Nezam El-Tayebat Fact CheckA scientific assessment of the “نظام الطيبات” nutrition system
Choose country

True Certainty of evidence: high provisional C-UPF-08

In 2023 IARC classified aspartame as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' (Group 2B).

Conclusion: True as stated, but the classification describes limited evidence of hazard, not proven risk at normal intakes.
  1. Original statement
  2. Scientific assessment
  3. In plain language
  4. Studies on this claim
  5. Regional context
  6. What applies in my country?
  7. References

Original statement

وفي 2023 صنّفت IARC الأسبارتام «مُسرطناً محتملاً» من الفئة 2B.

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

In 2023 IARC classified aspartame as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' (Group 2B).

Origin

Source status
Archive editors
Attribution
Archive editors (study selection and narrative are the archive's, not necessarily Elawady's)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/rule/ultra-processed-foods/
Attribution uncertainty
The archive homepage states that the forbidden-food section is supported by research 'independently of Dr. Diaa's words'. No evidence was found that Elawady himself cited these studies.
Claimed mechanism

Not specified.

Claimed health effect

Cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma).

Population concerned

General population

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Scientific assessment

True – The statement is supported by robust evidence.

Certainty of evidence: high – Further research is very unlikely to change the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

IARC classified aspartame as Group 2B.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

Correct: IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) on the basis of limited evidence (hepatocellular carcinoma).

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

The archive omits that IARC classifies hazard, not risk at a given exposure, and that JECFA reaffirmed the ADI of 0-40 mg/kg body weight in the same release; a 70 kg adult would need more than 9-14 cans of diet soft drink per day (200-300 mg aspartame each) to exceed it.

4. What remains unclear?

Long-term cancer risk at typical intakes.

5. Which studies support it?

A-UPF-20, I-SOD-09.

6. Which studies contradict it?

I-SOD-09 (JECFA ADI).

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Aspartame (E951) is authorised in the EU.

8. What is known about Egypt?

No Egypt data.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

The classification is correct but does not show harm at usual intakes.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

Directly verifiable fact from the WHO/IARC/JECFA joint release (fetched).

Source quality

Correct statement of fact; context omitted.

Regional transferability

Global.

Individual exceptions

Not applicable.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
25 October 2026 provisional

In plain language

In 2023 the WHO cancer agency placed aspartame in its third-highest category, 'possibly carcinogenic', because evidence was limited. At the same time, WHO and FAO experts confirmed that up to 40 mg per kg of body weight per day is acceptable. For an adult of 70 kg, that is more than 9 to 14 cans of diet soft drink per day.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (2)

  • IARC on aspartame

    Riboli E et al.. Lancet Oncol 2023 · PMID 37454664 · DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00341-8
    Risk assessmentcited by the Tayebat archivefull text checked

    IARC placed aspartame in Group 2B ('possibly carcinogenic') on limited evidence.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Hazard classification of aspartame.

    How was the study done?

    IARC Monographs meeting summary (news).

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Not applicable; Not applicable

    What was actually found?

    No abstract in PubMed. Per WHO/IARC/JECFA release (I-SOD-09): Group 2B based on limited evidence in humans (hepatocellular carcinoma), limited in animals, limited mechanistic.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not applicable

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Hazard category, not proof of risk.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Classifies whether aspartame can cause cancer at all (hazard), not how likely it is at normal intake; the evidence in humans, animals and mechanistic studies was all rated 'limited'.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports C-UPF-08 (fact).

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cancer risk at normal intake.

    Scientific details →

  • IARC and JECFA on aspartame

    WHO / IARC / JECFA. WHO news release 2023
    Risk assessmentindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study

    IARC said 'possibly carcinogenic' on limited evidence; JECFA kept the safe daily limit of 40 mg/kg.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Carcinogenic hazard and acceptable intake of aspartame.

    How was the study done?

    Joint hazard (IARC) and risk (JECFA) assessment (news release read in full).

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Not applicable; General population

    What was actually found?

    IARC: Group 2B (limited evidence in humans for hepatocellular carcinoma; limited in animals; limited mechanistic). JECFA: no sufficient reason to change the ADI of 0-40 mg/kg bw; a 70 kg adult would need >9-14 cans/day (200-300 mg each) to exceed it. IARC classifications reflect strength of evidence, not risk at a given exposure.

    How large was the observed effect?

    ADI 0-40 mg/kg bw

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Normal intake is within the safe limit for most people.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Limited evidence base

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports C-UPF-08 (fact); limits C-UPF-07.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Applies; aspartame (E951) authorised in EU.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    That aspartame causes cancer.

    Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (0)

No studies in this group.

Studies with mixed or unclear results (0)

No studies in this group.

Regional context

Germany / EU

Aspartame (E951) is authorised in the EU.

Egypt

No Egypt data.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

True True as stated, but the classification describes limited evidence of hazard, not proven risk at normal intakes.

The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:

  • Additives and processing
  • Controls, imports, recalls, labelling

Choose a country to see the checked information for it.

Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.

Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country

References

  1. Carcinogenicity of aspartame, methyleugenol, and isoeugenol.. Riboli E et al.. Lancet Oncol 2023 · PMID 37454664 · DOI 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00341-8
  2. Aspartame hazard and risk assessment results released (IARC and WHO/FAO JECFA, 14 July 2023) — news release. WHO / IARC / JECFA. WHO news release 2023

← Back to overview