Paper: EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?


A new paper of Erik Millstone et al. has been published in Archives of Public Health.
A copy of the paper is attached below, along with copies of two appendices.  

A dossier of supporting documentation is available.

The paper and appendices are available on the Archives of Public Health’s website.

The paper dismantles the most recent assessment of aspartame provided an expert panel of the European Food Safety Authorities (EFSA).  It shows that the assessment was seriously biased in favour of commercial and industrial interests and against the protection of public health.  The EFSA panel also:

  • Breached EFSA guidelines on risk assessment transparency on multiple grounds.
  • Adopted a low-hurdle for the acceptability of negative studies, ones providing no evidence of harm, including studies previously dubbed “woefully inadequate” and “worthless” by US government experts.
  • Applied unreachably high hurdles for ‘positive’ studies that indicated adverse effects – even though many of those 73 studies were far more reliable than most of the studies that provided no indication of risk.
  • Demonstrated puzzling anomalies including inconsistent and unacknowledged assumptions.