3.9 Review

Emerging Facts on Chronic Consumption of Aspartame as Food Additive

Journal

CURRENT NUTRITION & FOOD SCIENCE
Volume 17, Issue 7, Pages 690-698

Publisher

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1573401317666210122090259

Keywords

Aspartame; excitotoxic; phenylketonuria; carcinogenic; headache; regulatory

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aspartame, a low-caloric sugar of intense sweetness, is widely used as an artificial sweetener. Its metabolites - phenylalanine, aspartic acid, and methanol, contribute to its controversial toxicity. The World Health Organization recommends a maximum daily intake of 40 mg/kg body weight, except for phenylketonurics.
Low caloric sugars of intense sweetness are world widely used as artificial sweeteners. Aspartame, being a non-nutritive sugar, acts as a sweetening agent and flavour enhancer which leads to the replacement of many nutritive sugars. The origin of aspartame was serendipitous, but it has been into huge controversy since then related to its toxic effects that come along with its excess sweetness. It is quite evident that aspartame has its toxicity due to its metabolites which are -phenylalanine (50%), aspartic acid (40%), and a small amount of methanol (10%). The present review entails in detail the mechanism and the harmful effects of metabolites based on various studies carried out on aspartame for long. According to World Health Organization, the acceptable daily intake of aspartame is 40 mg/kg bw except for phenylketonurics. Toxicity of aspartame and its metabolites is controversial but its chronic consumption as a food additive is considered treacherous. Hence, it is assumed as unsafe for human use if ingested on regular basis. The present review focuses on the collective data signifying adverse events associated with aspartame linking nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive abnormalities and apoptosis to aspartame usage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available