In a USRTK press release, Gary Ruskin, co-director of USRTK and co-author of the paper, commented:10

“These contracts suggest that Coke wanted the power to bury research it funded that might detract from its image or profits. With the power to trumpet positive findings and bury negative ones, Coke-funded ‘science’ seems somewhat less than science and more like an exercise in public relations.”

Marion Nestle, Ph.D.,11 professor of nutrition and public health at New York University and author of “Soda Politics,” in which she dissects the many ways in which funding from the food and beverage industry influences scientific results, calls the USRTK findings “jaw-dropping.” She told Inverse:12

“It demonstrates what we have all long suspected. Companies that sponsor research make sure that they get what they pay for. The study documents the involvement of Coca-Cola in many aspects of developing research projects.

It is no surprise that its funded research typically comes out with results that are useful for Coca-Cola marketing purposes. Industry funded research is marketing research, not scientific research.”

High Time for All Branches of Science to Mandate Preregistration of Studies

Since September 27, 2007, Section 801 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act requires any clinical trial being undertaken to be registered, and summary results must be submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov13 regardless of the outcome of the study. The reason for this is to help prevent publication bias where only positive findings see the light of day.

Unfortunately, this law only applies to certain clinical trials of drugs, biological products and medical devices,14 and while researchers in many other fields have taken to preregistering their studies,15,16 which means they must also publish their results, it’s not a blanket requirement across the board.

As of yet, preregistration of trials is not a requirement for nutritional research, although there’s a movement toward it. As noted in the 2015 editorial “Goals in Nutrition Science 2015-2020,” published in Frontiers of Nutrition:17

“[T]here is a general movement in science for ‘Transparency and Openness Promotion,’ formalized in ‘The TOP Guidelines.’18 The guidelines recognize eight standards: citation, data transparency, analytic methods (code) transparency, research materials transparency, design and analysis transparency, preregistration of studies, preregistration of analysis plans, and replication.

These standards aim to improve the communication of science, allowing improved understanding and replicability of results. Because the TOP Guidelines are being adopted across fields of science, the field of nutrition will not have to act in isolation to improve its scientific practices. Instead, we can build on and work with the minds and resources coming from a spectrum of scientific inquiry.”

Another paper,19 “Best Practices in Nutrition Science to Earn and Keep the Public’s Trust,” published in January 2019, also highlights the TOP (transparency and openness promotion) guidelines that call for preregistration of studies.

On a quick side note, the first analysis20 of preregistered studies reveals there’s been a sharp increase in null findings, suggesting the practice is working as intended.

As reported by Nature, “Studies that preregister their protocols publish more negative findings that don’t support their hypothesis, than those that don’t.”21 This is important, because when mainly positive studies are published, it can easily create the false appearance that the evidence for a particular treatment is far stronger than it actually is.

CDC Colludes With Coca-Cola to Deceive You

Earlier this year, another batch of emails obtained via FOIA requests (after USRTK sued the CDC to get a response) revealed Coca-Cola was actively lobbying the CDC “to advance corporate objectives rather than health, including to influence the World Health Organization,” USRTK said in a post on its website,22 adding that the documentation demonstrates “a need for clearer policies on avoiding partnerships with manufacturers of harmful products.”

These documents, featuring correspondence between Coca-Cola executives and the CDC, can be found in the USCF Food Industry Documents online archive.23,24 A paper25,26,27,28 detailing the connections between Coke and the CDC based on the email cache was published in The Milbank Quarterly in January 2019. In a press release announcing the publication of the paper, USRTK said:29

“Coca-Cola’s contact with the CDC shows the company’s interest in gaining access to CDC employees, to lobby policymakers, and to frame the obesity debate by shifting attention and blame away from sugar-sweetened beverages …

‘It is not the proper role of the CDC to abet companies that manufacture harmful products,’ said Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know. ‘Congress should investigate whether Coca-Cola and other companies that harm public health are unethically influencing the CDC, and subverting its efforts to protect the health of all Americans.’

‘Once again we see the grave risks that arise when public health organisations [sic] partner with manufacturers of products that pose a threat to health,’ said Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

‘Sadly, as this example, and more recent ones in the United Kingdom show, these risks are not always appreciated by those who should know better.’”

CDC Official Helped Coke Influence World Health Organization

In March 2015, WHO published a new sugar guideline that specifically targeted sugary beverages, calling them out as a primary cause for childhood obesity around the world, especially in developing nations, where the soda industry is now aggressively expanding its reach.

WHOs recommendation to limit soda consumption was a huge blow to an already beleaguered soda industry, struggling to maintain a declining market share amid mounting evidence identifying sweetened drinks as a primary contributor to the obesity and diabetes epidemics.

Email correspondence between Alex Malaspina, a former Coca-Cola scientific and regulatory affairs leader and the founder of the food industry-funded group International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), and Barbara Bowman, Ph.D., then-director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, revealed Bowman repeatedly tried to help Malaspina get an audience with WHO officials, with the aim to talk them into relaxing the sugar limits.30,31

As noted by the USRTK,32 while Bowman’s job was to prevent obesity and related health problems, she “appeared happy to help the beverage industry cultivate political sway with the World Health Organization.”

Bowman left the agency at the end of June 2016, just two days after the initial reports about her cozy relationship with Coke were made public,33 which suggests she understood full well how inappropriate her behavior was.

This case also highlights the reality of corporate loyalty. As reported by the Huffington Post,34 early in her career, Bowman worked as a senior nutritionist for Coca-Cola. She also co-wrote one of the editions of a nutritional book published by ILSI.35

It’s human nature to remain loyal to former employers and colleagues, which is why the revolving door between industry and the agencies that regulate them is so problematic. People don’t shed their corporate mindset just because they get a government title and a new set of responsibilities.

Latest Coca-Cola Funded Study Again Blames Inactivity for Childhood Obesity

Coca-Cola and other soda makers have invested a lot of money in research and PR efforts aimed at protecting sales through misdirection. Coca-Cola in particular has worked hard to make it seem as though they’re concerned about public health while secretly undermining real efforts to improve it.

For example, a historical analysis36 published in 2016 found the sugar industry funded research that identified dietary fat as the culprit in heart disease, not sugar, and didn’t disclose that funding.

A 2017 study37 revealed that while sponsoring 95 U.S. health organizations, Coke was lobbying against public health bills aimed at reducing soda consumption through taxing, sugar limits and other strategies.

Coca-Cola and many other junk food manufacturers are also notorious for funding — and thus influencing — food and nutrition conferences and education.38

Most recently, a Coke-funded study39 published in the International Journal of Obesity January 31, 2019, evaluated “the single and joint associations of objectively measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary time on week and weekend days with obesity in children from 12 countries …”

They concluded the odds of obesity were highest among those who got the least amount of physical activity on both weekdays and weekends. Children with the lowest odds of obesity were the most active throughout the whole week. As noted by Nestle in her Food Politics blog:40

“This is another paper from the ISCOLE study funded by Coca-Cola, that seems to be aimed at casting doubt on the idea that sugary beverages might promote weight gain. Instead, these results suggest that physical activity is a more important factor.

Of course physical activity is important for health, but doesn’t expend nearly as many calories as is usually needed to compensate for soft drink intake. I learned about this study from a Weighty Matters blog post41 by Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, who runs a weight management center in Ottawa.

In his view, the ISCOLE study ignores evidence42 that childhood obesity is a determinant of physical activity, ‘not the other way around.’ He also questions the ‘no influence’ statement in the funding disclosure, on the basis of emails43 between ISCOLE investigators and Coca-Cola that not surprisingly suggests that these relationships have the very real potential to influence the framing of results even if funders [are] not involved in study design.

As I discuss in ‘Unsavory Truth,’ the influence of food-industry funders appears to occur at an unconscious level; investigators do not recognize the influence and typically deny it.”

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published June 23, 2019.

Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, is nothing if not committed to action. In this inspiring interview, we discuss her book, “Unstoppable: Transforming Sickness and Struggle Into Triumph, Empowerment and a Celebration of Community,” which delves into the state of the world’s food supply, how to navigate through the many hazards of the standard American diet, and how you can become a powerful change agent yourself.

Like so many other parents, Honeycutt struggled to identify the roots of her children’s many health issues, which included allergies, autoimmune problems and symptoms of autism.

“I was completely confused and baffled,” she says. “Why was this happening? My kids had 19, 20 and 22 food allergies [respectively]. My husband and I had none of them. What was going on with the food supply? Thanks to Robyn O’Brien, Jeffrey Smith and all the scientists who started exposing information, I found out about genetically modified organisms (GMOs).”

She also discovered the disturbing truth about glyphosate, and how this pernicious weed killer, used on a wide variety of foods, whether they’re GMO or not, decimates your gut microbiome and contributes to a host of health problems, some of which plagued her own children.

“The problem is glyphosate’s so prevalent. This is the declared active chemical ingredient in Roundup that 80% of GMOs are engineered to withstand. It’s sprayed on all kinds of crops as a drying agent. It’s in most of our food.

And then you combine that with all the other toxins in our environment, in our vaccines, in our pajamas, in our sofas and baby bottles and all of that — you’ve got all these chemicals and toxins coming at our kids. That’s just a recipe for disaster.

Our kids are sick. One out of 2 children have a chronic illness; 1 in 2 males and 1 in 3 females are expected to get cancer in America today. That’s not OK with me. That was the impetus for me starting Moms Across America. It was to raise awareness about GMOs and toxic chemicals in our food supply.”

Standing Up to Monsanto

On January 30, 2015, Honeycutt was given the opportunity to speak at a Monsanto shareholders meeting1 as a proxy for the John Harrington Investment Group. You can read her presentation here. The referendum she presented was passed, causing Monsanto’s stock to significantly drop in the aftermath.

“I think a lot of the shareholders in that room probably were uncomfortable with owning Monsanto’s stock after that meeting,” she says. “That was probably one of the most terrifying and significant moments of my life, because I had the opportunity to speak on behalf of parents … with sick children.

I got to stand up in front of the entire shareholders meeting and basically hold them to account, to say how their products are harming our children. I got to meet Hugh Grant … the former chief executive officer (CEO) of Monsanto.

I looked him in the eye and said, ‘You know, Mr. Grant, it takes a big man to make a big and powerful company. But it takes an even bigger man to acknowledge when something’s not working and to go in a new direction … Moms Across America is looking forward to the day when Monsanto makes products that no longer harm our children.’

He said, ‘We’re always looking forward to have progress. We’ve got science on our side.’ I said, ‘Well, we actually have science on our side too, [and it shows] that your products harm our children … Just consider, what if you’re wrong? What are the consequences?’ … There’s … global consequence.’

He said, ‘If you’re wrong, you’re worrying an awful lot of people.’ I said, ‘But if I’m wrong, the consequence is only that people are eating organic. There’s nothing wrong with organic’ …

So many of us get concerned about … ‘What if trolls come after me? What if I get attacked?’ People are actually concerned for their physical safety in this climate right now. But … we cannot be stopped … We need to be unstoppable … We cannot let fear interfere with our commitment. We need to take action … Chemical companies should not be involved in our food supply. That’s all there is to it.”

As noted by Honeycutt, it’s important to realize that the science Monsanto (now Bayer) claims is on their side was bought and paid for by them. Some studies have even been shown to have been ghostwritten by the company itself. Such facts have come out during the discovery process of some of the lawsuits against Monsanto, which now number well over 11,000.

Meanwhile, many peer-reviewed, independent studies have found glyphosate-based herbicides to be carcinogenic.2 Glyphosate has also been shown to be a DNA mutagen, a chelator of important minerals,3 an antibiotic,4 an endocrine disruptor5,6 and more.7,8,9,10,11

Research12 even found that among children born of women with high exposure to glyphosate during pregnancy the rate of autism spectrum disorder with intellectual disability was 30% higher than among those born of mothers who lived further from highly-sprayed areas. Children who on top of that were exposed to pesticides during their first year were at 50% increased risk.

As noted by Honeycutt, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s review13 found glyphosate was not a carcinogen, its conclusion was based on industry-funded science, not independent science. In fact, according to some of the members on the scientific advisory panel convened to evaluate the strength of the EPA’s decision, the agency violated its own guidelines by discounting and downplaying data from studies linking glyphosate to cancer.14

Turning Devastation Into Triumph

More often than not, people who stand up to big industry end up paying a high price. Many lose their careers in the process. A similar situation, although impossible to prove, happened to the Honeycutts. Two weeks after Honeycutt attended Monsanto’s shareholders meeting, an outside consultant came into and reorganized her husband’s company.

“My husband was the only one fired,” Honeycutt says. “Now, I can’t say that it was definitely connected to Monsanto, but Monsanto was one of their clients. My husband was in the information technology (IT) division. He had nothing to do with Monsanto. He had nothing to do with sales. I don’t even think he knew that they were a client for a very long time, not until I got into this.

He lost his job. At first we thought it was devastating … But … everything that seems devastating can actually be the best thing that ever happened to you … We made this into the best thing that ever happened to us. My husband got search engine optimization training. He became a consultant. His company is called Organic Results.

He now does consulting for companies that we believe in, to improve the traffic to their websites. He’s a consultant for Moms Across America. He runs our marketing. He … helps us with our Health Solutions Store … He’s been an integral part of Moms Across America, and part of the reason why we’re able to still stay around.

The cool thing is we get to work together every day. He gets to be with our sons who are 16, 13 and 10 now. They get to have their dad around. It’s just phenomenal. I just absolutely love that we get to do what we’re doing.”

Eating Organic Can Make a World of Difference

As mentioned, all three of Honeycutt’s children struggled with food allergies. Her oldest son had a severe allergic reaction at 18 months after eating a nut. At the age of 5, he nearly died on Thanksgiving due to a pecan in the stuffing.

“One day, when he was about 8 years old, he had this rash around his mouth that had been going on and off for about seven months. It would last for about two weeks at a time. We didn’t know what it was. He looked at me really forlornly. He said, ‘Mom, I wish all my allergies would go away.’ I said, ‘Me too, buddy.’ But in my head, I was thinking, ‘That’s never going to happen.’

Then I realized what I was saying in my head. I was like, ‘Wait a second. That’s not what I’m committed to. I’m committed to empowerment. What if there was something we could do?’ I remembered my cousin, Sara, who had gone gluten-free for a long time and then was able to eat gluten about a year later.

I said, ‘Ben, would you like to be able to eat a slice of pizza or have a piece of birthday cake at a birthday party like a year from now?’ I painted that picture; that future. He said yes. I said, ‘Well then, would you be my partner in your health? Would you drink green drinks and go to alternative doctors?’ He said yes … We made a deal, and he did.

I did the research. He took the actions. He drank the green drinks. We took care of his gut bacteria. Within four months of going GMO-free, the rash was dramatically better. You could barely see it. It was a faint pink line under his lip if he was exposed to the allergen, which we figured out was carrageenan, by going to an alternative doctor.

And then within about a year or two of going organic … his allergies to walnuts and pecans went from a 19 down to 0.2. He no longer has a life-threatening food allergy. The peace of mind that I have as a mother that my son won’t die from food is priceless. It’s enormous. Our doctors’ bills, by the way, are dramatically lower.

We used to spend $12,000 to $15,000 with good health insurance. Now it’s maybe a couple hundred. It’s nothing. That’s just for checkups or whatever. We haven’t had to go for a sick doctor visit in three and a half years. He’s dramatically better.”

Autism Symptoms Linked to Glyphosate Exposure

Honeycutt’s second child developed a sudden onset of autism symptoms. “He was basically like an 8-year-old who was acting like a 3- or 4-year old. He was having tantrums. His grades went from As to Ds in math … His behavior was very erratic. He was trying to hit us … He was not being himself.” Honeycutt says.

A medical checkup revealed he had gut dysbiosis caused by C. difficile. According to the doctor, who specialized in autism, the inflammation in his gut was also causing inflammation in his brain. Glyphosate is known to do this, which prompted the Honeycutt’s to have him tested for glyphosate exposure.

“My son was the first one to be tested in America for glyphosate in his urine. We had finally initiated that. Moms Across America had put out the word to everybody. You can get your urine, your tap water and your breast milk tested for glyphosate.

His levels were eight times higher than was ever found in Europe, when Friends of the Earth did testing in Europe. I was furious that Roundup was in my son. We went 100% organic. Within six weeks, we retested him. His glyphosate levels were no longer detectable, and his autism symptoms were gone.

All we did was take care of his gut. We did give him an antifungal. We didn’t have to do a probiotic in there, but we gave him lots of sauerkraut, organic food. He ate no sugar from Thanksgiving to New Year’s, so he didn’t feed the bad gut bacteria. He recovered. He has not had a single autism symptom [in] five years now.”

Glyphosate Found in Vaccines

Now, food is not the only source of glyphosate exposure. Years ago, Honeycutt came across a Facebook post listing vaccine ingredients. Among them: polysorbate 80 — which like glyphosate can break down the blood-brain barrier and let toxins in — aluminum, bovine serum (blood) and egg.

Honeycutt realized some of these ingredients are likely GMO, or have been fed GMOs, and if so, they’re likely contaminated with glyphosate since glyphosate cannot be washed off. When an animal eats glyphosate-contaminated feed, their body parts become contaminated as well. Moms Across America sent five childhood vaccines to be tested for glyphosate, and every single one of them came back positive.

“The measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine came back 25 times higher than the other vaccines. Another scientist independently tested 14 more vaccines, and they also came back and confirmed our results,” Honeycutt says.

“His MMR vaccine came back 35 times higher. We all know that the problem around the MMR vaccine is that … it causes gut dysbiosis. [Andrew Wakefield] didn’t say it causes autism. He said it causes gut dysbiosis. Incidentally, practically every child who has autism has gut dysbiosis.

This, to me, was huge, because what I’m thinking is, ‘What if glyphosate in vaccines is one of the major contributing factors to vaccine damage?’ If you think about it, mercury was in vaccines back in 1929, but it wasn’t until the late ’90s when GMOs and glyphosate came on the scene that there was a huge spike in autism.

Now, to be fair, there was also a huge spike in the numbers of vaccines given. Our children are now getting 49 doses by age 12 and 69 doses by age 18. The numbers of vaccines our children are getting are also extremely high. But there are children who get one vaccine and they’re damaged after that. You have to look at what changed in the ingredients.”

Another variable that happened in the late ’90s was the dramatic increase in exposure to wireless radiation, and this too may be a significant contributor. There may even be a toxic synergy between the two that is contributing to the health deterioration we now see in so many children. The good news is that you have the ability to make a difference.

More Information

Aside from reading Honeycutt’s book, “Unstoppable: Transforming Sickness and Struggle Into Triumph, Empowerment and a Celebration of Community,” you can also learn more by visiting MomsAcrossAmerica.org and signing up for their newsletter. When you sign up, you’ll receive a free mini e-book of “Unstoppable.” Under the Action tab, you can also sign up to volunteer and post events.

“When you have that event, we know you’re serious about getting the word out, so we send you free materials,” Honeycutt says. “You only have to pay for shipping … We have some great flyers, ‘Why Eat Organic?’ ‘What’s Going on With Toxins in Our Food Supply?’ … We don’t make it a scary situation. It’s just informative. We always bring solutions …

You give them a stack of 100 flyers and you say, ‘Could you leave this at your school? Or your library? Or your community center?’ … Just get the word out about what’s happening in our food supply … That’s a great way to get involved … You can also join in the 4th of July parades. It costs anywhere from nothing to maybe 30 to 50 dollars, if you want to buy a banner and also pass out flyers.

You can have movie nights. There are some great movies you can show over an organic potluck. That’s my favorite thing to do. We’ll also connect you with other moms on our Monday Moms Connect Calls at 5 p.m., Pacific time. If you sign up to our newsletter, you’ll get an invitation to that.

We’ve expanded our mission to ‘We educate and inspire mothers and others to transform the food industry and environment, creating healthy communities together.’ By environment, we include anything that’s coming at our kids. If that’s a vaccine, if it’s drugs, if it’s pollution, if it’s EMFs — no matter what it is that’s coming at our kids that’s going to overwhelm them [or] increase the toxic burden — we will address that …

To opt out of this toxic system, we need to not only eat organic food or grow our own organic food. We need to also learn how to take care of ourselves through herbs and plants and opt out of that whole Big Pharma system.”

Moms Across America is also looking for more advisers, including moms who want to help educate others on these topics. If you’re interested, please contact them.

Get Involved!

As noted by Honeycutt, everyone has a moment when they decide to take action. For her, the realization that she had the power to make a difference came early. Her father was a great supporter from an early age and when, at the age of 12, Honeycutt came home saying class president elections were coming up, he suggested she should run.

“I said, ‘Me? Why me?’ He said, ‘Why not?’ I was like, ‘Oh. OK. Why not?’ I ran and won,” she says. “If there’s something you want to do or you’re interested in doing, something you want to take on, [ask yourself] why not you? That quote from Lilly Tomlin: ‘I always thought someone should do something about that, and then I realized I am somebody’ — that’s it.

I want everybody to believe that they are somebody; that they are, in fact … amazing … My personal commitment now is to empower community leaders to be global game changers, because that’s what it’s going to take …

Moms who are watching us right now … say, ‘You know what? I’m the one who’s going to get Roundup out of my town. I’m the one who’s going to stop this vaccine mandate in my city. I’m the one who’s going to get my school to have GMO-free food.’

When you do that, you — us, all of us collectively — we change the game around the world … So, sign up to Moms Across America and see where you can start taking action. Because when you do, it’s incredibly fulfilling.”

Thousands of popular foods and drinks are made artificially sweet with chemical sweeteners. Long claimed to be a healthy choice because they contain no calories or sugar, evidence continues to emerge that consuming artificial sweeteners is a good way to wreck your health.

It doesn’t matter if you choose aspartame (Equal), sucralose (Splenda) or another artificial sweetener. Consuming these products is putting your health at risk, so much so that even the World Health Organization warned people not to consume them.

WHO Warns Against Non-Sugar Sweeteners for Weight Loss

Diet foods and drinks are among the most common products that contain artificial sweeteners. Marketed as tools for weight loss, this deceptive practice lures people into thinking they’re a smart way to shed extra pounds.

Yet, a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by the World Health Organization revealed “there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.”1

In May 2023, WHO released a new guideline, advising not to use non-sugar sweeteners (NSS) for weight control because they don’t offer any long-term benefit in reducing body fat in adults or children.2

What’s more, the systematic review suggests “potential undesirable effects from long-term use of NSS, such as an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and mortality in adults.” In a news release, Francesco Branca, WHO director for nutrition and food safety, said:

“Replacing free sugars with NSS does not help with weight control in the long term. People need to consider other ways to reduce free sugars intake, such as consuming food with naturally occurring sugars, like fruit, or unsweetened food and beverages. NSS are not essential dietary factors and have no nutritional value. People should reduce the sweetness of the diet altogether, starting early in life, to improve their health.”

The WHO guidance to avoid artificial sweeteners applies to all categories of the chemicals, including acesulfame K, aspartame, advantame, cyclamates, neotame, saccharin and sucralose. The systematic review and meta-analysis included 283 studies, which revealed artificial sweeteners are linked to an increased risk of:3

Obesity
Type 2 diabetes

High fasting glucose
All-cause mortality

Cardiovascular events
Death from cardiovascular disease

Stroke
High blood pressure

Bladder cancer
Preterm birth and possible adiposity in offspring later in life

According to the WHO study:

“Mechanisms by which NSS as a class of molecules might exert effects that increase risk for obesity and certain NCDs [non-communicable diseases] have been reviewed extensively and include interaction with extra-oral taste receptors, possibly with alteration of the gut microbiome.

Because sugars and all known NSS presumably elicit sweet taste through the TAS1R heterodimeric sweet-taste receptor, which has been identified not just in the oral cavity but in other glucose-sensing tissues, it is not surprising that such a group of vastly different chemical entities could be responsible for similar effects on health.”

Reasons To Be Wary of Sucralose

In the U.S., sucralose is the most commonly used artificial sweetener. It’s found in more than 6,000 food products, including many diet beverages. When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved sucralose in 1998, none of the studies it reviewed involved humans.4

One of sucralose’s key marketing claims has long been that it neither metabolizes nor bioaccumulates in the human body, thus making it a basically inert substance. In 2018, however, an animal study found sucralose was metabolized in the gastrointestinal tract and accumulated in fat tissue.

This was “not part of the original regulatory decision process for this agent and indicate that it now may be time to revisit the safety and regulatory status of this organochlorine artificial sweetener,” the researchers wrote at the time.5

Based on these findings, consumer group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate whether sucralose’s marketing claims are deceptive. According to USRTK:6

“Sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar and itself contains no calories. Although it has been marketed as a healthy product that can help fend off obesity and diabetes, sucralose consumption has been linked to leukemia, weight gain, obesity, diabetes, liver inflammation, metabolic dysfunction and other illnesses.”

In 2022, a study published in Microorganisms also revealed that consuming sucralose — in “amounts, far lower than the suggested ADI”7 — for just 10 weeks was enough to induce gut dysbiosis and altered glucose and insulin levels in healthy, young adults.

The bacteria most affected by sucralose appeared to belong primarily to the phylum Firmicutes, which are centrally involved in glucose and insulin metabolism. However, it doesn’t end there. Animal studies suggest the sucralose-altered gut microbiome could be involved in inflammation of the gut and liver, as well as cancer.

Additionally, a new study published May 29, 2023, in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health found that a chemical broken down in the body when you consume sucralose is genotoxic and breaks up your DNA.8 The fat soluble compound, sucralose-6-acetate, is produced in your gut during digestion at a threshold exceeding the European Food Safety Authority’s maximum allowance for a single sucralose-sweetened drink in one day.

In their abstract,9 study authors noted the DNA-damaging implications of such toxicity: “Sucralose-6-acetate significantly increased the expression of genes associated with inflammation, oxidative stress and cancer … Overall, the toxicological and pharmacokinetic findings for sucralose-6-acetate raise significant health concerns regarding the safety and regulatory status of sucralose itself.”

A Warning About Sucralose Intake During Pregnancy

A 2023 study published in Biomedicines also raised red flags about consuming sucralose during pregnancy.10 Animal studies have previously found that sucralose intake during pregnancy may increase the risk of weight gain, metabolic disturbances and low-grade systemic inflammation in offspring. The research team found similar effects in humans.

The study evaluated newborns from women who had heavy sucralose intake — defined as more than 36 milligrams (mg) of sucralose a day during pregnancy — or light sucralose ingestion, defined as less than 60 mg a week. Newborns from mothers with heavy sucralose intake experienced a number of negative metabolic and inflammatory effects compared to newborns of light intake women, including:

Significant increases in birth weight and insulin
Substantial increase in the percentage of inflammatory nonclassical monocytes
Higher IL-1 beta and TNF-alpha with lower IL-10 expression

From 2000 to 2010, the consumption of artificial sweeteners increased 54% in adults and 200% in children. The researchers called for urgent investigation into the effects of artificial sweetener intake during pregnancy, which could significantly increase chronic disease burden in adulthood:

“Together with numerous studies in animal models, present results expand on the notion that sucralose and other NNS [non-nutritive sweeteners] may act as obesogenic factors during fetal development, influencing the onset of obesity and metabolic disease in childhood.

We encourage other research teams to conduct prospective cohort studies to follow up on newborns intrauterinally exposed to sucralose across the years to draw significant conclusions regarding the possible role of NNS in programming obesity and metabolic disease later in life.

The urgent need for additional investigation in this field is justified when considering that up to 50% of obese children become obese in adulthood with a 4-fold increased risk of developing chronic non-communicable diseases such as T2D.”

Is Aspartame Making You Anxious?

Artificial sweeteners’ detrimental effects aren’t limited to the physical realm. Mental health effects have also been reported, including for aspartame. Approved by the FDA in 1981, aspartame can be found in close to 5,000 food and beverage products. Worldwide, 3,000 to 5,000 metric tons of aspartame are produced annually, and, like sucralose, it’s widely consumed by adults, including pregnant women, and children.11

When you consume aspartame, it’s broken down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine — a precursor of monoamine neurotransmitters — and methanol, which may have “potent” effects on your central nervous system, Florida State University (FSU) College of Medicine researchers noted.

Their study, published in PNAS, linked aspartame consumption to anxiety and found the mental health changes were passed on to future generations. The FDA’s recommended maximum daily intake value for aspartame is 50 milligrams per kilogram.

The FSU study involved mice drinking water that contained aspartame at a dosage of approximately 15% of the FDA’s maximum daily intake for humans. The dose was equivalent to a human drinking six to eight 8-ounce cans of diet soda daily.12

The mice consumed the aspartame-laced water for 12 weeks, which led to “robust, dose-dependent anxiety.”13 “It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see,” study author Sara Jones said. “It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes.”14

The study came about after the research team looked at the transgenerational effects of nicotine, revealing epigenetic changes in sperm cells. Similar effects may be occurring from artificial sweeteners. Study co-author Pradeep Bhide, the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Eminent Scholar Chair of Developmental Neuroscience in the Department of Biomedical Sciences, explained:15

“What this study is showing is we need to look back at the environmental factors, because what we see today is not only what’s happening today, but what happened two generations ago and maybe even longer.”

Mice exposed to aspartame had changes in the expression of genes that regulate excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a region of the brain involved in regulating anxiety and fear. The changes were also seen in up to two generations from the aspartame-exposed mice.16

Aspartame Linked to Cancer, Weight Gain

There’s no reason to consume aspartame if you value your health. Like sucralose, it’s linked to a number of serious health problems, including:17

Cancer
Cardiovascular disease
Alzheimer’s disease

Seizures
Stroke and dementia
Intestinal dysbiosis

Mood disorders
Headaches
Migraines

Adding insult to injury, since many people consume aspartame thinking it will help them “diet,” it’s also linked to weight gain, increased appetite and obesity-related diseases.

In a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis18 published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, consuming artificial sweeteners was associated with increases in weight and waist circumference along with increased incidence of obesity, high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular events.

Regarding cancer, a 2022 population-based cohort study published in PLOS Medicine, which involved 102,865 adults, revealed artificial sweeteners — especially aspartame and acesulfame-K — were associated with increased cancer risk, including breast cancer and obesity-related cancers.19

Are You Ready to Ditch Artificial Sweeteners?

It’s clear that artificial sweeteners have no place in a healthy diet. Fortunately, as you work to eliminate ultraprocessed foods from your meals, you’ll naturally consume less artificial sweeteners, which are primarily found in products like diet drinks, desserts, candies, snacks and flavored yogurts. Be aware, however, that they’re also hidden in condiments, salad dressing and medications, so you’ll need to read labels to ensure you avoid them.

If cravings are stopping you from giving up these toxic sweeteners, the video above shows how to use the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), a psychological acupressure tool, when you feel a craving coming on. It can help you overcome the urge to consume a poisonous artificial sweetener.

Other natural craving-busters include sour foods like fermented vegetables or water with lemon juice. When you feel the urge to eat something artificially sweet, grab a glass of water or tea with citrus juice added for a much healthier treat.

Editor’s Note: This article is a reprint. It was originally published October 16, 2018.

Recent research into the health effects of artificial sweeteners deliver yet another blow to safety claims. The animal study,1,2,3,4,5 published in the journal Molecules, found all artificial sweeteners currently approved and deemed safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cause DNA damage in, and interfere with the normal and healthy activity of gut bacteria. The artificial sweeteners included in this study included:

Artificial sweetener
Brand name(s)

Aspartame
NutraSweet, Spoonful, Canderel, Equal, NatraTaste Blue

Sucralose
Splenda, Zerocal, Sukrana, SucraPlus, Candys, Cukren and Nevella

Saccharin
Sweet ‘N Low, Sweet Twin, Sugar Twin, Necta Sweet

Neotame
Newtame

Advantame
(No brand names)

Acesulfame potassium-k
Sunnette, Sweet One, ACE, ACE K, Sweet ‘N Safe

All Artificial Sweeteners Are Toxic to Gut Bacteria

As reported by Business Insider,6 the research team concluded that all of these sweeteners “had a toxic, stressing effect, making it difficult for gut microbes to grow and reproduce.” While the authors do not directly refer to them as having antibiotic effects, when something is killing bacteria, that’s essentially what’s happening.

According to the researchers, the effects on your gut health may in turn affect your body’s ability to process regular sugar and other carbohydrates. According to this study, the toxic limit for these artificial sweeteners appears to be around 1 milligram per milliliter (mg/mL).

Ariel Kushmaro, Ph.D., professor of microbial biotechnology at Ben-Gurion University and lead author, told Business Insider, “We are not claiming that it’s toxic to human beings. We’re claiming that it might be toxic to the gut bacteria, and by that, will influence us.”

Sweetener-Specific Effects

While, overall, all six artificial sweeteners were found to have toxic effects on gut bacteria, there were individual differences in the type and amount of damage they produced. For example:

Saccharin caused the greatest, most widespread damage, exhibiting both cytotoxic and genotoxic effects, meaning it is toxic to cells and damages genetic information in the cell (which can cause mutations).
Neotame was found to cause metabolic disruption in mice, and raised concentrations of several fatty acids, lipids and cholesterol. Several gut genes were also decreased by this sweetener.
Aspartame and acesulfame potassium-k — The latter of which is commonly found in sports supplements — were both found to cause DNA damage.

Hazards of Sucralose

Previous studies have also revealed an extensive list of safety concerns for sucralose (a synthetic organochlorine sweetener), some of which are very similar to those found in the featured study, including:7

Genotoxicity (DNA damage) and potentially adverse epigenetic effects

The generation of toxic compounds (chloropropanols) when heated

Destruction of gut bacteria;8 one study9 found it can kill as much as 50% of your microbiome, and appears to target beneficial microorganisms

Alterations in glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 levels and responses,10 which raises the risk for diabetes

Decreased red blood cells, a sign of anemia, at levels above 1,500 mg per kilo per day

Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses

Kidney enlargement and calcification

Significantly increased risk for miscarriage (in rabbits, spontaneous abortions affected nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group)

Significantly increased death rate (a 23% death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6% in the control group)

Bioaccumulation11

Potential drug interactions12

Artificial Sweeteners Linked to Diabetes and CVD

Other recent research13,14 adds to the ever-growing evidence pile showing that artificial sweeteners raise your risk of obesity and Type 2 diabetes to the same or greater degree as sugar. The study in question explored how different sweeteners — including glucose, fructose, aspartame and acesulfame potassium-k — affect energy usage, energy storage and vascular functioning.

According to the authors, both high amounts of sugar and artificial sweeteners caused vascular impairment and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) effects “that may be important during the onset and progression of diabetes and obesity.” The artificial sweeteners, however, accumulated in the blood, thereby harming the blood vessel lining to a greater degree.

Of the two artificial sweeteners included in this study, acesulfame potassium appeared to be the worst. As noted by lead author Brian Hoffmann, Ph.D., assistant professor in the department of biomedical engineering at the Marquette University and Medical College of Wisconsin:15

“Sweeteners kind of trick the body. And then when your body’s not getting the energy it needs — because it does need some sugar to function properly — it potentially finds that source elsewhere,” Hoffman says.16

One alternative sugar source is muscle and, indeed, evidence of protein break down was found in the animals’ blood. Essentially, the rats were burning muscle as a source of energy when given artificial sweeteners. Hoffman also notes that this research is different from previous attempts to conclusively tie artificial sweeteners to health problems:

“Most of these sweeteners were approved well before we had the technology to perform studies like my lab is doing. So they weren’t able to look as in-depth at some of the potential effects being caused.

By knowing what biochemical changes these are causing through these large-scale studies, we can take an unbiased approach and see what’s changing to give us a better direction. What I like to tell people is that most things in moderation are going to be fine …

It’s when people start to chronically consume these [drinks] — say, a person drinks two, three, four … every day — that we should start to be concerned. Because you’re starting to introduce these biochemical changes and the body has no time to recover.”

Artificial Sweeteners Associated With Many Health Problems

Research published over the last three decades has also convincingly shown that artificial sweeteners stimulate appetite, increase cravings for carbs, and produce a variety of metabolic dysfunctions that promote fat storage and weight gain.

As early as 1986, a study17 that examined nearly 78,700 women for one year found women who used artificial sweeteners were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who did not use them, regardless of their initial weight.

According to the researchers, the results “were not explicable by differences in food consumption patterns. The data do not support the hypothesis that long-term artificial sweetener use either helps weight loss or prevents weight gain.”

Similarly, the 25-yearslong San Antonio Heart Study,18 published in 2005, found those who drank diet soda were significantly more likely to gain weight compared to those who drank regular soda. On average, for each diet soft drink the participants drank per day, they were 65% more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41% more likely to become obese.

In 2010, an important scientific review19 was published in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine. It summarized the epidemiological and experimental evidence available on artificial sweeteners’ effects on weight, and explained those effects in light of the neurobiology of food reward.

More than 11,650 children aged 9 to 14 were included in this study. Each daily serving of diet beverage was associated with a BMI increase of 0.16 kg/m2. It also showed the correlation between increased usage of artificial sweeteners in food and drinks, and the corresponding rise in obesity. According to the authors:

“[F]indings suggest that the calorie contained in natural sweeteners may trigger a response to keep the overall energy consumption constant … Increasing evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners do not activate the food reward pathways in the same fashion as natural sweeteners … [A]rtificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence.”

Three years later, a report20 published in the journal Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism highlighted the fact that diet soda drinkers suffer the same exact health problems as those who opt for regular soda, including excessive weight gain, Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and stroke. The researchers proposed that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may induce metabolic derangements.

Your Body Is Not Fooled by Zero-Calorie Sweetness

Right around 2013, research started emerging detailing some of the reasons for why zero calorie sweeteners can make you gain weight. A study in the Journal of Physiology21,22 showed that when you eat something sweet, your brain releases dopamine, which activates your brain’s reward center.

The appetite-regulating hormone leptin is also released, which eventually informs your brain that you are “full” once a certain amount of calories has been ingested. When you consume something that tastes sweet but doesn’t contain any calories, your brain’s pleasure pathway still gets activated by the sweet taste, but there’s nothing to deactivate it, since the calories never arrive.

Artificial sweeteners basically trick your body into thinking that it’s going to receive calories, but when the calories fail to arrive, your body continues to signal that it needs more, which results in carb cravings.

The following year, 2014, another important study23 was published in the journal Nature. It was, for the first time, able to clearly show causality, revealing there’s a direct cause and effect relationship between consuming artificial sweeteners and developing elevated blood sugar levels.

People who consumed high amounts of artificial sweeteners were found to have higher levels of HbA1C — a long-term measure of blood sugar — compared to nonusers or occasional users of artificial sweeteners.

Seven volunteers who did not use artificial sweeteners were then recruited, and asked to consume the equivalent of 10 to 12 single-dose packets of artificial sweeteners daily for one week. Four of the seven people developed “significant disturbances in their blood glucose,” according to the researchers.

Some became prediabetic within just a few days! The reason for this dramatic shift was traced back to alterations in gut bacteria. Some bacteria were killed off, while others started proliferating. Which brings us back full circle to the featured study in the journal Molecules, which showed that all artificial sweeteners currently on the U.S. market have the ability to impair and/or kill gut bacteria.

Considering what we now know about the gut microbiome and its influence on health and disease, it’s becoming easier to see how and why artificial sweeteners are able to wreak havoc on your health.

To Improve Your Health, Ditch the Artificial Sweeteners

If you’re overweight and/or have insulin resistance or Type 2 diabetes, it’s really important to understand that artificial sweeteners are not going to help matters. They’re probably only going to make it worse.

If you have to choose between two evils, regularly-sweetened beverages are likely less hazardous in the long run, since your body at least knows how to metabolize fructose, even if it is processed.

That said, I firmly believe ditching soda and other sweetened beverages is one of the most important steps you can take to improve your weight and health. Remember, pure water is a zero-calorie drink. You cannot find a beverage that contains fewer calories.

If you want some flavor, just squeeze a little bit of fresh lemon or lime into mineral water. In instances where your cooking, baking or beverage needs a little sweetener, be mindful of your choice. For more information, see “Sugar Substitutes — What’s Safe and What’s Not.”

Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1981, aspartame can now be found in close to 5,000 food and beverage products. Worldwide, 3,000 to 5,000 metric tons of aspartame are produced annually, and it’s widely consumed by adults, including pregnant women, and children.1

When you consume aspartame, it’s broken down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine — a precursor of monoamine neurotransmitters — and methanol, which may have “potent” effects on your central nervous system,2 Florida State University (FSU) College of Medicine researchers noted.

Their study, published in PNAS,3 raises more red flags about this synthetic sweetener. It not only linked aspartame to anxiety but suggests the mental health changes may be passed on to future generations.

Aspartame Induced Anxiety for Generations

The FDA’s recommended maximum daily intake value for aspartame is 50 milligrams per kilogram. The FSU study involved mice drinking water that contained aspartame at a dosage of approximately 15% of the FDA’s maximum daily intake for humans. The dose was equivalent to a human drinking six to eight 8-ounce cans of diet soda daily.4

The mice consumed the aspartame-laced water for 12 weeks, which led to “robust, dose-dependent anxiety.”5 “It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see,” study author Sara Jones said. “It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes.”6

The anxiety-like behaviors were evidenced during maze tests, and they persisted across multiple generations — passed down from male mice exposed to aspartame. When the mice were treated with the human anxiety drug diazepam, the anxiety-like behaviors disappeared. According to the study:7

“The anxiety was alleviated by a single administration of diazepam, a positive allosteric modulator of the GABA-A receptor, consistent with the key role of GABA-A receptors in the regulation of anxiety. RNA sequencing demonstrated significant changes in expression of genes associated with glutamatergic and GABA receptor signaling in the amygdala, a brain region associated with regulation of anxiety.

Perhaps even more strikingly, the anxiety phenotype, its response to diazepam, and changes in amygdala gene expression were transmitted from the aspartame-exposed male founders to their descendants.”

Aspartame Disrupts Gene Expression in the Brain

The study shows that exposure to aspartame disrupts gene expression in the amygdala brain region, which plays a role in the regulation of anxiety and fear responses.8 The disruptions persisted for at least two generations.

“What this study is showing is we need to look back at the environmental factors, because what we see today is not only what’s happening today, but what happened two generations ago and maybe even longer,” study co-author Pradeep Bhide, with FSU’s department of biomedical sciences, explained.9

Aspartame’s effects on the brain have been questioned for years. In 2018, researchers with Universiti Sains Malaysia found a connection between neurophysiological symptoms and aspartame, which can elevate levels of phenylalanine and aspartic acid in the brain.10

Elevated levels of these compounds may inhibit the release and synthesis of a number of regulators of neurophysiological activity, including neurotransmitters, dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin. The researchers explained:11

“Aspartame acts as a chemical stressor by elevating plasma cortisol levels and causing the production of excess free radicals. High cortisol levels and excess free radicals may increase the brains vulnerability to oxidative stress which may have adverse effects on neurobehavioral health.

… We reviewed studies linking neurophysiological symptoms to aspartame usage and conclude that aspartame may be responsible for adverse neurobehavioral health outcomes. Aspartame consumption needs to be approached with caution due to the possible effects on neurobehavioral health.”

Neurophysiological symptoms that may be linked to aspartame consumption include:12

Learning problems
Headache
Seizure

Migraines
Irritable mood
Anxiety

Depression
Insomnia

Aspartic acid, which aspartame is broken down into, is also thought to act as an excitatory neurotransmitter in the central nervous system. Researchers have proposed since at least 2008 that consuming too much aspartame may cause certain mental disorders and result in “compromised learning and emotional functioning.”13

Caution may be especially warranted during pregnancy. In a study on newborn rats, those that consumed aspartame — via their lactating mothers that had been fed aspartame — experienced problems with development (weight loss) and behavioral changes suggestive of anxiety.14

Industry Spreads Myth That Artificial Sweeteners Are Safe

If you listen to industry front group the International Sweeteners Association, you’ll come away believing artificial sweeteners are not only safe but beneficial for weight management, diabetes and oral health.15 Even health officials and government groups have adopted the rhetoric that swapping sugar for artificial sweeteners is a good thing. As The Guardian reported:16

“Public health organizations around the world have largely accepted the sweetener industry’s claims, particularly when it comes to managing diabetes. One article on the NHS website quotes a dietitian who describes sweeteners as “a really useful alternative for people with diabetes who need to watch their blood sugar levels while still enjoying their favorite foods.””

Yet, a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted by the World Health Organization revealed, “there is no clear consensus on whether non-sugar sweeteners are effective for long-term weight loss or maintenance, or if they are linked to other long-term health effects at intakes within the ADI.”17

In fact, their study found, “There is suggestion of negative health effects with long-term use …”18 Cohort/case-control studies included in WHO’s systematic review revealed a range of concerning effects with artificial sweetener consumption, including increased:19

Obesity and body mass index
Type 2 diabetes

High fasting glucose
All-cause mortality

Cardiovascular disease mortality
Cardiovascular events

Stroke
High blood pressure

Bladder cancer
Premature birth

“In a startling turnaround,” The Guardian noted, “the WHO’s draft guidance stated that non-sugar sweeteners should ‘not be used as a means of achieving weight control or reducing risk of non-communicable diseases’ such as diabetes or heart disease. Suddenly, the whole rationale for sweeteners as a ‘healthy’ alternative looked much shakier.”20

Meanwhile, industry group The Calorie Control Council, whose members include Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill, said it was “disappointed” in WHO’s findings and continued to insist that artificial sweeteners are useful for managing body weight and blood sugar levels.21

Heart Disease, Stroke Among the Risks

Along with risks to brain health, consuming aspartame (Equal), acesulfame potassium and sucralose (Splenda) puts your heart health at risk as well. In a nine-year study involving 103,388 people, researchers linked the products to cardiovascular disease and stroke.22

Researchers from France studied the detailed dietary records of adults with an average age of 42.23 Specifically, three non-consecutive days (two weekdays and one weekend day) of 24-hour dietary records were assigned at the study’s start and again every six months thereafter. Participants detailed all foods and beverages they consumed during that time, including quantities, brand names and even photographs to validate the recordings.24

The dietary records were further validated using blood and urinary biomarkers. Then, the researchers looked for any associations with cardiovascular diseases, including coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease, which refers to disorders that affect blood flow in the brain, such as stroke, aneurysms and vascular malformations.

Total artificial sweetener intake was associated with increased risk of overall cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cerebrovascular disease, the study found. Among the specific artificial sweeteners, aspartame was associated with an increased risk of stroke (defined in the study as cerebrovascular events), while acesulfame potassium and sucralose were associated with increased coronary heart disease risk.25

“Our results suggest no benefit from substituting artificial sweeteners for added sugar on CVD outcomes,” the study found.26 “The findings from this large-scale prospective cohort study suggest a potential direct association between higher artificial sweetener consumption (especially aspartame, acesulfame potassium, and sucralose) and increased cardiovascular disease risk.”27

Liver Damage, Disturbances to Gut Microbes and More

It’s time to reexamine the widely parroted myth that artificial sweeteners can be part of a “healthy” diet. Their consumption can cause disturbances throughout your body. In research presented at the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 2022 annual meeting it was revealed that artificial sweeteners — specifically acesulfame potassium and sucralose — may interfere with your liver’s delicate detoxification process.

The study found that acesulfame potassium and sucralose inhibited the activity of P-glycoprotein, a “defense protein” that’s important for protecting organisms against environmental toxins.28 For comparison, the toxin DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) has also been found to inhibit P-glycoprotein (PGP), which is one reason why researchers have stated, “Even in small amounts, these contaminants could interfere with the human body’s natural ability to defend itself.”29

Artificial sweeteners including saccharine, sucralose, aspartame and acesulfame potassium may also lead to shifts in gut microbiota similar to those caused by antibiotics.30 Artificial sweeteners have also been shown to induce glucose intolerance by altering gut microbiota.31 Disruption of gut microbiota, in turn, has been linked to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and artificial sweeteners may also have a role to play in this condition.32

Make the Choice to Avoid Artificial Sweeteners

Video Link

To protect your health, avoiding artificial sweeteners is important. In addition to diet beverages, they’re found in thousands of other ultraprocessed products, including flavored yogurts, desserts, snacks and tabletop sweeteners. Even ketchup, salad dressing and medications often contain them.

Once you’ve decided to eliminate artificial sweeteners from your diet, read labels of any processed foods you buy to be sure they’re not hidden inside. If you’re tempted by a sweet craving, try eating something sour, like water with lemon juice or fermented vegetables. Sour taste may help diminish your desire for sweets.

I also recommend learning to use the psychological acupressure technique called the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT). When you feel a craving coming on, use EFT to release the unhealthy urge. It’s an excellent tool to overcome the emotional component of food cravings, helping you say goodbye to artificial sweeteners for good.