Disclaimer: the following information is for information purposes only. Please consult your doctor or healthcare practitioner before making any changes to your health.

Has anyone ever told you that artificial sweeteners are bad for you?

You’ve probably heard things like:

They cause cancer!
They make you gain weight!
You should avoid them because they’re not natural—stick to honey or maple syrup instead!

Artificial sweeteners get a lot of hate, and a big part of that comes from the fact that they were made in a lab. Throw in some old-school politics and a bunch of mixed research, and suddenly, they’ve got a reputation for being dangerous.

But is any of that actually true? Let’s break it down and see what’s real and what’s just fear-mongering.

A Brief History of Artificial Sweeteners

In 1879 a researcher from Hopkins University went home one day from his lab. At dinner, he bit into his roll to find a very sweet crust. Curious at this odd sweet taste, he ran back to his lab to taste everything. Well, he found the hidden flavour that touched his hands. Turns out, one of his chemical soups had overboiled onto the counter, resulting in the sweet-tasting flavour. It was called Saccharin, and was over 300x sweeter than cane sugar.

As the years progressed, in both science and politics, consumers demanded regulations on food industry products in 1906. Thus, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drugs Act which aimed to standardize consumer food goods. After the act was passed, its lead official—a renowned chemist—proposed banning saccharin in 1908. But how do you ban something that offers so many benefits?

Saccharin helped people lose weight.
It was a ‘sugar pill’ prescription to help with headaches and nausea.
As a preservative for canning.
Diabetics used it as a sweetener in coffee, tea, and other beverages.
It was cheaper than sugar to make and distribute.

Although there was no evidence proving saccharin was bad, the chemist deemed it unfit for human consumption- because it was derived from coal and tar. The chemist stressed that the sugar replacement was threatening people’s lives. Funny enough, Roosevelt ended the political discourse by responding with “Anyone who says saccharin is injurious to health is an idiot. Dr. Rixey gives it to me every day.”

From 1908 until World War I, there was constant back-and-forth over banning saccharin. But once the war began and sugar shortages hit, saccharin became essential. Monsanto (yes, the same Monsanto we know today), the largest saccharin producer at the time, argued that it could save the country millions by replacing sugar. The same thing happened during World War II—when sugar became scarce again, saccharin once more became the go-to sweetener.

Even after the wars, the debate over saccharin continued for decades. By the 1970s, it was closer than ever to being banned. But while saccharin’s future hung in the balance, companies saw an opportunity to introduce alternatives. In 1965, aspartame was discovered—200 times sweeter than sugar. Then came sucralose in 1976, at 600 times the sweetness. And in 2002, neotame entered the market, boasting an incredible 7,000 to 13,000 times the sweetness of sugar.

And then there was cyclamate. In the 1970s, this artificial sweetener was banned after studies linked it to bladder cancer—though the research was mostly done on rats. Still, the FDA swiftly pulled it from shelves as a precautionary measure to prevent any potential risk to humans.

More recently, artificial sweeteners have taken the spotlight due to their possible links to cancer, diabetes, and that the safe amount to consume is much less than what people we’re actually consuming. Unfortunately, science paints a pretty good picture, but left-over politics and new-age thinking seem to cloud what the research is telling us.

What Are They Really?

Artificial sweeteners are additives with a sugar-like sweetness that contain minimal to no calories. They are popular in the diabetic space, or for those watching their calorie intake. Although they interact with sweet-taste receptors in your mouth, these sweeteners are not fully metabolized by the human body, thus providing us with negligible calories energy.

Obesity and Body Weight

Artificial sweeteners have been researched for their link to obesity. Obesity is a multifactorial disease with its roots stemming from not just food and activity, but socioeconomic status, mental health, and much more. It is an interesting theory that an additive with minimal calories could contribute to the excess calorie portion of obesity. For this section, we will take a look at markers including obesity, body weight, and BMI.

In young people (18 and under), there doesn’t seem to be a strong association between consuming artificially sweetened beverages and increases in body weight. Which is a good thing, because childhood obesity is a looming problem. The following is from a systematic review of metabolic effects in youth from the International Journal of Pediatric Obesity:

At the current time, the jury remains out regarding a possible role of increased artificial sweetener use in the obesity and diabetes epidemics, whether adverse, beneficial or neutral. [In youth]

For adults, the research is mixed. Some high-quality studies (called randomized controlled trials) suggest that artificial sweeteners can help with slight weight loss, but not by much. On the other hand, long-term observational studies often show the opposite—people who use artificial sweeteners tend to gain weight over time.

There are a few reasons for this difference. In long-term studies, people who use artificial sweeteners might also be consuming more calories overall, which could explain the weight gain. On the other hand, many of the controlled studies were done in low-calorie environments, where participants were already eating less—so weight loss happened regardless of the sweeteners. Take this example. People opting for Coke Zero may also be getting triple Big Mac’s and large fries, but go for the diet drink because it appears ‘healthier’. So is it the diet drink or the rest of the meal? On the other hand, consider a someone enjoying a salad with chicken breast, some fruit and nuts, and packed with veggies and olive oil. They decide to have a zero-sugar Ginger ale to get that sweet taste. you can see how this muddies the waters.

With that in mind, replacing a sugary drink with a drink containing virtually 0 calories would lead to weight loss if it means the person enters a caloric deficit. Calories in and calories out, and it matters most for weight loss. But do we see this in the literature? Yes! People who consumed drinks with artificial sweeteners took in less energy, which means fewer calories.

The takeaway: Research on artificial sweeteners and weight is mixed—some studies show slight weight loss, while others show the opposite. But one thing is clear: people who drink artificially sweetened beverages tend to consume fewer calories overall. That means diet sodas and other zero-calorie drinks can be a useful tool for managing weight while still enjoying a sweet treat.

Cancer

The large study mentioned earlier found no clear evidence that artificial sweeteners cause cancer. However, another large-scale study did find a connection between artificial sweeteners and certain types of cancer—but not all. The challenge with this kind of research is that many other factors, like diet, lifestyle, and even genetics, could be influencing the results.

The takeaway: More data is required to draw a possible conclusion to the link of artificial sweeteners with cancer. As of now, the result seems inconclusive that artificial sweeteners cause cancer.

Type II Diabetes

It’s an interesting thought that artificial sweeteners with minimal calories could cause issues with blood sugar. The theory is that the sweetness can actually produce an insulin response, and over time, type II diabetes.

Well, a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs deem this theory just that- a theory.

Ingestion of LES [Low energy sweeteners], administered alone or in combination with a nutrient-containing preload, has no acute effects on the mean change in postprandial glycemic or insulinemic responses compared with a control intervention. Apart from a small beneficial effect on PPG (−0.3 mmol/L) in studies enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, the effects did not differ by type or dose of LES, or fasting glucose or insulin levels.

The British Medical Journal also reported no significant findings either.

However, no differences were observed in plasma insulin levels…or in insulin resistance and β cell function as measured by the homoeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance

The takeaway: Artificial sweeteners probably doesn’t contribute to type II diabetes, and can be used as a calorie-free substitute for sugar.

The Naturalistic Fallacy

The naturalistic fallacy is the mistaken belief that something is inherently good or morally superior simply because it is natural, or that something is bad or inferior solely because it is unnatural. This reasoning assumes that natural occurrences dictate moral or practical value, which is logically flawed.

People will argue that because artificial sweeteners don’t come from nature, or are not natural food, they are automatically bad for us.

Yes, they come from science. They are not from nature. However, if we say that anything unnatural should be avoided, by that logic we should avoid the use of insulin (the hormone type I and II diabetics need), the pacemaker, or electricity. Now, if artificial sweeteners didn’t have the above research dictating their current safety, then I wouldn’t be writing this article for you! But we use science as a guiding light to see how far we’ve come, where we are, and where to go. And where we are, I believe based on science and research, is a safe product, and possibly beneficial in some circumstances.

But it’s processed food!

Processing of food exists everywhere. Even in the “natural sweeteners” like maple syrup. coconut sugar, and honey. The majority of these have processing involved so they are available to buy.

For example. The maple syrup from maple trees must be boiled down in order to retrieve the sugary sweetness we buy in stores. Coconut sugar, although from coconut flowers, requires the coconut nectar to be boiled and then ground into its brown sugar-like texture. Honey may be an exception here, as raw honey is exactly that-raw. The point is that processing is involved in not just artificial sweeteners, but the “natural” ones as well. It’s everywhere.

Keep in mind too that anything available for you to eat and drink has gone through rigorous testing in order to have a place in the grocery store.

Who should avoid artificial sweeteners?

There are scenarios where people should avoid certain artificial sweeteners.

Phenylketonuria is a disorder where a person does not properly metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine. Aspartame, for example, is converted into phenylalanine in the body, which can build up in the blood, and cause brain damage. Those who have the disorder should avoid it completely.

If you are someone who consumes something sweet and then ends up eating the entire fridge, then you may do best to avoid artificial sweeteners, along with whatever other sweets trigger that response for you. Artificial sweeteners are usually an X amount sweeter than sugar, but if you do okay with sweets in moderation then go for it.

Discussion

After all of that, artificial sweeteners are probably safe to consume for a healthy person. There could be specific groups that benefit the most from these drinks, such as:

Diabetics looking to keep their sugar levels stable
Someone transitioning away from sugar-sweetened beverages
Someone in a calorie deficit could use artificially sweetened drinks to curb hunger or reduce total calories

Due to their minimal calorie nature, they can certainly help with weight loss, which seems to be one of the biggest variables in disease and health- maintaining healthy body weight. Water should always be your beverage of choice, but it’s nice to enjoy a sweet beverage from time to time.

The End

More information is always better to strengthen a hypothesis. From the evidence above, it appears that artificial sweeteners are probably safe to consume, and may yield specific health benefits.

Have I missed something, or do you have any feedback? Send me a comment!

Update- 02/05/2025

Do Artificial Sweeteners Affect Your Gut Health?

Since writing this article, more information has come out about the interactions between artificial sweeteners and the gut microbiome.

There’s a lot of debate around artificial and natural nonnutritive sweeteners (NNSs) and their impact on gut health. Some human studies suggest that certain sweeteners—like saccharin, sucralose, and possibly stevia—can change the balance of gut bacteria. But does that actually matter? A shift in gut microbes, known as “dysbiosis,” simply means that something has changed, not necessarily for better or worse. While some research links these changes to metabolism and blood sugar control, we don’t yet have clear evidence that artificial sweeteners harm gut health in humans. More studies are needed to understand whether these microbiome shifts have real health consequences—or if they’re just a normal adaptation to what we eat.

References

History of artificial sweeteners- 1, 2, 3

Obesity, body weight, and BMI- 1, 2, 3

Cancer- 1, 2

Type II diabetes- 1, 2

But they aren’t “natural”- 1, 2, 3, 4

Who should avoid artificial sweeteners?- 1

Gut microbiome- 1

Mar 18 Are artificial sweeteners bad for your health? The sweet truth behind artificial sweeteners