Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-UPF-115 standard review

Artificial sweeteners and cancer: pooled studies

Can Artificial Sweeteners Increase the Risk of Cancer Incidence and Mortality: Evidence from Prospective Studies.

Overview

Yan S et al.. Nutrients 2022 · PMID 36145117 · DOI 10.3390/nu14183742

Across 25 studies, sweeteners were not linked to cancer overall; a small link appeared only in European studies.

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

Original publication

Plain-language summary

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

To pool studies on sweeteners and cancer.

How was the study done?

Meta-analysis of cohorts.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

3.7 million people.

What was actually found?

No overall cancer link; small European signal.

How large was the observed effect?

Europe 1.07 (1.02-1.12).

What do the results mean in everyday life?

The cancer link is uncertain.

What are the study's limitations?

Observational; subgroups.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Mixed for C-UPF-07.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Applicable.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Cannot prove harm or safety.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Yan S et al.
Journal
Nutrients
Year
2022
Identifier
PMID 36145117 DOI 10.3390/nu14183742 · PMC9506029
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26; Crossref works API 2026-10-26
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

COI statement in record: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

2. Research question

Are artificial sweeteners associated with cancer incidence and mortality?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Meta-analysis – Meta-analysis of prospective observational studies
Population

Adults in cohort studies

Country

Multinational

Period

Search to July 2022

Sample size

25 studies; 3,739,775 participants

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Prospective observational studies

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Artificial sweetener intake

Comparator

Low/no intake

Endpoints

Cancer incidence and mortality; all-cause mortality

Statistical methods

Random-effects meta-analysis; Newcastle-Ottawa

5. Actual results

Results

No apparent association with overall cancer incidence or mortality. Europe subgroup: cancer incidence HR/RR 1.07 (1.02-1.12; I2 25.8%). Aspartame and mixed sweetener subgroups significant. All-cause mortality HR/RR 1.13 (1.03-1.25; I2 79.7%), J-shaped.

Absolute risks

not reported in abstract

Authors' conclusion

Artificial sweeteners showed no apparent association with overall cancer; a European subgroup and mortality showed higher risk; more data needed.

6. Strengths

  • Large pooled sample

7. Weaknesses

  • Subgroup findings; high heterogeneity for mortality
  • Observational

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
AMSTAR 2
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

Abstract only.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

CIs log-symmetric (stats/C-UPF-07_sweeteners.py).

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Overall cancer null; contradicts the cancer part except in subgroups.

11. Independent contrary findings

NutriNet-Sante positive associations.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

European subgroup 1.07.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Mixed for cancer.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultsmoderate
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilitypartly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceinconsistent
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Reasons for European subgroup signal.

15. Linked fact checks