The use of artificial sweeteners is always a contentious topic in the health field. Some people hate them, other people love them. I use them occasionally, but when it comes to benefits versus harms, I stick to the research. In this case, it’s what wasn’t stated in the headlines about the study that is important, but we can make a decision based only on what we read. This was an abstract of a presentation at a conference, so some details may have been left out that were included in the study.

The Rest of the Story

The authors established an increased risk of diabetes with artificially sweetened drinks and saccharin in any form, but there were no statistically significant diabetes symptoms linked with total intake of artificial sweeteners, sucralose, or aspartame in all foods. That means that artificial sweeteners used in other foods didn’t raise the risk of diabetes, such as added to coffee, used in ice cream or other dairy products, or used in baking. You have to wonder why it had no apparent impact.

It may be that the specific food delivery system has some impact on why it does or does not have an effect. One possibility is that if the sweetener reaches the gut bacteria, it’s modified in some way so that it doesn’t impact blood sugar or blood sugar release.

It seems odd that they used markers of diabetes as their criteria rather than physician diagnosis. They looked for fasting glucose of 126 mg/dl or more; oral glucose tolerance test 2-hour glucose of 200 mg/dl or more; hemoglobin A1C of 6.5% or more; or use of diabetes medications. The last one makes sense, because you don’t get the meds unless you have a diagnosis, but still, odd language.

FFQ—Again!

Even though the food frequency questionnaire is still a good assessment tool when used with interviews, I checked the validation studies. The correlations with food diaries and interviews for the food frequency questionnaire developed specifically for the CARDIA study were no better than 0.5, indicating a moderate positive relationship—maybe it did, maybe it didn’t. That’s much worse than other correlations used in large studies. Also, the first two nutritional assessments couldn’t have assessed sucralose because it wasn’t available until after they took place; I don’t know why sucralose was included when it wasn’t available for almost half the follow-up period.

The Bottom Line

The debate on artificial sweeteners will go on, because people love them or hate them. Based on the results of this observational study, nothing of worth has really been added to the knowledge base. The researchers called for more research to examine how artificial sweeteners impact glucose metabolism. We don’t know that it does from anything done in this study, but that doesn’t mean well-designed studies shouldn’t be done in the future. Until then, it’s up to you whether to use artificially sweetened drinks or not. Maybe a better idea is to give up the mega-burger and fries instead.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference:  Cur Devel in Nutr  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdnut.2025.107034