{"id":19536,"date":"2025-05-05T13:10:27","date_gmt":"2025-05-05T17:10:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/foodmedcenter.org\/?p=19536"},"modified":"2025-05-05T13:15:08","modified_gmt":"2025-05-05T17:15:08","slug":"study-spotlight-take-away-with-chef-dr-mike-sweet-dangers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/foodmedcenter.org\/es_mx\/study-spotlight-take-away-with-chef-dr-mike-sweet-dangers\/","title":{"rendered":"Study Spotlight Take-Away With Chef Dr. Mike: Sweet Dangers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\u201cThe essence of deception is to mask the truth so well that even the vigilant are led astray.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 <\/em>Anonymous<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Currently, there is much (appropriate) applause for actions taken regarding the removal of petroleum-based dyes from our current supply of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs). However, from an industrial reformulation perspective, in the grand scheme of things, this is a pretty small give on the part of industrial food manufacturers. Beyond the window dressing of dyes to make foods more visually appealing, within UPFs, there are engineered compounds that are often marketed for presumed health benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These include sweeteners or sugar substitutes, such as aspartame, sucralose, stevia-derived substances, and xylitol (covered in a previous column here<\/a>). The alleged health benefits associated with using these sweeteners instead of traditional sugar (sucrose) include caloric reduction, minimal blood glucose effect, and the lack of adverse side effects or complications. As noted by the US Food and Drug Administration, \u201cUnder the law, certain ingredients do not require pre-market food additive approval by FDA, for example, if they are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by qualified experts.  If a company concludes that the specific use of a sweetener is GRAS, they may submit their information to the FDA through the FDA\u2019s GRAS Notification Program<\/a>.\u201d[1]<\/a> It is estimated that over 10,000 food additives have achieved approval through this pathway. And like a bloodsucking tick, once embedded into the modern food system, they can be difficult to remove.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This includes artificial sweeteners like aspartame, which is the primary sweetener found in diet soft drinks like Diet Coke. As far back as 2021, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found concerns with this sweetener in particular. In 2023, IARC again raised concerns that aspartame was \u201cpossibly carcinogenic to humans.\u201d As recently as 2025, the US Food and Drug Administration\u2019s response was to \u201cdisagree with IARC\u2019s conclusion that aspartame is actually linked to cancer.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, a recent study provides novel insight into how the artificial sweetener aspartame increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), strengthening the epidemiological observation that humans consuming diet beverages containing aspartame have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, e.g., heart attack, despite the aforementioned negligible caloric content or blood glucose effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Study:<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n