Aspartame, an intense food sweetener substitute to sugar, has been the centre of much controversy since its introduction on the market.

In this respect, it should be emphasised that consumers have the right to be informed on their choice of food and law-regulated entities should safeguard their health and safety.

Regulation (EC) 178/2002 was formed with the aim and scope of assuring a high level of protection when it came to human health and consumers’ interests in relation to food.

The EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), established on the same regulation, was set up in view of the scare caused by BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as mad cow disease) to assure the public on the safety of food and feed.

The EFSA forms a panel/board of scientists that could pose the risk of forming a dominant stratum engaged in rampant manipulation of power. Indeed, Sanford Lakoff quotes Ralph Lapp’s view that “we face the real danger of a layered society in which a scientist elite fraction floats on top and dominates our policy-making”.

I will not go into detail here on the facts leading up to aspartame getting the go-ahead and being deemed “safe for human consumption”.

Regulation (EC) 178/2002 provides a general framework for EU food law but does not clearly state when food is safe.

Rather, it mentions that unsafe food should be prohibited from being placed on the market. The ambiguity of concepts outlined in Regulation (EC) 178/2002 results in a grey area, that is, an area of activity not readily conforming to a set of rules. This may indicate how so-called ‘grey area foods’, although not unsafe according to legal definition, could compromise human health.

Drinking a couple of diet drinks, some coffees with artificial sweetener and a few light yoghurts containing aspartame could pose a risk to one’s health

In view of the uncertainty related to aspartame consumption, the legislator has untenably high expectations about how much the average consumer understands when it comes to food labels in general, and, as a result, the consumer bears the responsibility for any negative consequences produced by the information gap.

Generally speaking, when aspartame is added to food, the legal requirement entails that the phrase “contains a source of phenylalanine” should be placed on the label.

Is the wording on food products stating that they contain aspartame enough for the public to anticipate the consequences of over-consuming this product?

To make matters worse, the EFSA concluded that consumption of aspartame would be safe up to the daily ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake) of 40mg/kg bw/day. Surely anything in excess of this recommended value ought to be deemed unfit for human consumption.

The consumer should be made aware that many products contain aspartame. Indeed, drinking a couple of diet drinks, some coffees with artificial sweetener and a few light yoghurts containing aspartame could increase the daily recommended value of aspartame to an extent that could pose a risk to one’s health. That being said, we cannot expect consumers to be able to make informed choices based solely on the facts given above.

Whenever there is uncertainty about introducing a new food substance to the consumer, Members of the European Parliament could, if in doubt, activate the precautionary principle, an extensive definition for which is given in Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.

Aspartame molecule. Photo: AFP

In specific circumstances where, following an assessment of available information, the possibility of harmful effects on consumers’ health is identified but scientific uncertainty still persists, provisional risk management measures – necessary to ensure the high level of health protection in the community – may be adopted pending further scientific information for a more comprehensive risk assessment.

In this case, the legislator, by way of precaution, has clearly reversed the burden of proof by requiring that substances be deemed hazardous until proven otherwise.

Ironically, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Food concluded in 2002 that, while some minor effects on health may occur at very high doses, no effects are “expected” at normal levels of consumption of aspartame.

The above assertion provides more uncertainty and shows that there is still the possibility of risk to human health, where aspartame could have an adverse effect in high doses.

However, the information required by the consumer to make informed choices is not readily provided on labels.

The word “expected”, in fact, has a misleading sense. It doesn’t mean that one can be sure or certain what one is expecting, but, rather, it means that one can anticipate what one predicts may happen, which is more awkward.

The committee’s conclusion clearly states that aspartame could have adverse effects on human health, and yet, no concrete action is taken so as to better inform consumers so that they can make better choices.

To take action is to takes steps forward. Indeed, a recent intervention to prohibit the toxic insecticide chlorpyrifos by parliamentary secretaries Deo Debattista and Clint Camilleri is a major step towards the safeguarding of human health, even in light of some countries having never opted to use this insecticide in the first place as known health hazards it posed where always a concern.

I personally praise the immediate action taken to diminish the use of chlorpyrifos by EU legislation, as opposed to waiting for the year 2020 to do so.

In this case, the EFSA should have opted to initiate the precautionary principle as uncertainty about the product was always evident; the same should be applied to the issue of aspartame.

I hope that our legislators take the opportunity to act in defence of our citizens, taking immediate action to perform an intense study about how to best guide the public on the consumption of aspartame, providing the consumer with the necessary information he needs to make better food choices to avoid adverse consequences to his health.

Joseph Spiteri is a food law graduate specialist.