Recent research suggests that artificial and low-/no-calorie sweeteners (LNCSs) might not be as harmless as many believe. An eight-year study of over 12,700 Brazilian adults found that higher consumption of several common sweeteners was linked to faster decline in memory, thinking skills, and verbal fluency—especially among people under 60 and those with diabetes.
What the Study Found
- The study tracked participants (average age ~52) over eight years, assessing their diets and how often they consumed sweeteners like aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame-K, erythritol, sorbitol, and xylitol.
- Participants with the highest intake of these sweeteners showed a rate of cognitive decline that was about 62% faster compared to those with low consumption—roughly equivalent to an extra 1.6 years of brain aging.
- The association was stronger for memory and verbal fluency tasks. Interestingly, one sweetener—tagatose—did not show a similar link.
- The effect was mostly observed in people younger than 60; in older age groups the association was weaker or not statistically significant.
Limitations & What It Doesn’t Show
- This is an observational study, which means it can show correlation, not direct causation. Other lifestyle or dietary factors could also play a role.
- Dietary intake was self-reported, which can lead to inaccuracies.
- While “faster cognitive decline” was observed, the study doesn’t necessarily show immediate or severe dementia or brain disease outcomes for individuals.
Possible Mechanisms
Researchers propose several ways sweeteners might impact cognition:
- Alterations in the gut microbiome leading to inflammation.
- Oxidative stress or neuroinflammation.
- Metabolic effects, especially in people with diabetes, who may already have baseline vulnerabilities.
What This Means for Consumers & Industry
For consumers, this study suggests moderation in the use of artificial sweeteners may be wise—especially for those under 60 or with metabolic risk factors. Prefer whole foods, and limit reliance on ultra-processed products, even those marketed as “low-sugar” or “diet.”
For the life sciences, nutrition, and regulatory sectors, this kind of research raises questions about how safety assessments should incorporate long-term brain health outcomes. It’s also a signal that health authorities may increasingly examine dietary additives—not just medicines—for their broader impacts.
EMMA International’s Perspective
At EMMA International, we monitor emerging research like this to help companies anticipate evolving regulatory expectations. Whether you’re involved in food science, supplements, or pharmaceutical adjuncts, ensuring that product safety includes consideration of cognitive impact—and not just immediate toxicity—is becoming more important. We help clients with regulatory strategy, risk assessment, and evidence review so they can stay ahead of potential safety issues and maintain public trust.
For more information on how EMMA International can assist, visit www.emmainternational.com. Contact EMMA International at (248) 987-4497 or by email at info@emmainternational.com to learn more.8). FDA finalizes guidance on therapeutic protein biosimilars.
