Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-UPF-18 standard review

Artificial sweeteners and cancer in France

Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk: Results from the NutriNet-Santé population-based cohort study.

Overview

Debras C et al.. PLoS Med 2022 · PMID 35324894 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003950

Higher sweetener consumers had 13% more cancer.

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate

Study explained simply

What did the researchers want to find out?: Are artificial sweetener intakes associated with cancer?
How was the study done?: Prospective cohort with brand-level 24-h records.
How many people, animals or samples were studied?: 102,865; 3,358 cancer cases; Adults
What was actually found?: Higher consumers vs non-consumers: overall cancer HR 1.13 (1.03-1.25); aspartame 1.15 (1.03-1.28); acesulfame-K 1.13 (1.01-1.26); breast cancer (aspartame) 1.22 (1.01-1.48); obesity-related cancers 1.13 (1.00-1.28).
How large was the observed effect?: HR 1.13 (1.03-1.25)
What do the results mean in everyday life?: Possible signal.
What are the study's limitations?: Selection bias, residual confounding, reverse causation (authors)
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?: Mixed for C-UPF-07.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?: High.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?: Causation.

Authors: Debras C, Chazelas E, Srour B, Druesne-Pecollo N, Esseddik Y, Szabo de Edelenyi F, Agaësse C, De Sa A, Lutchia R, Gigandet S, Huybrechts I, Julia C, Kesse-Guyot E, Allès B, Andreeva VA, Galan P, Hercberg S, Deschasaux-Tanguy M, Touvier M
Journal: PLoS Med
Year: 2022
Identifier: PMID 35324894 DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003950 · PMC8946744
Verification: verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
Retracted: no
Corrections: none
Extent checked: abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding: One author co-founder of non-profit Open Food Facts; WHO grant

Are artificial sweetener intakes associated with cancer?

Study design: Cohort study – Prospective cohort with brand-level 24-h records.
Population: Adults
Country: France
Period: 2009-2021; median 7.8 y
Sample size: 102,865; 3,358 cancer cases
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: not stated in abstract

Exposure / intervention: Total sweeteners, aspartame, acesulfame-K, sucralose
Comparator: Non-consumers
Endpoints: Overall and site-specific cancer
Statistical methods: Cox, extensively adjusted

Results: Higher consumers vs non-consumers: overall cancer HR 1.13 (1.03-1.25); aspartame 1.15 (1.03-1.28); acesulfame-K 1.13 (1.01-1.26); breast cancer (aspartame) 1.22 (1.01-1.48); obesity-related cancers 1.13 (1.00-1.28).
Absolute risks: not reported
Authors' conclusion: Artificial sweeteners associated with increased cancer risk; relevant for re-evaluation.

Small HRs; CIs near 1.

Mixed for C-UPF-07.

JECFA ADI reaffirmed (I-SOD-09).

High.

Signal requiring confirmation.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the source	verified
Methodological quality	moderate
Risk of bias	some concerns
Precision of results	moderate
Directness	direct
Reproducibility	not replicated
Consistency with the overall evidence	unknown
Regional transferability	high
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)	not applicable

Causality.

Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.

What the archive says about the study: Listed in the archive bibliography only (no archive interpretation card).
A. What was actually studied?: Sweeteners and cancer.
B. What did the authors find?: As above.
C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?: As above.
D. What does the archive derive from it?: Supports 'sweeteners' as mechanism.
E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?: Association only.
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive): not applicable