Peer probes FSA aspartame study as costs double

By Elaine Watson

- Last updated on GMT

Related tags Food standards agency European food safety authority Food safety Fsa

Clement-Jones: Value for money
Clement-Jones: Value for money
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones has called on the Department of Health to explain how spending £322,000 of taxpayers' money on a study addressing consumer concerns over aspartame represents value for money at a time when budgets are so stretched.

The study - commissioned by the Food Standards Agency last year - is not testing the safety of aspartame, "which has already been established​", but is designed to address "anecdotal reports​" from consumers claiming to have had adverse reactions to the high intensity sweetener (stomach aches and headaches).

However, Lord Clement-Jones (pictured) questioned whether the study represented an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money given the many competing demands on the FSA’s budget.

He was speaking to after it emerged that the scope of the study has just been extended, increasing the total cost to more than £322,000, despite the fact that only half of the target number of volunteers has been secured.

He added: "Icannot understand why the FSA is promulgating this kind of research​. I have asked several questions about how they are prioritising their funds when the number of people ​[claiming adverse reactions] is miniscule and the FSA is having to make substantial cuts in its budget​."

The fact that academics at the University of Hull conducting the study had struggled to attract enough participants also raised serious questions about the genuine scale of the problem the FSA was seeking to probe, he added. "I would just like the money to be spent on something more useful."

Volunteers coming forward 'more slowly than anticipated'

Responding in writing to a question tabled by Clement-Jones last month about the progress of the study, Parliamentary under-secretary of state, Department of Health, Earl Howe admitted: “Volunteers are coming forward to participate in the FSA-funded study on aspartame more slowly than anticipated.

“As such the FSA is currently negotiating to extend the end date for this work by six months with the contractors at no additional cost. It is anticipated that the study will now complete in summer 2011.”

To date, just 25 self-diagnosed aspartame-sensitive individuals and 25 ‘controls’ have completed the study, which was initially targeting 100 volunteers (50 aspartame-sensitive people and 50 controls), understands.

Rising costs

The cost of the study had also increased, said Earl Howe. “To date, £193,763 has been spent on this work and in total the project will cost the FSA £287,693 in addition to £35,000 to develop an appropriate cereal bar. The study was originally costed at £150,728.

“Following consultation of the European Food Safety Authority's national experts on aspartame, it was agreed that to maximise its usefulness the research should also investigate aspartame metabolism by analysing samples taken from the participants. This extension will result in an additional cost of £136,965.”

Appropriate use of taxpayers' money?

The FSA’s decision to conduct the study has puzzled many industry observers given that EFSA recently concluded there was "no need to further review the safety of aspartame​" and no reason to revise acceptable daily intakes.

Indeed, FSA chief executive Tim Smith, who took the helm in April 2008, himself recently highlighted the aspartame study as an example of where the agency may not have allocated resources appropriately.

Speaking at Food Manufacture’s Emerging Food Safety Issues conference​ in London in October, Smith said: “Looking back, there has been a bit of a mismatch between the real risks out there and the resources​ [that the FSA has] allocated to them.

"Look at aspartame for example. We spent quite a bit of money looking at aspartame, but were we spending nearly enough on the real issues of food-borne illness? No we weren’t.”

Sensitivity, not safety

The study is being conducted by the University of Hull in collaboration with the Hull York Medical School and Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust.

Project leader Professor Stephen Atkin told “This study is not to determine whether aspartame can be consumed safely; this has already been established by the FSA and EFSA, but rather to see whether certain people are sensitive to it."

The study was looking at immediate reactions to aspartame, and not the effects of sustained exposure, he added: "Subjects eat a bar that may or may not contain 100mg of aspartame (equivalent to that in a can of soft drink) and stay in the department for four hours, filling in symptom sheets.

"Blood is taken at the beginning and end and a urine specimen taken at the beginning, the end and after 24 hours. After a minimum of one week, subjects come back for the next bar."

It had been a struggle to secure sufficient numbers of 'aspartame sensitive' volunteers, he admitted. "Initially 149 volunteered but 141 withdrew."

As to whether the study represented a good use of taxpayers' money, he said: "It is the responsibility of the FSA to consider the concerns of the public and that is what this study is doing."

Increasing knowledge

FSA chief scientist Dr Andrew Wadge said: "The agency’s view remains that aspartame can be consumed safely and we are not recommending any changes to its current use.

"However, we know that some people consider that they react badly to consuming this sweetener so we think it is important to increase our knowledge about what is happening."

Related news


Show more

Myths about methanol from aspartame

Posted by Barbara Roache,

Dietary sources of methanol include the pectin in fruits and vegetables - the pectin is a source of methanol, not an "antidote". Where ethanol and methanol is present together (whether in the diet or in alcoholic drinks) the ethanol would delay the metabolism of methanol present rather than prevent it, as it is metabolised preferentially. Methanol from whatever source (and aspartame-sweetened foods would be a very minor source) is metabolised, within hours, to formaldehyde, formate and finally CO2 - which is excreted from the body, including on the breath.

We take in something like 500mg to 1000mg of methanol every day from our diet - I guess that those of us who eat lots of fruit are at the higher end - and our metabolism clears this from our systems within hours. The methanol from aspartame is the same as the methanol from any other source. Methanol toxicity occurs when very large doses of methanol are consumed in one dose: 20 to 60 grammes/25 to 75 mls of neat methanol for a 60kg adult (source WHO 1997). Dietary levels of methanol from "natural sources" or from aspartame are innocuous by comparison.

Report abuse

Aspartame contains no ethanol or pectin

Posted by Paul Foster,

Methanol (wood alcohol), which makes up 10% of aspartame and is toxic, is also found naturally occurring in some fruits & vegetables. However, methanol is never found in natural foods without ethanol or pectin also being present, its "antidotes" if you will. Ethanol & pectin prevent methanol from being metabolized into formaldehyde & formic acid, both deadly toxins. An ethanol drip is even the standard emergency room treatment for methanol poisoning. Aspartame contains no ethanol or pectin, therefore the methanol is converted to toxic formaldehyde and formic acid. This is why Aspartame should never be used as an additive for food and drink.

Report abuse

Clear science-based advice would benefit the public

Posted by Andrew Smith,

In an Opinion published in 2002 following a review of the science on aspartame, the EU's Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) stated:
"Aspartame is unique among the intense sweeteners in that the intake of its component parts can be compared with intakes of the same substances from natural foods. It is clear that the consumption of aspartame represents only a minor source of aspartic acid, phenylalanine or methanol in the diet".

Made from two amino acids, aspartame consumed in food and beverages is digested to its component parts, all of which occur in foods we consume as part of a healthy balanced diet, such as meat, fish, dairy products and vegetables, often in much greater amounts. The fruit in our diet contributes 300 - 600 mg/day of methanol, for example (Lindinger at al 1997); a small banana contains as much methanol as a can of soft drink sweetened with aspartame alone.

This being the case, it would be helpful if the Food Standards Agency were clear in its advice, telling us not just that aspartame is safe but why: it brings nothing new to the diet.

Report abuse

Follow us

Featured Jobs

View more


Food Manufacture Podcast

Listen to the Food Manufacture podcast