Fogel · Nutrition reviews 2026 · scoping review · n=29 studies

Aspartame and Its Potential Neurocognitive Effects in Humans.

Cited 6 times in the scientific literature.

Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data

Scoping review predominantly synthesizing animal, mechanistic, and narrative evidence without meta-analysis

PubMed 40608001 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuaf103 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

A scoping review was conducted searching three literature databases (Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science) for peer-reviewed articles evaluating the neurocognitive and neurotoxic effects of aspartame. Out of 170 identified records, 29 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed across animal and human models.

What was found

The abstract reports narrative findings without numerical effect sizes, point estimates, or p-values. Across the 29 included studies: - Multiple experimental animal studies reported histopathological changes, including elevated oxidative stress markers and neuronal loss in various brain regions. - Animal studies demonstrated memory and learning impairments. - Animal and human studies reported behavioral dysfunction and mood disorders (depression and anxiety), linked to downregulated GABA signaling and upregulated glutamate signaling in the amygdala. - Effects were noted at, above, and below FDA-approved intake levels. - Two studies indicated increased neurocognitive vulnerability in populations with preexisting parkinsonism or diabetes. - Certain agents, including Pimpinella anisum oil and vitamin E, were reported to ameliorate aspartame's neurocognitive impacts.

Why it matters

This review synthesizes preclinical and clinical evidence suggesting aspartame and its breakdown products may exert neurotoxic effects at and below established regulatory consumption thresholds, highlighting potential risks for metabolically or neurologically vulnerable groups.

Limits

The findings heavily rely on animal models that may not accurately model human physiology or dietary intake patterns. The abstract provides no quantitative data, effect sizes, risk-of-bias appraisals, or details on the design and sample sizes of the human studies.

Cited by