Why did EFSA not reduce its ADI for aspartame or recommend its use should no longer be permitted?

• Główni autorzy: Erik Paul Millstone (Autor), Elisabeth Dawson (Autor)
• Format: Książka
• Wydane: BMC, 2020-11-01T00:00:00Z.
• Hasła przedmiotowe: article
• Dostęp online: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 10.1186/s13690-020-00489-w; 2049-3258
• Keywords: Aspartame; Risk assessment; European food safety authority; Rebuttal; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: Archives of Public Health, Vol 78, Iss 1, Pp 1-5 (2020)

Abstract On behalf of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Kass and Lodi recently published a letter purporting to 'refute' our July 2019 analysis of EFSA's December 2013 assessment of the risks of aspartame. We had previously claimed inter alia that the EFSA panel had evaluated studies that had indicated that aspartame might be harmful far more sceptically than those that had not indicated harm. We reported that EFSA had deemed every one of 73 studies suggesting harm to have been unreliable. Kass and Lodi provided a tabulation with figures that differed from ours in every detail. This commentary shows that, while Kass and Lodi provided a response to our analysis, they have not come close to refuting it. Our analysis provided detailed characterisations of each of the studies and how the panel interpreted them, but Kass and Lodi provide no corresponding information at all. Kass and Lodi claim that EFSA deemed 21 of 35 studies that had indicated possible harm to have been reliable. But if that is so, we now ask: why did the EFSA panel not recommend that aspartame should be banned, or at least tightly restricted?