A study published in Frontiers in Nutrition found that mice exposed to sucralose or stevia passed metabolic changes to offspring and grandchildren who never consumed the sweeteners.
The research, conducted by scientists at the Universidad de Chile, involved 47 male and female mice divided into three groups: one drinking plain water, another receiving sucralose-laced water, and a third receiving stevia-laced water over 16 weeks.
Dosages were calibrated to reflect typical human consumption levels, according to the study authors.
After breeding two subsequent generations that received only plain water, researchers detected persistent alterations in gut bacteria, reduced levels of short-chain fatty acids, and shifts in genes linked to inflammation and metabolism.
These effects were most pronounced in the first offspring generation and diminished in the second, lead author Francisca Concha Celume stated.
Male offspring of sucralose-exposed mice showed mild impairments in glucose regulation, while effects in females were less significant; stevia’s impact was weaker and faded more quickly.
The study does not confirm similar effects in humans but adds to ongoing debate about whether non-nutritive sweeteners are biologically inert.
Approximately 140 million Americans consume non-nutritive sweeteners regularly, based on survey data cited in the research.
Globally, use of these additives has risen across age groups, including among women of childbearing age managing weight or diabetes.
While regulators have long deemed sweeteners like aspartame, saccharin, and sucralose safe within limits, the World Health Organization has cautioned that long-term use may correlate with increased risks of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
For more on this story, see Sea-Level Rise: A Growing Global Health Crisis and Matter of Justice.
In India, a LocalCircles survey following WHO advisories on aspartame found that 38% of urban respondents reported consuming artificial sweeteners at least monthly.
The study’s framework aligns with the Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD) hypothesis, which posits that parental diet can influence offspring health across generations via biological pathways like gut microbiota.
Researchers emphasized that their goal is not to provoke alarm but to highlight gaps in long-term safety data and advocate for further investigation.
Critics note that rodent studies do not always translate to human biology, and that mechanisms like epigenetic inheritance remain complex and incompletely understood in mammals.
Nonetheless, the findings challenge the assumption that zero-calorie sweeteners have no systemic biological impact beyond calorie reduction.
As consumption continues to grow globally, public health experts say the results underscore the necessitate for longitudinal human studies and cautious interpretation of long-term dietary exposure.
Does this mean artificial sweeteners are unsafe for humans?
No — the study was conducted in mice and does not prove that sweeteners cause similar multigenerational effects in humans. Researchers say it raises questions that warrant further study, not proof of harm.
Which sweetener had the stronger effect in the study?
Sucralose produced more pronounced and longer-lasting changes in metabolism-related genes and glucose regulation in male offspring compared to stevia, which showed weaker and faster-fading effects.
How many people regularly use these sweeteners?
About 140 million Americans consume non-nutritive sweeteners regularly, according to data cited in the study. Globally, use is rising, including among women of reproductive age managing weight or blood sugar.
