So, when "studies" were coming out several years ago about sugar substitutes causing cancer in rats, and possibly humans, that was actually from something else?
I'm not trying to be facetious, truly curious and trying to understand what can and can't cause cancer.
That study was complete bullshit for several reasons. First being that 99% of studies done showed absolutely no correlation between artificial sweeteners and rates of cancer, but the media all jumped on this single study.
The amount of sweetener they were given was like the equivalent of like 70 cans of diet soda a day. But ignoring that fact, there was no control group to compare their results against, the breed of rat they used was a breed that was susceptible to getting bladder cancer in the first place (which is the type of cancer they got, and they didn't get it in any rate greater than average), cancer in rats doesn't mean that humans will get cancer the same way.
So yeah, the rats got bladder cancer because they're a breed genetically predispositioned to get that form of cancer.
There is no evidence linking artificial sweeteners with cancer at all.