According to whom? If people are suspectful of the must studied food substances, why would they trust something that's less studied?
There are more papers on aspartame than on potatoes, but that's not a reason not to avoid the latter, right?
They also still contain calories that you're best off not ingesting.
I also found this study that says sugar alcohols cause blood and liver cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7072169/
Alcohols generally have been abundant in our evolutionary history and are still terrible for us.
Sugar alcohols aren't laxatives. They have a laxative effect in high quantities (the line seemingly person-specific)
Ever hear someone complain after eating the entire bag of sugar-free gummy bears? [0]
0: https://www.amazon.com/review/R2JGNJ5ZPJT4YC
> I also found this study that says sugar alcohols cause blood and liver cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7072169/
That isn't what it says at all. Sugar-alcohols occur naturally in the body, and cancer affected liver metabolism to cause it to produce more than normal.
That is all true, except there is a choice between sweetened drinks and unsweetened drinks.
Because, if not, the question isn't between aspartame or some other interchangeable artificial sweetener, but between aspartame and HFCS or regular sweetener, which I strongly suspect contributes more deleteriously to health via obesity than aspartame does via possible carcinogenic affect.
The thing is, I'm okay with governmental bodies regulating substances (not necessarily the WHO, but that's a different story), but you need to balance different factors including substitution when you make a decision like this.
For example, the EU recently banned topical zinc as ZP in topical formulations (think head and shoulders) due to being a possible topical carcinogen (the evidence suggested it wasn't, but it is a non-topical carcinogen) because interchangeable formulations existed that also worked.
Given that it probably isn't possible to subject a substance to the same scrutiny as aspartame without many years of targeted and expensive effort, we're probably just stuck with this sweetener for the foreseeable future.