Aspartame, a sweetener commonly found in diet drinks and chewing gum, has been declared a potential cancer risk by the World Health Organisation (WHO).
The sweetener has been listed as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the WHO’s cancer research arm, said there was “limited evidence” aspartame caused cancer in humans.
“While safety is not a major concern at the doses which are commonly used, potential effects have been described that need to be investigated,” the WHO’s Dr Francesco Branca said.
And giving advice to the public, he added: “If consumers are faced with the decision of whether to take cola with sweeteners or one with sugar, I think there should be a third option considered – which is to drink water instead.”
If there’s limited evidence, why has the WHO made this declaration?
The scale used by the IARC indicates the level of evidence there is for a substance being carcinogenic.
The IARC uses four categories: 1 – causes cancer; 2A – probably causes cancer; 2B – possibly causes cancer and 3 – no evidence available on cancer risk.
Aspartame was classified as 2B, “possibly carcinogenic”, on the basis of limited evidence for cancer in humans (specifically hepatocellular carcinoma, a type of liver cancer).
Other possible 2B carcinogens in the group include aloe vera, bracken ferns, lead and working as a hairdresser.
The scale does not say how much exposure you need to raise your cancer risk – it just identifies the substances as hazards.
Alice Davies, health information manager at Cancer Research UK, told Sky News: “Something being classed as a carcinogen doesn’t tell you how much it could increase the risk of cancer.
“Sometimes there are things that might cause cancer in theory, but in reality the dose that you’re exposed to is too low to increase your risk.
“So, for example, processed meat and smoking are both carcinogens but smoking causes about 54,000 cases of cancer in the UK each year whereas processed meat only causes about 5,400.”
So how much aspartame can I have a day?
This is where another arm of the WHO comes in, the Joint WHO and Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Expert Committee on Food Additives – JECFA for short.
JECFA reviewed the data on aspartame consumption and said adults can safely consume up to 40mg per kilo of body weight.
This does not change the daily limits recommended previously.
That means an adult who weighs 70kg could consume 2,800mg of aspartame a day.
Aspartame is found in drinks including Coke Zero, Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, Pepsi Max, Sprite Zero and Fanta Zero.
A can of diet drink typically contains about 200mg of aspartame. So a 70kg adult could drink 14 cans without going over the safe daily limit for aspartame.
Image: File pic
What does a carcinogen do to your body?
Cancer is a disease of the cells, and a carcinogen is something that disrupts the way cells work.
A carcinogen might damage the cells themselves or it might damage your DNA, Ms Davies from Cancer Research UK said.
For example, a gene that normally prevents cells from replicating too much could be damaged, leading to cells multiplying uncontrollably.
Do I need to worry about aspartame causing cancer?
Rather than worry about things that might cause cancer, Ms Davies said it is better to address confirmed causes of cancer, such as smoking, alcohol and obesity.
“The most important thing really you can do to reduce your risk of cancer is to not smoke, to keep a healthy weight, have a healthy balanced diet, cut down alcohol and stay physically active.”
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) agrees. It says the JECFA report into aspartame is not something people should worry about, as long as they follow the advice that’s already out there.
Professor Robin May, the FSA’s chief scientific adviser, said: “JECFA’s report supports the FSA’s view that aspartame is safe to consume at current permitted use levels.”
The IARC and WHO will continue to monitor new evidence and encourage independent research groups to develop further studies on the potential association between aspartame and cancer.
The FSA said it welcomed this extra research, calling for “more and better studies” into the potential risks of aspartame consumption.
Thousands of people have taken to the streets in Tehran to mourn top military commanders, nuclear scientists and others killed in Iran’s 12-day war with Israel.
Iran’s state-run Press TV said the event – dubbed the “funeral procession of the Martyrs of Power” – was held for a total of 60 people, including four women and four children.
It said at least 16 scientists and 10 senior commanders were among the dead, including the head of the Revolutionary Guard General Hossein Salami and the head of the guard’s ballistic missile programme, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh.
Their coffins were driven on trucks into the Iranian capital’s Azadi Square adorned with their pictures as well as rose petals and flowers, as crowds waved Iranian flags.
Image: Mourners at the funeral procession in Tehran. Pic: Majid Asgaripour/WANA/Reuters
Mourners dressed in black, while chants of “death to America” and “death to Israel” could be heard.
Attending the funeral were Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and other senior figures, including Ali Shamkhani who was seriously wounded during the conflict and is an adviser to Iran‘s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
There was no immediate sign of the supreme leader in the state broadcast of the funeral.
Image: A woman holds a picture of Iran’s supreme leader. Pic: Reuters
Israel, the only Middle Eastern country widely believed to have nuclear weapons, said its war against Iran aimed to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons.
The US launched strikes on three nuclear enrichment sites in Iran, which Donald Trump said left them “obilterated”.
The Iranian government denies having a nuclear weapons programme and the UN nuclear watchdog, which carries out inspections in Iran, has said it has “no credible indication” of an active, coordinated weapons programme in the country.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:00
New details on US attacks on Iran
Over the almost two weeks of fighting, Israel claimed it killed around 30 Iranian commanders and 11 nuclear scientists, before a ceasefire went into effect on Tuesday.
By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president.
Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges.
The federal judges, branded “radical leftist lunatics” by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration.
They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions – thus blocking the Trump administration’s policies.
Image: Donald Trump addresses a White House news conference. Pic: AP
“It was a grave threat to democracy frankly,” the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room.
“Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,” he said.
In simple terms, this ruling – from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges – frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts.
“This is such a big day,” the president said.
“It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power.
“And it’s really going to be… a very monumental decision.”
Image: The Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington DC. File pic: AP
The country’s most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling.
Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it “an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court”.
In a statement, Schumer wrote: “By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the court is not defending the constitution – it’s defacing it.
“This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:57
Trump’s ‘giant’ Supreme Court win
Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government – the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts).
They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful.
This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship – that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here.
A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th amendment of the constitution.
The Supreme Court has deferred its judgment on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges.
The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: “As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of government, the majority sees a power grab – but not by a presumably lawless executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the constitution.
“Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are… (wait for it)… the district courts.”
Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: “Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution.”
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling.
Writing for the majority, she said: “When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply ‘class action’ – to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation.
There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have signed a peace deal which Donald Trump said he brokered – resulting in the US getting “a lot” of mineral rights in the process.
The deal has been touted as an important step towards ending the decades-long conflict in eastern DRC which has caused the deaths of six million people.
US secretary of state Marco Rubio called it “an important moment after 30 years of war”.
Earlier on Friday, President Trump said he was able to broker a deal for “one of the worst wars anyone’s ever seen”.
“I was able to get them together and sell it,” Mr Trump said. “And not only that, we’re getting for the United States a lot of the mineral rights from Congo.”
‘Great deal of uncertainty’
More on Democratic Republic Of Congo
Related Topics:
The Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group, the most prominent armed group in the conflict, has suggested that the agreement won’t be binding for them.
It hasn’t been directly involved in the planned peace deal.
Image: Donald Trump with DRC’s Therese Kayikwamba Wagner (R) and Rwanda’s Olivier Nduhungirehe (L) at the White House. Pic: Reuters
DRC foreign minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner invoked the millions of victims of the conflict in signing the agreement with Rwandan foreign minister Olivier Nduhungirehe.
The agreement, signed by the foreign ministers during a ceremony with Mr Rubio in Washington, pledges to implement a 2024 deal that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern DRC within 90 days, according to a copy seen by Reuters.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
“Some wounds will heal, but they will never fully disappear,” Ms Wagner said. “Those who have suffered the most are watching. They are expecting this agreement to be respected, and we cannot fail them.”
Mr Nduhungirehe noted the “great deal of uncertainty” because previous agreements were not put in place.
“There is no doubt that the road ahead will not be easy,” he said. “But with the continued support of the United States and other partners, we believe that a turning point has been reached.”