• New medical controversy after claims attributed to the US president over “diet” soft drinks
• Experts say there is no scientific evidence linking such products to cancer prevention

A fresh medical debate has emerged following remarks attributed to US President Donald Trump, in which he reportedly suggested that diet soft drinks might help prevent cancer, according to cardiologist and cardiothoracic surgeon Mehmet Oz.

The comments surfaced during an appearance by Oz on a podcast hosted by the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., where he recounted Trump defending his consumption of these beverages by claiming they “kill grass when poured on it,” and therefore—by that logic—might have a similar effect on cancer cells in the human body.

Oz also said that during a flight aboard Air Force One, he noticed an orange drink on Trump’s desk. When he asked about it, the president allegedly smiled and replied that the drink was “beneficial because it kills cancer cells,” reflecting his personal belief in its effects.

The remarks come as US health authorities continue reviewing dietary guidelines, including updates to the food pyramid with a stronger focus on natural foods.

Trump is known for repeatedly defending his diet, which at times includes fast food and sweetened beverages, arguing that they do not harm his health due to strict quality controls in major brands, according to Oz.

However, health experts stress that such claims are not supported by scientific evidence. Most diet soft drinks use artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, a low-calorie substitute widely used in the food industry.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified aspartame as Group 2B, meaning it is “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence that does not confirm a direct causal link.

Previous research, including a large French study in 2022 involving over 100,000 participants, has suggested a possible association between artificial sweeteners and a slight increase in cancer risk, but without proving causation.

Other studies have also explored potential effects on gut bacteria, which may influence metabolic health markers, though findings remain inconclusive.

Commenting on the controversy, pediatric immunologist Dr. Zachary Rubin criticized the reasoning behind the claim that substances capable of “killing grass” could be beneficial to humans, warning that such logic leads to scientifically unfounded conclusions.

He added that this type of thinking lacks any medical basis, recalling similar controversial statements made during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding unproven treatments that were later medically disproven.