Misplaced Pages

Talk:Aspartame controversy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:33, 8 March 2009 editOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits →Latest edits by keepcalm: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:12, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,446 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{notice|{{find}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
*{{find|aspartame}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid }}
}} }}
{{oldafdfull|page=Aspartame controversy|date=20 October 2008|result='''keep'''}}
{{Rational Skepticism}}
{{WPMED|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 2
|algo = old(45d) |counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}
|target=Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive index

|mask=Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive <#>
== Agree to neutrality disputation ==
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}
The article is clearly written in favor of Aspartame.
{{Old AfD multi|page=Aspartame controversy|date=20 October 2008|result='''keep'''}}
I also agree that the Sweet Misery documentary contains very notable information and sources that lend considerable credit to reports of serious health side effects and collusion between members of the FDA and the makers of Aspartame. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{To do|1}}

{{Notice|{{find}}
I agree as well. The tone is definitely not neutral. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{find|aspartame}}

*] collected by editors of this article -- of sources, or well-sourced
I agree, more information about the papers published by the scientific community in peer-reviewed articles should be added, and the request made by important toxicologists to the FDA to review the last findings from Istituto Ramazzini should be cited in the lead. Letters from scientists in COI should be removed from the page. (] (]) 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC))
}}

{{Annual readership}}
There absolutely should be mention of the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto. I think this information is vital and speaks volumes of the credibility of Monsanto's biased research and the forced decisions made by the FDA. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I too agree that this article seems unbalanced, also, going over the history of this article it seems that a substantial amount of information that would be beneficial for the debate has been taken out. While seemingly specious sources and references have been kept in: http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/FST-3.pdf is unreachable at the moment but by reading it via google's HTML cache I can see that it does not seem a source of good information: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:AywoCftL8ocJ:www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/FST-3.pdf+FST-3.pdf . It has no sources and seems to contain information that is in direct contradiction to scientific research. For example: Claim: Aspartame causes increases in appetite and
weight. Compare to http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight. ] (]) 05:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

These disease hypotheses, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the approval process—which were refuted by an official US governmental enquiry—have been the focus of vocal activism and conspiracy theories regarding the possible risks of aspartame.
Is that a joke? if you read that source you will see that at least 5 of the people involved with Aspartame while at working at HHS were later employed by Grocery Manufacturers of America, National Soft Drink Association or directly working for Searle as legal counsel. How do you manage to interpret that as 'refuting' conflicts of interest? ] (]) 15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

== Third opinion ==

{{user|Bettia}} wants to offer a ]. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

; Viewpoint by Immortale: The results in the mentioned above , does not conclude: "The study found no statistically significant link between aspartame and brain tumors" and should therefore be deleted.

; Viewpoint by (name here): ....

; Third opinion by Bettia: ....

===Third opinion by ]===
This is pretty straight forward. In the cited paper, three studies on the effects of Aspartame on brain tumors are discussed. Two studies showed some increase in brain tumors but the FDA did not consider these positive results (perhaps the results were not significant); one study showed no increase in tumors. The authors go on to question the methodology (duration of test and number of animals). I don't see how these can lead to a quotable finding of the sort that 'no statistically significant link between aspartame and brain tumors' was shown by the study. That is obviously not the intent of the paper because it questions the methodology of those studies. I agree with Immortale, the statement should not be included in the article. --] <small>(])</small> 23:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
*I second this opinion. In fact, rather than saying that there was no link, the paper seems to suggest the opposite. ]&nbsp;] 10:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I'll remove the edit and hopefully ] won't revert it this time. ] (]) 13:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
: Please do not make personal attacks. I do not recognise the dispute presented here. More than two editors were involved in the discussions on this issue. This appears to be an attempt at smearing and gaming. ] <small>]</small> 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
::You were the one who kept putting this false statement in the section, no other editor did. I gave you 2 weeks to explain yourself why you wanted this statement in it and you were completely silent on it. You had a chance to express your view above, which you ignored. It's my right to ask for a third opinion when you as another editor were unwilling to debate. I find it offensive that pro aspartame statements don't get the same scrutiny as critical statements. How you interpret this as a personal attack is beyond me. ] (]) 16:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

== Don't sum up a list of numbers just because you can ==

The Aspartame Information Service lists several issues with the 85 pieces of research allegely identifying adverse reactions to aspartame. Each issue is helpfully prefixed by a number of studies affected. Someone here at Misplaced Pages summed up these numbers and proclamed "(85-sum) studies are uncontested". Don't do that, it's wrong, mostly because these issues needn't affect disjunct sets of studies. But it's likely what the Aspartame Information Service wanted you to think (as it's a technique every lobbyist should be familiar with). For example, I'd suspect that the "brief reports"/"case reports", "anectodes" and "letters to medical journals" all intersect highly. And I'd bet serious money that the last point, "3x allegations", is already covered by some of the previous "not-a-real-study" stuff. Anyway, back to provables: both instances of "3 reports of the same .." need to be counted as 2, not 3, each, since a study being mentioned 3 times does not make it invalid, it just means you mustn't count the second and third occurrence of it. So I left "at least 9 studies are uncontested" there, because that's the absolute minimum and I suspect if I remove all mention of the sum, somebody is gonna jump in and sum stuff up again, even if no summing at all (as the Aspartame Information Service has done) would be more proper.] (]) 07:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

:Why is this opinion from Ajinomoto even allowed in the article. In the article I've inserted opinions from scientific experts that were at least published in peer-reviewed journals, but were removed over the last weeks. Ajinomoto's reply comes from a self-published PR website. How is that for verifiability and neutrality? The old "double standards" again? Their opinion of the facts is so flawed, it's ridiculous. Would anyone dare to say that nicotine is not tobacco and therefore irrelevant to tobacco's safety? ] (]) 11:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

== Ethanol as antidote for methanol ==

On of an added source by Monte to the article, I don't see the original research. However, Monte's research has been criticized. PMID 3300262 (freely accessible) notes references 49, 50 critiquing Monte. I had access to PMID 4065772, which was a letter to the editor by a Searle scientist who said that "because ethanol is metabolized much more rapidly than methanol, any 'protective' effect in food sources will be pharmacokinetically evanescent. For example, the 'protective' effect of ethanol in 500 ml orange juice can be shown to persist for less than 1 min after a simultaneous aspartame dose of 200 mg/kg". I don't have access to Monte's work. ] | (] - ]) 18:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

: After I made that revert I realized I should have added ] violation. The whole section seems to reek of it. While we can't usually use a letter to the editor as a source, if it is true, and there is no reason to doubt it, then we should be careful not to include dubious information if we aren't certain. If we can find a V & RS that clears this up, maybe we can use it. Right now it looks like we are publishing anti-aspartame OR that may not be true as part of a section of anti-aspartame SYNTH propaganda. It seems to be a theoretical problem, but where's the evidence that it's really a serious problem for anyone? Where's the research? I'd like to hear other's views on this. -- ] (]) 01:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

: In the sweet misery movie, it also claims that methanol in food/beverage is bound to pectins that prevent absorption - it isn't just ethanol having a protective effect. As for the claim that the alcohol is metabolized by the body in under a minute, any drinker should question that assertion. It should also be pointed out that Searle is comparing 200mg/kg of Aspartame, an amount much higher than the ADI, to 500ml of orange juice that would contain only a small amount of methanol and ethanol. It is also an apples to oranges comparison as the original claim was that ethanol in natural beverages counteracted the methanol naturally occurring in those beverages - not aspartame, in any quantity, let alone the draconian quantities used. There would be about 0.4mg of methanol and 190mg ethanol in 500ml of fresh orange juice , though after prolonged storage it could be 31mg methanol and 242mg ethanol. Ethanol, like most substances, is eliminated (]) from the bloodstream more or less in proportion to its concentration but elimination saturates at about 10g/hour (30g/hour for drinkers with high tolerance). At low levels, below saturation, one should think in terms of half lives in the body.
200mg/kg of Aspartame in a 70kg person is 14000mg of aspartame or about 1400mg of methanol from aspartame (at 10%) - an amount that in juice would be counteracted by (at 8:1 ratio) by 11200mg of ethanol, not the mere 242mg or less contained in a pint of orange juice. They are comparing the toxin level equivalent to 46 pints of old orange juice or 3500 pints of fresh OJ to the protective level found in only one pint, even if we ignore the slight of hand of substituting aspartame for methanol when attempting to refute an argument about naturally occurring methanol. Or, to put it another way, they are comparing the toxic effect of 78 cans of diet soda (or 3500 pints of fresh OJ) to the protective effect of one pint of OJ. Searle could also have further manipulated the outcome in their favor by the choice of fresh/old orange juice and the use of heavy drinkers. And ultimately they are comparing an 8:1 to 475:1 ethanol:methanol (naturally occuring) ratio vs a 1:5.7 to 1:7.3 ratio of ethanol:methanol (from aspartame). Thus, their comparison is based on ratios that differ from natural conditions by a factor of 45 to 3467 - i.e. 1.6 to 3.5 orders of magnitude. The protective effect is highly dependent on the ratios. In addition to ethanol and pectins, orange juice would also contain vitamin C and other antioxidants. Methanol has a half life of around 2-3 hours without ethanol andand more than an order of magnitude greater with high concentrations of ethanol . Since the high relative concentrations of ethanol would take many ethanol half lives to reduce to the point where it ceases to be protective, the longer protection time afforded by realistic concentrations of ethanol will reduce the rate at which methanol is converted to formaldehyde and one would expect the effective instantaneous dose of formaldehyde would be lower. "There is typically a delay of the toxic symptoms anywhere from six-30 hours and longer if ethanol has been co-ingested." (ibid). Indeed, ethanol is one of the primary medical treatments for methanol poisoning (also combined with dialysis).
] (]) 03:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

::In order to sort this out, it's important to be clearer about what the objections are and how policy informs our editing decisions. And it ''sounds'' as if there is confusion about what ''original research'' means in wikipedia policy. It refers specifically to claims, opinions, arguments, or comparisons produced by ''wikipedia's editors'', and aren't found made in published sources. It's acceptable for Monte to conduct original research. It's not acceptable for wikipedians to use their own original research. Monte can claim anything he likes, and wikipedians aren't really in a position to judge his facts or arguments. If they're his opinions, we must attribute the opinions to him, and not take them to be broad statements of fact or opinion of anyone but him. We're also to judge is how much weight Monte's published opinions carry in the field, and we do that by a surveying the body of relevant published literature on the subject. And in terms of this article, the relevant published literature would be about the issues and people who claim aspartame is harmful and those who disagree with them. So if the Searle response letter is criticizing a claim made by Monte, they're both relevant to this article. The ultimate question is, are Monte's claims or the letter published response given much weight? That's the issue, because how much weight they're given and by whom determines how much weight to give their claims in this article. Original research isn't the issue. But ] is. ] might give good guidance here also. Hope this helps. ] (]) 22:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

== Unencyclopedic Ramazzini section ==

The Ramazzini subsection is unencyclopedic, with a nearly interminable back-and-forth between defenders and detractors of the Ramazzini group. The Ramazzini study also is not in the same category as the other two studies cited. We are talking here about a poorly-controlled primary research study of rats compared with meta-analysis (Negri) and a large-scale human epi study (NCI).

The Ramazzini group is '''one group''' that has reported results, mostly in one journal, differing from those of the wider scientific community. Multiple regulatory agencies have criticised its methodologies and the validity of its conclusions. There is no reason--apart from ideological prejudice, i.e. POV--to include it here. Although I initially just tried to pare it down to a more appropriate size, I finally opted for removing it entirely. If it is restored, then, please, only in drastically reduced form. ] (]) 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

::Not only did you vandalize the Ramazzini section, you ultimately removed the whole section without any debate nor consent from the contributing editors here. Of course the industry was extremely unhappy with the independent research done by a highly respected organization that has conducted research for more than 30 years. To counter strike, the industry paid millions again to "prove" aspartame is really safe and came with the severely flawed review by the Burdock Group consultants. They flood the scientific community with 1-day studies to determine long-term effects, which we all know is impossible. The Ramazzini is the only and largest research done that investigated the long-term effects of aspartame intake, and did that according to valid scientific protocols. What you say is your OPINION about Ramazzini and that's not an argument to remove it. And let me quote the Misplaced Pages meaning of ] here:
:''A controversy or dispute is a commencement of a conflict between statements of accepted fact and a new or unaccepted proposal that disagrees with, argues against, or debates the accepted knowledge or opinion. Controversies can range in scope from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale disagreements between societies.''
:And this is not a paper encyclopedia, there's no reason to shorten anything if it's valid. ] (]) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:The Ramazzini study had a very high statistical power due to its large population of rats (much larger than previous studies), and the Ramazzini foundation is notable and experienced in carcinogenic studies according to the NYTimes :<blockquote>While Dr. Soffritti's methods have drawn some criticism, the Ramazzini cancer lab, which is financed by private bank foundations, governments and 17,000 individual members, has earned considerable credibility since it was founded in 1971 for its pioneering research on chemicals. It was the first research body to do studies showing that vinyl chloride and the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or M.T.B.E., are carcinogenic, research that eventually encouraged the United States to strictly regulate vinyl chloride and that led 21 states to ban M.T.B.E.</blockquote> You also questionably removed a secondary source from EHP which stated that Ramazzini had a better than standard methodology; no reason for that removal is stated here. Given the letter noted in ''Science'' supporting Soffriti's research as well , there's no basis for saying that Soffriti's work is largely dismissed by scientists. Sorry, restoring until you can provide better reasons. Removing the large Ramazzini study but then keeping a survey of consumption based on very short-term consumption (1995-1996) and a relationship to cancer is, again, highly questionable -- cancer occurs over long-term exposures. Additionally, you're introducing original research. We can't editorialize that the EFSA used the reasons highlighted by Magnuson, since no sources make that connection. You've also introduced original research by saying that "a small number of scientists" think there's a connection to mental functioning, which isn't in any sources, although I don't have as much of an issue with that. ] | (] - ]) 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

::I fail to see the justification for featuring so prominently a '''primary research study''' by one group, particularly when that one group has been so roundly criticised by far more reliable sources. Perhaps those reliable oversight groups, from the US to the EU to New Zealand, are thoroughly wrong. Nevertheless, they are reliable and should carry more weight on WP than they are accorded here. Inclusion of Ramazzini, which surely represents a scientific fringe, smacks of activism, not encyclopaedia writing. ] (]) 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

::<small>(])</small> @II/Immortale: OK, all well and good, but rats aren't people. Large-scale ''human'' studies should probably be given more weight than a rat study, regardless of its statistical power. First of all, the Ramazzini section as written is nearly unreadable. More to the point, we read ten paragraphs about a rat study, and then a few offhand sentences describing huge studies involving hundreds of thousands of ''humans''. That's a canonical violation of ] (''"Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."'') I'm not saying the Ramazzini study should be excised - it seems to have a notable place on the topic - but its coverage needs to be brought into line with ]. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I excised the Ramazzini section because of concerns about its encyclopaedic nature (or lack thereof); it had degenerated into an out-of-control back-and-forth. It could certainly stay in the article, but preferably with some of the changes I suggested, all of which were removed by Immortale/II. ] (]) 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

::::"rats aren't people"... That's a good one. I know you haven't made it up yourself because I recognize it from industry propaganda, but according to you we can ban all rat studies and ignore all results, negative or positive, in all scientific research. Scientists use rats because they are very similar to people. I even recognize a few on this page. The cancer study was a poll conducted with people between ages 50 to 69 during 5 years, where they examined only 2 types of cancer with aspartame intake. The details of the results were not published. Dr. Soffriti replied with his expertise that addressed the shortcomings of this poll, despite the large number of participants. But this was removed from the article. Also Adrienne Samuels replied with a letter to the editor about its flaws. To name one: "Estimates of aspartame consumption were based on reports of beverage consumption. Chewing gum, pharmaceuticals, and foods listed by the Aspartame Information Center as containing aspartame were not considered for either supposed aspartame users or non-aspartame users." After all the other severe flaws Samuels stated, the letter ends with: ''To claim that their findings "are in direct contradiction with ..." is deceptive and misleading.''
::::If any other large independent research of Ramazzini's magnitude doesn't show tumors in rats, it can replace it. Until then it has to stay. ], read the history, I hadn't removed any of your edits, but I disagree with all of them. ] would be rolling in his grave if he could see how you use ] and manipulate language to propagandize the safety of aspartame. ] (]) 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::I'm sorry, I haven't been very active on this page - Immortale, is this the tone you typically adopt here? Do you think it's served you well thus far?<p>I didn't propose "banning all rat studies" or ignoring their results. I simply suggested that results in humans are more relevant than results in rats. I'm quite familiar with the advantages and limitations of animal models in research. Biological effects in rat models do not always translate into biological effects in humans. If you're faced with a study saying X happens in rats, then it makes sense to test X in humans. But it doesn't make sense to belabor the rat results and marginalize the human results when they don't agree - that's back-asswards at best, and blatant ] at worst.<p>This sort of reminds me of the ] article. Despite numerous large clinical studies showing that abortion does not cause breast cancer, an editor continually insists on prominently featuring and describing the rat study from 1980 which gave rise to the hypothesis. I doubt this is the first time someone's mentioned this, but ]. If you honestly feel the need to label anyone favoring human studies over rat studies an "industry propagandist", then consider whether Misplaced Pages is the best venue for what you hope to accomplish. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

::::::If you think that a 2-year survey of aspartame consumption is a reliable indicator for its carcinogenicity of long-term exposure, then I'm afraid I've overestimated your common sense. There's a reason that the 13 scientists who wrote the recent letter to the FDA (PMID 18085058) take the rat results much more seriously than the "human" study. It's not back-asswards. As (who's been working on cancer since 1980 at the NIH) notes in PMID 18085059, there haven't been any good human studies, and Ramazzini's study was state-of-the art. Huff has more discussion on using animal studies as an indicator for cancer in that paper. For example, he says "3) all known human carcinogens that have been tested adequately in animals are also carcinogenic in the animals,6,8 almost without exception sharing identical target sites6,13; and 4) nearly a third of human carcinogens were first discovered in animals". ] | (] - ]) 00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Again, I think this misrepresents my position. I get it: 13 scientists, including James Huff, whose expertise I respect, have concerns about the safety of aspartame. That is notable and belongs in the article. A well-conducted rat study by the Ramazzini Foundation suggested carcinogenic potential - that's notable and belongs in the article. What I object to is ''prioritizing'' the rat study over the human studies which have shown no additional risk.<p>I get it - James Huff doesn't think the human studies were adequate. Perhaps his view should be noted, but to give ten paragraphs to a rat study (even a state-of-the-art rat study), and a few throwaway sentences to large human studies is ], and more basically, it doesn't make sense. I can tell you that in my own field, if I went on at length about elegant rodent studies and minimized the human trials because of their methodologic shortcomings, you'd get a very misleading impression of what we can accomplish.<p>A minor quibble - you cite Huff to lecture me that "all known human carcinogens that have been tested adequately in animals are also carcinogenic in the animals." Leaving aside the word "adequately", parse that sentence carefully. It does not say that all known ''animal'' carcinogens are carcinogenic in humans. That's a subtle but rather relevant distinction. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rats != humans despite the "13 scientists" and James Huff's agenda-driven points. ] (]) 00:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:Oh, right. James Huff (who has spent his entire career studying cancer risks on a researchers' salary), as well all the other NIH and university scientists on that letter, have an "agenda" while the heavily-weighted Magnuson study, financed by Ajinomoto and led by a woman who works for Cantox Internaional, a company which helps clients "facilitate timely regulatory global approval", has no agenda worth mentioning. Coke has even flown Magnuson around to promote aspartame . And yet those who point to special interest lobby are "fringe" and "agenda-driven". I wonder how I could see life through your perspective. This kinda reminds me of those "fringe" Chicken Littles on the economic crisis (Roubini, Krugman, Shiller). ] | (] - ]) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

::I don't see evidence that James Huff has any "agenda" beyond advocating what he sees as good science. And I do tend to be suspicious of industry-sponsored research. It's probably best not to go down this road, at least not outside the realm of sourced material on agendas and biases that would be appropriate for the article. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:::It's worth noting that Magnuson ''et al''. was published in a manner that at showed some deference to concerns of industry bias: This obviously won't convince many people, but for those (like me) who have generalized concerns regarding industry-funded research, it is a step in the right direction. &mdash; ]'']'' 01:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see ] making 19 edits and deletions in 1 and a half hour, some of them within one minute, while some editors here worked on it for weeks. Equally interesting, is that all serious edits and deletions were done in parts that were critical towards aspartame. And then you wonder why less and less people take Misplaced Pages serious these days. ], I rather see good scientific research on rats than a flawed poll on humans. And don't forget the 7 monkeys in the Olney study, presented by Searle, where 2 died and 5 received grand malseizures. ] (]) 21:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:As I mentioned above, mouse studies tend to be more "elegant" and methodologically impressive than human studies. That's because you can put a rat in a cage, feed it exactly what you want, and then sacrifice it for necropsy. Most humans aren't quite as pliable, so human studies will always look "flawed" from that perspective. Still, it would be a great mistake to dismiss "flawed" human studies in favor of "good" rat studies. The reason is that not all biological effects in a rodent model translate into biological effects in humans.<p>I see we've gone from a few hundred rats to 7 monkeys. All I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe, we should give as much space to studies involving 12,000 or 460,000 ''humans''. Does that make me an industry propagandist? ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

::Immortale, I visited this article after a query was placed on the reliable sources noticeboard about a source being used here. The manner in which the query was worded raised some flags for me. After looking through the article, I felt that a strong emphasis was being placed on selectively interpreted primary sources. In the case of some of the sources I ended up removing, the claims being made did not square at all with the contents of those sources. If you perceive my edits, which have mainly insisted on reliable sources and proper weight, as being slanted, perhaps this perception is instructive of your own point of view. My own opinions on aspartame are largely restricted to my intense dislike of its taste. ] (]) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell, the Cancer study is flawed not because "Most humans aren't quite as pliable" but to use the letter by Adrienne Samuels about this study:

''''''
Adrienne Samuels
<snip>
Then it doesn't matter if there were 12 000 or 12 million people involved. It doesn't prove anything. ] (]) 23:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:This is kinda what I'm talking about with regard to ] and ]. You cite a critical letter to the editor. Did you look at the authors' ? It was published on the immediately following page. The authors performed a number of the analyses that Samuels demanded, none of which showed evidence of harm from aspartame. It seems a bit one-sided to produce a letter-to-the-editor to show that the study "doesn't prove anything", without mentioning that the authors addressed many of the criticisms on the very next page of the journal. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Adrienne Samuels is hardly some impartial researcher working in the field...her doctorate is in experimental psychology, and her entire PubMed body of work appear to be various letters-to-the-editor--like the one above--that support her general activity as an . This doesn't make her wrong, of course. However, it does temper any suggestion that her opinions are of sufficient note to warrant coverage in this article. &mdash; ]'']'' 01:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

::I appreciate your responses MC, but really, the authors are still ''way'' of line speculating that their study is "in direct contradiction with Soffriti's". The argument isn't whether consuming aspartame for a few years, even in large amounts, substantially increases the risk of cancer. The authors cite some evidence for consistent dietary patterns, but considering that the consumption of aspartame-sweetened soft drinks has exploded in recent years, it's not really convincing. Consumption of aspartame would likely increase with age as diabetes and weight become more of a problem. When aspartame was approved in 1981 (not for use in soft drinks), these people were at least 22. Anyway, I'm surprised that you're so impressed by the study, which is pretty disappointing science. ] | (] - ]) 01:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I agree it's not in ''direct'' contradiction to Soffriti's. It's entirely possible that both are correct - that aspartame as administered by Soffriti et al to rats causes cancer, while aspartame as consumed by the respondents to the survey does not. It's possible that the study doesn't reflect ''current'' consumption patterns. On the other hand, these appear to be the best available human data. Better and more recent data would be nice, but Misplaced Pages isn't the place to demand it, really. We're kinda stuck with what's available here. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::I think the section should be deleted. It really is too long per ]. Frankly, all of the studies can be summed up in a couple of paragraphs. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:::At the acceptable risk of being thought to mimic MastCell, it ''is'' possible that both studies are correct. A major difference between the two for WP purposes is not, as II seems to assume, whether I or MastCell or Immortale agree or disagree with the results or the conclusions of one or the other, but rather the demonstrable fact that multiple national agencies and numerous individual scientists have published studies and statements rebutting the Ramazzini study. Yes, the NCI study has its drawbacks, as MastCell and II have shown. But it has not been the subject of a similar level of worldwide criticism by experts. On WP, the conclusions of scientists forming a national regulatory body are to be given more weight than the conclusions of a single laboratory. And all the more so when multiple such agencies come to the same conclusions.
:::Of course, we can synthesise the conclusion that all of these national bodies, along with many individual scientists, have been subverted by industry bribes or threats. Without reliable sources to support this claim, though, it has no place on WP.
:::The weight problems in this article and the ongoing debate demonstrate why we, as editors, are discouraged from evaluating primary research studies on our own when writing the encyclopaedia. Let's make a renewed effort to follow ], and specifically its suggestions on primary and secondary sources. ] (]) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::::] uses as argument "the conclusions of a single laboratory", but he deleted a couple of references I added to articles more recent than the Science article, with the reason "Don't need these; the additional references are those covered by the Science news item, which is more easily accessed and fairly reliable". That article was published in July 2007, one month before the publishing of the second study by Ramazzini Institute (August 2007). The online unavailability of the articles i cited there (''' in ''' and '''James Huff, Joseph Ladou. (2007). Aspartame Bioassay Findings Portend Human Cancer Hazards. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 13(4), 446-8. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from ProQuest Medical Library database. (Document ID: 1386523321)''') can't be a reason to ignore those: they're available to the scientific community. The Calcutta University study i cited down here, in a specific section, confirms the risks, so I believe that the situation is changed. The national regulatory bodies should have more weight in the discussion if they only made some comments about these studies, but i can't find a single comment from them since July 2007. (] (]) 13:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

== Synthesis and failed verification ==

I removed a sentence from the aspartame byproducts section. Four primary sources were used to synthesise a claim that aspartame intake is dangerous to infants or children because methanol potentiates the effects of excitoxins. As far as I can tell, the first, second, and fourth sources are about glutamate, while the third source is about chronic methanol consumption in rats. These sources do not support the claim, so I have removed it. My detailed reasoning follows.

"One group was concerned with potential effects in infants and young children"...citing an essay by researcher JW Olney from 1990.
"small-to-moderate spikes on plasma excitotoxin levels" again citing an Olney paper, this one from 1994. I do not have access to the full text of these dated pubs, but they seem to be about glutamate receptors, and I'm not sure how relevant they are here, nor how much weight we should be giving to this one researcher's work. In any case, the rest of the paragraph is pure synthesis:

"the potential dangers of combining formaldehyde exposure from aspartame with excitotoxins given that chronic methanol exposure increases excitoxin levels in susceptible areas of the brain"
*The first citation is a study of rats that receive 2g/kg/day of methanol. Since methanol comprises 10% of the breakdown products of aspartame, this is roughly comparable to 20g/kg/day of aspartame, assuming that all of the aspartame is broken down: 500 times higher than the ADI established by world health authorities. You would have to drink about 10 000 cans of diet soda in a day to get this sort of intake. The authors cite a monkey study in which methanol exposure does not cause pathology. The study does not mention aspartame and is being used here to synthesise a conclusion.
*The second citation is a study of rat retinal segments exposed to 1 millimolar glutamate in the presence or absence of various glutamate transporter inhibitors. Glutamate, while similar in properties to aspartate, is not the same thing. The study mentions neither methanol nor aspartame. It seems to have in common with some of the other studies cited here only an author, JW Olney, and it really has nothing directly to do with the topic of this article. ] (]) 19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

== Tag removal ==

The deletion discussion included recommendations that fringe science be trimmed, through bold edits if necessary. I feel that recent edits, including mine, have achieved this goal or at least moved the article towards appropriate balance. I propose that the POV tag be removed. An article on a controversial topic such as this will never be completely acceptable to the conspiratorial-minded and other editors who espouse fringe viewpoints; this is however not a valid reason for maintaining a POV tag. ] (]) 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

== Verrett, Gross, and Bressler ==

The last edit removed a couple sources on Verrett and Gross's testimony. My impression is that Verrett and Gross were senior toxicologists (Verrett certainly was a toxicologist for the FDA, likely, as she says, from 1957-1977 -- see ) on the task force reviewing 3 of the 15 studies noted in the article, which I believe was headed by another FDA scientist, Jerome Bressler. Generally the burden is on the remover of a source to show that it doesn't support its claims. However, there's a problem (according to Keepcalm - I haven't been able to double-check) with failed verifications on this article, so we can keep this out until someone verifies it directly. These sources can likely be found in the Congressional Record with the provided information or, for the book, through an ILL from WorldCat. Copies, which are almost certainly but not positively genuine, are on the internet . Basically these two people say that management ignored the scientists (Gross, Verrett, and Bressler) and created a whitewash summary when they said the errors were inconsequential. These FDA scientists are an important, notable part of the conspiracy theory and at some point will need to be noted in the article. ] | (] - ]) 18:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:I have no objections to including the two former FDA officials' testimony in the relevant section. I object only to placing their stated opinions on equal footing with the FDA's organisational conclusions in the lead--whether those official conclusions are part of the approvals and reviews or summarised (on the FDA's website) in the FDA's publication as cited. Without secondary sources reviewing their testimony, we don't know if these officials' objections were significant, whether they were simply disgruntled former employees, or anything else.
:With multiple national and international scientific and regulatory bodies, including the FDA, stating that aspartame is safe, even after (and in detailed and careful response to) the release of the Ramazzini studies, it's a gross violation of ] to place these primaries in the lead. ] (]) 19:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

::I certainly agree about putting them in the lead. And there isn't as much secondary coverage as one would think aside from WNHO et al. ''The Ecologist'' ran an article on it , and ] covers it in her book . ] | (] - ]) 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

== FDA Consumer ==

Re: the most recent edit-war over citation of '']'' in the lead: it seems to me that ''FDA Consumer'' is a reliable source for describing the conclusions of FDA's scientists - after all, it is a journal published and presumably vetted by the agency. It seems tortuously legalistic to write: "The FDA's magazine reported that the FDA's scientists said that..." I agree with II that the date (1999) should be mentioned as important context. Just write "In 1999, FDA scientists described aspartame as..." and source to ''FDA Consumer''. That seems pretty straightforward. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:Indeed. That's completely fine; it's too bad I didn't think of it. ] | (] - ]) 19:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

::Agreed. The relevant passage from the publication is:
::''...the safety of another artificial sweetener, aspartame, is clear cut, say FDA officials. FDA calls aspartame, sold under trade names such as NutraSweet and Equal, one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved. The agency says the more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population.''
::Clearly, these are not simply the opinions of Jon Henkel, and, particularly as they appear on the FDA website in its own publication without disclaimer, are reasonable representations of the FDA position. The FDA's stance also has not changed since 1999, at least according to statements from the FDA as recently as 2006 in response to the Ramazzini studies...which the FDA promised to examine more closely, while noting that its own research did not indicate problems. ] (]) 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:::We don't know whether the FDA officials would be so bold as to say its safety is so clear-cut today, after the Ramazzini studies. To cite that Henkel's article as "The FDA states" is misleading. They did recently dismiss the Ramazzini studies in a press release, but they didn't release a detailed report (the detailed report came from the EFSA). Henkel's reporting reflects his research, and it's not quite the same as an official statement from the FDA, so I think it's misleading to say attribute his article as an official FDA statement. What I just added was an official FDA statement. ] | (] - ]) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::We actually probably ''do'' know. "Aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food" is a distinctly unequivocal statement... &mdash; ]'']'' 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Regarding the Henkel article, it states:<blockquote>...the safety of another artificial sweetener, aspartame, is clear cut, say FDA officials. FDA calls aspartame, sold under trade names such as NutraSweet and Equal, one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved. The agency says the more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population"</blockquote>This clearly indicates that ''FDA officials'' and ''FDA'' are of the opinion that aspartame's safety is "clear cut" and "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved", respectively. We can properly assert this in the article--adding the date of publication is entirely reasonable. I don't know what is so controversial about this... &mdash; ]'']'' 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

::::"FDA Consumer: Published online between 1989 and 2007". That's quite impressive to publish such a journal online before modern internet came to existence. John Henkel signs his article as "John Henkel is a staff writer for FDA Consumer." Not as a spokes person for FDA. So that's ]. Then Henkel writes this: "''In 1996, a study raised the issue that aspartame consumption may be related to an increase in brain tumors following FDA's approval of the sweetener in 1981. But analysis of the National Cancer Institute's database on cancer incidence showed that cases of brain cancers began increasing in 1973--well before aspartame was approved--and continued to increase through 1985. '''In recent years, brain tumor frequency has actually decreased slightly.'''''" Now comes the interesting part, in another issue of FDA Consumer, : "'''...In the United States, about 100,000 cases of brain tumors are predicted for 1996, almost double the number of just a decade ago...'''" "'''... The incidence of brain tumors, both primary and metastatic, appears to be increasing worldwide, especially among the elderly, and no one is sure why...'''" There are many other studies done during those particular years that show a rise in cancer, such as:
::::In 1999, the National Cancer Institute looked at the trends in childhood cancer between 1975 and 1995. They found a "statistically significant" rise in the occurrence for brain and other central nervous system cancers. They wrote: "For brain and other central nervous system cancers, incidence rose modestly, although statistically significantly…" —Linet MS, Ries LA, Smith MA, Tarone RE, Devesa SS, "Cancer surveillance series: recent trends in childhood cancer incidence and mortality in the United States" J Natl Cancer Inst 1999 Jun 16;91(12):1051-8
::::That same year, the International Journal of Health Services published a report in which they stated that the "rising childhood cancer rate represents a far more serious problem in the United States than previous reports have suggested." "From the early 1980s to the early 1990s, the incidence of cancer in American children under 10 years of age rose 37 percent, or 3 percent annually. There is an inverse correlation between increases in cancer rates and age at diagnosis; the largest rise (54 percent) occurred in children diagnosed before their first birthday. Rates rose for all 11 states and cities included in the analysis. A jump in cancer rates for children born in 1982-83 was followed by a drop; but another abrupt rise for the 1986-87 birth cohort has been sustained thereafter. Results indicate that the rising childhood cancer rate represents a far more serious problem in the United States than previous reports have suggested…" —Mangano JJ, "A rise in the incidence of childhood cancer in the United States" Int J Health Serv 1999;29(2):393-408
::::The FDA is corrupt and . ] (]) 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::I got as far as your first citation of policy (]), which struck me as completely off-base. ''FDA Consumer'' is an official magazine of the FDA, and hence for all intents and purposes is on the same footing as a spokesperson's words. We're not citing ''FDA Consumer'' to document the incidence of brain tumors. The literature you mentioned would be a better source for those numbers. We're simply citing ''FDA Consumer'' as accurately conveying the conclusions of that agency's scientists.<p>Playing is a popular Misplaced Pages (and national) pastime, and in some respects justifiable, but it has no bearing on this particular content issue. You probably realize this, since you carefully worded your final sentence to minimize the fact that the criticism dealt with regulation of medical devices, not foodstuffs. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Sadly, I read the whole screed. I haven't the desire to go dig up actual numbers, but it's easy to see Immortale's claims, while presented as refutation of the maligned ''FDA Consumer'' assertion, have at-best tangental bearing.
::::::*''FDA Consumer'' claim: brain cancer incidence began increasing in 1973 (before aspartame was approved) and continued to increase through 1985; aspartame was targeted as a possible reason, but brain tumor frequency decreased slightly between that assertion and the 1999 publication.
::::::*The second article claims an increasing worldwide incidence; this seems perfectly congruent with the first claim--brain tumor incidnece had climbed over the course of a decade, perhaps leveling off in the last years of said decade.
::::::*A rise in ''childhood'' cancers, modest (CNS) or surprising (overall), is a separate beast that doesn't appear to counter anything claimed in the first point. I doubt the largest rise, ≤1 year, has much practical relation with aspartame.
::::::*Whether the FDA scientist letter leads to anything concrete will be an interesting and important thing to watch; the confidence working-level FDA scientists and medical experts is very important to me. However, its relevance to a decade-old claim or the 34-year-old aspartame approval is unclear (beyond ]).
::::::Also, I can't help but note that dismissing some FDA claims, because they apparently don't suit your position(s), and accepting others, because they apparently do, seems a touch...disingenuous. &mdash; ]'']'' 23:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

== Recent changes to lead ==

The conclusions in the cited article, do support the statement that
a small number of scientists hypothesize that aspartame could ... cause some forms of cancer

and not only in rats. Sofritti et al. concluded that aspartame had caused the treated rats to get more cancers than the control population, but also said
The results of carcinogenicity bioassays in rodents are consistent predictors of human
cancer risks (Huff 1999; Rall 1995; Tomatis et al. 1989). The results of our study
therefore call for an urgent reexamination of the present guidelines on the
use and consumption of APM.
The citation supports the statement that the authors '''hypothesize''' that aspartame could cause cancer '''in humans''', (in addition to supporting the unstated assertion that the authors '''concluded''' that aspartame causes cancer '''in rats'''). Therefore, I have removed the phrase "in rats" from that sentence, which is now as ] last left it.

Of course, if the researchers were hypothesizing that aspartame might cause cancer only in rats but not in humans, the entire phrase "or cause some forms of cancer in rats." ought to have been left out as irrelevant to a presentation of the controversy over aspartames affects on the health of humans (the topic of this article).

Since every word of this article has become contentious, I feel it might be necessary to give a very careful explanation of the meaning of each rewording, as well as justification for the support of appropriate references. <s>This</s> ''My edit of this sentence'' does not mean that I either support or challenge the cited Sofritti study, merely that I wish this article to convey <s>its</s> ''the study's'' significance to the ongoing debate. --](]) 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
:I disagree with your recommended changes. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
::I think it is useful to hash these things out. Please be as specific as possible on why you disagree with the deletion of the words "in rats" at the end of the first paragraph of the lead. --](]) 19:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
:::It is in rats. It's NOR to conclude that a rat model can be translated to humans. It is one study, that I would consider deficient in so many ways, one of which is that numerous other studies don't come the conclusions it did. In fact, I'd delete both sentences as violating ]. This has been discussed and decided many times. Why do we have to converse about it again.] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
::::If there weren't '''controversial''', it wouldn't be in '''aspartame controversy'''. I'm certain the lead needs some major rearranging. I think it is fair to say that the aspartame controversy was FIRST about claims that the route to FDA approval was irregular, and that there were some unanswered questions about the Searle studies, SECOND about the contents of the Betty Martini letter and its Nancy Markle offspring (with references to Roberts and ???), and THIRD about the recent Ramazzini studies and rebuttles.

::::I may be pruning branches while the orchard is burning, and there may be some questions about undue weight, but if we aren't going to delete the entire sentence, "in rats" should go. It misrepresents the position of a minority party in the controversy. --](]) 19:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

:Part of the problem is too much reliance on ]. We should avoid ] journal articles into a thesis that nobody has made in a reliable secondary source. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

::Tom, You're right. I prefer primary sources. But even I know that's not always best. Newspapers, "Sweet Poison", (?)
::Now, to attend to the forest instead of the branchlets on the trees. I'm not bold enough to replace the lead without discussion, so here's a go at it, in my own namespace: ] --](]) 21:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted by Orangemarlin, which in my opinion can only be explained with bad faith, absent-mindedness or lack of reading comprehension after clear explanation of the problem by SV Resolution. Sorry for the language. I have no opinion about this controversy, the quality of the study, or whether it should be included here. But misrepresenting sources is never acceptable and I remind everybody here (just in case others on either side are similarly negligent, this article being new on my watchlist) to show some diligence not to do it. --] (]) 12:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree with Tom's removal of the contentious material from the lead, allowing the article to present the much-criticised study in proper context in a later section. ] (]) 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

== methanol to formaldehyde...or formate? ==

There seems to be some confusion about whether methanol metabolism proceeds as methanol-formaldehyde-formic acid or MeOH-formate-formaldehyde. The former is correct. See for a simple description. ] (]) 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

== Activists? ==

In the section "Approval in the United States" it says: "Soon after the approval, scientist and anti-] activist ] and James Turner, a public-interest lawyer who had written a popular anti-food additive book". I suggest we label the scientists who have made pro statements as "pro aspartame activists". Labeling a scientist as an activist is POV because I'm sure it's not mentioned on his job description. That Turner wrote the book "A Chemical Feast", a critical evaluation of certain food additives, and then calling it an anti-food additive book is also a POV statement. If I would start calling those who wrote pro aspartame articles as "pro food additive articles" then no one would hesitate to remove such edits. And I'm sure it would be tagged as POV. There are many more double standards in the article, but this is what I just spotted. ] (]) 11:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
: This comment is highly ] and not a true representation of the facts. Scientists with a clear bias should be labelled as it is relevant information, scientists who have campaigned or opined on related topics outside of their research should be so labelled. Labelling scientists who have simply conducted research and published their findings as pro or anti is not fine. The difference is "scientist and activist" and "scientist". ] <small>]</small> 11:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
:: How are people with 'activist' tendencies appropriately labeled? Based on the nature of their talks? Based on their extroverted personality types? Are they just speaking about their results too much, and not helping others replicate their experimental results? Do they use ad-hominem attacks? After all, stastitics have shown that 20% of activists were actually justified in their activism, because they were right after all :-) ] (]) 13:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

::Verbal, when you write: "''Scientists with a clear bias should be labelled as it is relevant information, scientists who have campaigned or opined on related topics outside of their research should be so labelled.''" So when B. A. Magnuson gets big bucks from Ajinomoto to compile a review of an amount of studies, then go on a world-wide tour paid by Coca-Cola, to promote the safety of aspartame, she is not considered bias? Either you apply your rules on all scientists, or none at all. ] (]) 18:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Olney and Turner are both activists in addition to being, respectively, a scientist and a lawyer. This isn't an attack on either, merely a relevant fact. When a scientist campaigns against a particular food additive in the popular press and by lobbying the government as a private citizen, he has become an activist. It's not uncommon in science, nor unwelcome, for scientists to feel so strongly about their research findings--or their interpretation of their research findings--that they become active outside the normal bounds of scientific discourse. This is quite clearly the case for Olney, as demonstrated by the sources in the article. On the other hand, your accusation against Magnusson is one of impropriety: namely, that Magnusson accepted bribes to come to a pre-determined conclusion, subverting scientific ethics. Without reliable sources for this defamatory comment, you are venturing onto thin ice, in terms of both ] and ]. ] (]) 19:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

::::I'm not talking about bribes, I'm talking about a fat salary that Ajinomoto paid consultant Bernadene Magnuson with The Burdock Group (Burdock's slogan: "To find out more about how we can help bring your product to market quickly and effectively, contact Burdock Group today for a complimentary consultation." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Aspartame_controversy/Archive_1#Industrial%20sponsored%20research). These are not well-kept secrets, and sourced in respected peer-reviewed journals and we have discussed this before to include its sponsor in the article. That her publicity tour was paid by Coca-Cola was no secret either. She even admitted it while being on New Zealand television: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/2096071 ] (]) 19:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: I concur with Keepcalmandcarryon. Your continued smear, without any evidence, is not helping your case and is pushing the limits you have already been made aware (''warned'') of. ] <small>]</small> 19:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Am I the only one who reads here? I cited hard evidence. But your association with "smear" indicates that you disapprove of such tactics as Magnuson has exercised. And I take your warnings with a grain of salt, coming from someone who has cited references with opposite conclusions. ] (]) 00:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::"The authors received payment from the Burdock Group during the preparation of an expert review of the safety of aspartame. The Burdock Group managed the independent review, which was financially supported by Ajinomoto Company Inc., a producer of aspartame." (from Magnuson & Williams' in Environ Health Perspect. 2008 June; 116(6): A239–A240) (] (]) 13:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

== Aspartame and consumer associations ==

My has been reverted because of a non-neutral-view reason. I just added references to the fact that FDA has not yet considered the last Ramazzini study, nor the European Authority has done it officially in Internet available notices.
Another information I added is that not only "internet conspiracy theories", but also some consumer associations (i omitted the italian ones, like http://www.inran.it/, as cited in one of the main italian consumer magazines, "il Salvagente", 21-28 june 2007) did published warnings about aspartame.
These are facts, and i cited sources about it, that's not my point of view, but the official position of noted organizations. I don't think wikipedia should argue about their specific "political" point of view, but just provide facts from "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (NPOV).
I also tried to correct the confusion about the discussion of the articles published by Ramazzini, because the section is referred (with so much detail!) only to the reactions to the first study, and nothing there is related to the second study.
(] (]) 21:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Hi, i just tried to explain the reasons of my edit to the in the Aspartame controversy page. I think that what's happening now in the dispute about aspartame should be actualized, considering both the reactions of the market to the study and the reaction of Consumer Organizations, not only the scientific reviews, leaving to the reader the decision about being favorable or not.

That is what is in discussion now on some important newspapers about aspartame, and i cited the relative references.

Moreover, the last available study on aspartame make some claims, and it has been published in '''september 2007'''. From a scientific perspective i think the whole section has a non neutral POV: the claims reported are a mix of considerations about the first and the second study, and only one of the cited articles has been published after the publishing of the second study: that one has been answered by Soffritti in the cited reference<ref name=Magnuson2008/>(not shown in the html version of the article, but in the ), and clearly states that the authors (Magnusson & Williams) received financial support by an aspartame producer. (] (]) 09:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

:Moved from my talk page--I do not discuss articles on my user talk page. Moreover, I have no clue what you're saying. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 15:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

:: Does it mean I can undo the deletion? I'm just trying to understand why my edits were considered not neutral.(] (]) 22:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

::Dear Orangemarlin, here we are asking in detail the reason for . As simple as that. Can we undo the rollback? If not why? --] (]) 15:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:::The Science news item is a prominent secondary source for the statement that some individuals supported the study's conclusions. It is easily accessible. It mentions the letter to the FDA by Huff and others. I simply don't see the justification (see ]) for adding additional sources to this statement, especially when they are less reliable, obscure primary sources. ] (]) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: I'm talking about a study published in August 2007 and the reactions to it, you're talking about an article published in july 2007. How is it possible, in your opinion, to consider it a collection of conclusions about that article? Why remove the information about the warnings officially published by a consumer association instead of discussing here about the deletion? I can't understand why an Encyclopedia should remove informations about the only public information published after some magic date, stating that somewhere in a cited source in some note everyone can find the hidden information (NPOV:Space and balance:Information suppression) (] (]) 16:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

:::::The Ramazzini group published two papers on their first study in 2006. They published a paper on a second study in 2007. This paper was published online in June of 2007, then in print in September of 2007. The Science news item about James Huff and other scientists who expressed concern based upon the Ramazzini studies was published in August of 2007. This follows the on-line publication about the second study. In addition, specialists are often aware of the conclusions of upcoming publications before they are published (as a result of personal communication, conference attendance, etc.). There's no date contradiction here.
:::::When we have a reliable source for information, there's no need to add additional, less reliable, lower-impact, less easily-accessible sources unless we have a good reason for doing so. In this case, I don't see what that reason would be, other than perhaps to advance a viewpoint beyond the weight it commands in the literature. ] (]) 19:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Sorry it was my fault, i didn't double check the dates (and contents). What to do about the unanswered claims of consumer associations and their advices? What's puzzling me then is why to list the Magnuson and William's letter reasons and not the answers given by Soffritti et al. 2008 or the letter by Davis et al. 2008. These are my two unanswered questions now. (] (]) 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
:::::::Again, ]. Yes, there are people who think aspartame is a genocidal conspiracy. Yes, there are some scientists who feel it may pose a health risk. So far, the balance of the scientific evidence does not seem to support these concerns, so the article should not be a repository of all references (letters and articles in journals, consumer websites, etc.) that oppose aspartame. We should cover the controversy, give some representative references and avoid giving undue weight to the minority position. It appears to me the article does this. ] (]) 00:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

== University of Calcutta ==

Anyone has access to the full text of , Bandyopadhyay A, Ghoshal S, Mukherjee A. Drug Chem Toxicol. 2008;31(4):447-57? In the abstract they affirm a potential health risk. (] (]) 22:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
:See ]. Thanks. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 19:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:: It says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The NPOV adds: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Misplaced Pages. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, '''all significant views''' that have been published by '''reliable sources'''". Maybe in your opinion the review Drug Chem Toxicol. is not a reliable source (see )? Reliable doesn't mean accessible online by everyone, isn't it? Anyone has access to the printed version of that article or to the online versione to write here, in the discussion page, and maybe in the aspartame controversy page, a resume of it? (] (]) 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
:::Are you asking for a copy of the article? It's copyrighted, and available by subscription only. Are you proposing that it be used as a source for some claim? If so, what? ] (]) 00:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I just asked for a resume, not for the article. I've just found new information and i would like some informed people could add something instead of adding it myself. It seems there are some experts in toxicology here, so i asked for a contribution. Is it strange? The article abstract is a '''reliable source''' or not? Has it been added to the aspartame article before? Do you think we should wait for a secondary source before writing anything in wikipedia? (] (]) 18:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC))
:::::All significant views do not include fringe views. If 10,000 articles say aspartame is safe, and one implies something different (and in a non-human model), then we're not going to discuss it. If you can find several researchers across the world, all repeating the same results, then we can have that discussion. Right now, this is a fringe theory. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Waiting for a secondary source is preferable to interpreting primary findings, particularly when one doesn't have access to the primary findings. ] (]) 20:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, keep on deleting every primary source, following the ]. My citation of an EPA revised study has been totally by Keepcalmandcarryon (because the use of the term "confuted" 'was a bit strong' for an article proving that the claim of FDA and Magnuson was not based on scientific data) in the same line citing the last Magnuson article "Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven". That is not a revised article, just a letter, and it has received no citations in scientific revised studies. It's just the opinion of a scientist in COI. Peer-reviewed articles ARE NOT PRIMARY SOURCES! So please stop deleting important sources showing what's really thinking the scientific community! Is it really impossible to discuss such facts here? Hiding sources means ignoring what are the Misplaced Pages policies:<br />- "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" <br />- i can't understand why Orangemarlin is talking about fringe theories, but "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." <br />- "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles". In the list following "Reviews of the Ramazzini claims found numerous problems with the study" to ignore such an important study as that made by EPA (there are others, check google scholar) is a clear attack to its scientific reliability ]<br />- to increase NPOV of this page, "Misplaced Pages articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources." ]<br />- "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." ]<br />all these policies are ihmo for inclusion of J. C. Caldwell, J. Jinot, D. DeVoney, J. S. Gift, , Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, Volume 49 Issue 2, Pages 155 - 164, Published Online: 19 Dec 2007, and for the removal of Magnuson 2008 (Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven) (] (]) 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC))
::::::::::::Again. ]. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 01:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I support Orangemarlin's trimming of the Ramazzini section, which was clearly getting out of proportion and becoming a POV ].
:::::::::::::On "Peer-reviewed articles ARE NOT PRIMARY SOURCES! So please stop deleting important sources showing what's really thinking the scientific community! Is it really impossible to discuss such facts here?": Peer-reviewed articles are indeed primary sources unless they are reviews, i.e. secondary sources. Misplaced Pages is ]; that's what the primary literature is for. The Ramazzini studies became notable via coverage in secondary sources; response from the mainstream scientific community is warranted under WEIGHT; further back-and-forth using very low-impact journals is not. ] (]) 21:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

== Sweet Misery - A Poisoned World ==

Can someone explain to me why http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-566922170441334340 is not suitable as a related link?

:Because of ]. In other words, it's cruft, not befitting an encyclpedia. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 06:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this an entry on "Aspartame controversy" ? as such shouldn't references and sources that pertain to that 'controversy' be admitted? No one is saying that everything in the documentary is true, merely that it exists and is relevant to the entry "Aspartame controversy". For you to say that it is 'cruft' smacks of original research. I am going to put the reference in the article as it *is* indeed relevant to "Aspartame controversy". ] (]) 07:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

:I agree that the link to a professional documentary that is about the ASPARTAME CONTROVERSY belongs in an article about the ASPARTAME CONTROVERSY. Besides that, the documentary contains interviews with a variety of people who are mentioned in the article. Very informative for anyone who wants to know more about the ASPARTAME CONTROVERSY. And the link is valid according to Misplaced Pages policy (meaning that every link to google video or youtube is judged per case) ] (]) 19:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

== GAO87 - recommended reading - Other sources? ==

I would like to ask editors working this page to read GAO,‘HRD-87-46
It is available here : http://archive.gao.gov/d28t5/133460.pdf
I plan to add information from that document and from the hearings and testimony surrounding the failed 'The Aspartame Safety Act of 1985' as proposed by Howard Morton Metzenbaum. I have thus far not been able to find the transcripts or text of that Act and any help would be greatly appreciated.
I would also like to ask everyone involved to stay calm and avoid making hasty deletions without discussion on this page, thank you.] (]) 11:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

:Government hearings are not reliable sources per ]. A simple mention of the hearings is sufficient. The last thing I want is politicians deciding medical and scientific conclusions. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 16:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


== Meta analysis about research outcome related to industry funding ==
Well, that is pretty much exactly what has happened, the original experiments that were submitted in 1973/4 were found to be 'deficient' which led to the original marketing ban. The taskforce and UAREP reviewed the experiments and found them to be problematic to the degree where the task force questioned Searles ability to conduct research into the safety of their products. The FDA taskforce and the UAREP were charged with 'authenticating' the experiments, which in this context simply means that the data that searle had on file matched the data that they submitted to the FDA in the first place. From the GAO87: (the 1975 taskforce found) serious deficiencies in Searle’ operations and practices which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’ integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine or characterize the toxic potential of its products.” and They(the 1975 taskforce) believed the FDA should conclude whether the results from a study could be used in evaluating a product’ toxic potential. So basically in spite of these discrepancies : The PBOI used its authority to refuse Mr. Turner’ request for a retrospective quality review of Searle’ studies because it believed CFSAN and UAREP had already resolved those questions.
How had they 'resolved' those issues? From the GAO87: In carrying out its review of the aspartame studies, UAREP noted that when the Searle studies were performed (1970’ few standards for laboratory work were required. Therefore, UAREP stated it reviewed the studies using methods and interpretation common to research laboratories around 1970. I don't know if that included rolling up and dropping acid or not but it certainly does not inspire the greatest of confidence. The GAO87 lists numerous discrepancies for EACH of the experiments and while it states that individually these discrepancies did not result in statistically significant differences.. yet from the GAO87: Hazleton Laboratory performed the Multigeneration Rat Study reviewed by UAREP. UAREP noted “the consumption of aspartame was from 25 to 38 percent lower than planned at certain stages of the study.” However UAREP found “fewer discrepancies or problems in this study than in most of the other studies reviewed.


I would like to add a few meta analysis about aspartame and the research outcome in relation to industry funding. It seems odd to me that nearly every industry funded study is in favor of aspartame while most independently funded studies are not. Any objections to include these meta analysis in the article?
Based on the above outlined 'authentication' and apparently the 'persuasive Japanese Brain study' Commissioner Hayes overruled the PBOI and allowed Aspartame in solid foods.
https://lightenyourtoxicload.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Dr-Walton-survey-of-aspartame-studies.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015869/
--] (]) 08:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


:I moved your thread to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads go. It increases the chance other editors will see it. ] (]) 09:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
GAO87 states:
:{{u|Mikeschaerer}} also, your first link seems incomplete. However, lightenyourtoxicload.com seems unlikely to be a ]. ] (]) 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
However, GAO did not evaluate the interpretation of the scientific issues
::{{u|Mikeschaerer}} - I made at the Aspartame article. The "lightenyour..." source is not ], and the PMID 27606602 review is ] for aspartame itself, but rather is a review of bias in research. In my opinion, it doesn't meet ] as an "aspartame controversy". ] (]) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
raised or the adequacy of FDA'S resolution of issues on the studies used
:::{{u|Zefr}} Could you elaborate why the source "lightenyour..." is not compliant with ]. Also what about this review? http://www.laleva.org/it/docs/Millstone_EFSA_Aspartame_9Jan2014.pdf --] (]) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
for aspartame’ approval, nor did it determine aspartame’ safety
::::The "lighten..." source has no bibliographic information, such as when/where it was published, whether it was peer-reviewed, etc., so remains without ]. For an encyclopedia, we need high-quality reviews by authoritative sources, ]. - mentioned in the first sentence of the Millstone paper (which also has no bibliographic info) - states, as does the FDA, that there is no concern about the safety of aspartame. These are acceptable ] sources, which confirm there is no scientifically-validated "controversy". --] (]) 14:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Well, for one, there are at least 17 peer-reviewed citations (in publications considered good enough for Google Scholar) for the Malton study dismissed here as "unlocatable", at least half of which are affirmative citations:


:::::On the other hand, while PMID 27606602 *IS* a general review of sweeteners, this peer-reviewed source (which is ]) also goes into detail on the aspartame controversy, on why the peer-reviewed article considers the methodology of the FDA *AND* the EFSA seriously flawed in regards to aspartame, both in how aspartame was originally introduced and in how studies corroborating harm of aspartame are dismissed as supposedly unsound, and cites a number of scientific and peer-reviewed sources who agree on that both the FDA and the EFSA exhibit gross disregard for proper methodology on the issue.
Also:
According to the department lawyer on the panel, the Commissioner
could not use the Japanese study as support for aspartame’ approval.
In his decision, the Commissioner stated he had sufficient evidence to
make a final decision and the Japanese study merely provided addi-
tional support for his conclusion


:::::FYI, the EFSA themselves officially consider any critiques of their methodology as entirely irrelevant and not even worthy of serious consideration or any cause for self-criticism, by virtue of simply calling them just "reviews, presenting no new scientific evidence" or mere "opinion pieces": (see ''Appendix 1: Papers considered by the Organising Team but not included in the Report'', pp. 58-62). In other words, the EFSA doesn't give a damn about methodology, they just need an excuse to only support studies funded by aspartame manufacturers and industry utilizers. Their other trick, as openly outlined in the 2009 report, is to declare any peer-reviewed study corroborating harm and its observed biomolecular paths of action which they can't explain away with "flawed methodology" (on which they are critizized by all the above considerable sources as mentioned in the peer-reviewed ''PLUS One'' article) as "just anecdotal", no matter the amount of case studies presented in the given peer-reviewed source or the sound plausability of the biomolecular observations in accordance with what is scientifically known for certain about molecular biology in regards to the aspartame-related components and substances discussed (such as ]s of aspartame after it's been broken down by the human organism, for instance).
Basically what all this points to is that Aspartames access to the market is based on the acceptance of flaws found in 15 studies initially submitted to the FDA in 1974. This is truly mind boggling, and looks to be a matter of public record. I am looking for the transcripts of Metzenbaum et al for more sources, I would also be very interested in finding out exactly what happened to the proposed bill.
] (]) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


:::::In short, all of this reeks strongly of the grave misconduct in regards to the other industry-sponsored supposed remedy to caries and obesity, which was ] that led to phenomena such as ] (see photos for it in the ] article, namely the "severe" cases), where supposed caries resistance was a trade-in for considerable other damage to human teeth integrity, bone structure, the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, and thyroid (see the general article on ] on that), and where all criticisms of it from within the scientific community and research into it was for a long time considered some laughable "conspiracy theory" supposedly related to the ]. --] (]) 18:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
:"Finding out" on your own, even if you use government documents to do so, is difficult to do successfully without overstepping some basic Misplaced Pages guidelines such as ]. In controversial articles such as this one, it's always best to edit using independent coverage of the events in secondary sources. ] (]) 18:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


== death ==
== one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved ==


Here is a 16 year study reported by the New York Times.
Does anyone have a near exhaustive list of these tests?<br />
Does anyone know why the PBOI was 'compelled' to base its judgment on no more than 3 studies regarding oncogenicity?<br />
Does anyone have a link to the Japanese brain study which apparently is so persuasive? {{unsigned|Unomi|08:35, 8 March 2009}}<br />] (]) 16:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/health/diet-soda-health-death.html?searchResultPosition=1
:I don't understand why the pro-aspartame people use the statement "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" in their defense. You know what the most thoroughly tested additive is (non-food though)? Nicotine. And if you didn't know it, that's not safe either. ] (]) 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


::Please remember that the talk page is not to be used as a discussion forum. ] (]) 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC) ] (]) 13:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
: That is hardly usable here. Let's look at the title and a few sentences from the article. They tell us that this is a very general study not applicable to Aspartame specifically.
{{quotebox|
Death by Diet Soda?


A new study that links artificially sweetened beverages to premature death is prompting public angst. Some scientists say it has significant flaws.
:::Don't make me report you, Keepcalm, the sentence "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" is in the lead of the article and I and Unomi question its validation. Don't come to my talk page lecturing me about not using wikipedia for discussions. This is a valid issue for the article. ] (]) 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:::: It is attributed to a ]. Stop being disruptive. ] <small>]</small> 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


... a new study that found prodigious consumers of artificially sweetened drinks were 26 percent more likely to die prematurely than those who rarely drank sugar-free beverages.
== Latest edits by keepcalm ==


The study, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, followed 450,000 Europeans over 16 years and tracked mortality among soft-drink consumers of all persuasions — both those with a fondness for sugary beverages and those who favored sugar-free drinks.}}
is rather uncalled for.
: The rest of the NYT article also refers to "other research in the United States has found a correlation between artificially sweetened beverages and premature death." Again, not specific to Aspartame and the number of confounders is enormous. The lifestyles of people who tend to drink large amounts of soft drinks, sugary or otherwise, isn't good, so there is no surprise here. Are large quantities of artificial sweeteners not good for our health? Probably. Large quantities of junk food and empty calories are not good. Large quantities of unsweetened fruit juices isn't good either. When free from the slowing effects of their natural fibers, they assault the pancreas and can cause blood sugar spikes. Any diabetic knows this. Too high a percentage of even "natural" sugars in the diet isn't good, and one can get far too much compared to what one would get just eating fruit as is. It's hard to "overdose" on apples or oranges in their natural state. {{;)}} The stomach can only hold so much at a time. -- ] (]) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
<br />
Line 8 : ''serious deficiencies in Searle’ operations and practices which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’ integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine or characterize the toxic potential of its products.”'' That is a DIRECT quote from the FDA 1975 Task Force. You can find it on page 83 of GAO87
<br />
''Significantly Three of the five panel members reviewing the brain tumor issue did not believe Searle’s studies conclusively showed aspartame did not cause brain tumors.'' This is stated directly in GAO87, it is notable and important in terms of underscoring the controversy.
<br /><br />


== Removal from the alternative medicine navbox ==
Of 67 scientists who responded to a 1987 questionnaire by the US GAO, all but twelve were "generally" or "very confident" in the safety of aspartame. 26 said they were "somewhat concerned" and twelve had "major concerns" about aspartame's safety.
<br />
VS
<br />
In 1987 a questionnaire was sent to 96 researchers by the US GAO, of the 67 respondents 43 claimed to be involved in Aspartame research and 26 claimed no aspartame research experience. Of the 43 researchers that had Aspartame experience 9 had 'Major concerns; little if any confidence in aspartame's safety', 12 were 'Somewhat concerned' and 20 'Few if any concerns' 2 did not respond to the question. Of the 26 with no claims of Aspartame research 3 had 'Major Concerns', 12 'Somewhat concerned' and 9 'Few, if any concerns'. Of the 67 respondents 32 indicated that further action should be taken, this ranged from 'require additional warnings or quantity labels' (22 respondents, 15 of which claimed Aspartame research experience), to 'Withdraw the approval for use of Aspartame in any food product(10 respondents, 7 of which claimed Aspartame research experience).
<br />
Which one would you say conveys the most meaningful information? Please note that the 'middle case' reads 'I am somewhat concerned about the safety of Aspertame; I am generally confident in the safety of Aspertame' which kind of makes me glad that the GAO doesn't consider itself scientifically competent. The washington post article is not generally accessible, the GAO87 is and it would seem that WP gathers the information, it is used to source here, from the GAO87. I will endeavor to recreate the tables from the GAO87 for this article in the future, leave the detailed questionnaire summary in the interim.


@]
<br />
NutraPoison and Sweet Misery are relevant in terms of highlighting the controversy, please note that they are not used as sources, they are not 'endorsed' simply topic relevant links. <br />


The navboxes have long included a variety of topics related to alternative medicine, including general controversies, purported poisons, or related people. ] (]) 13:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I am going to undo your deletes, please discuss here before deleting in the future. Thank you.


:Possibly. However, given that Misplaced Pages isn't a reliable source, inclusion of an 'alternate medicine' navbox in an article on aspartame would seem to require a better justification than that. Can you point to sources that describe aspartame as an 'alternative medicine'? ] (]) 14:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:If anything it goes the other way: don't make additions (especially slanted ones) without discussion. The burden is on the one who adds the material to justify it. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::Would you then also suggest the removal of ], ], ], ], and ] from ]? Because like ], those articles also don't directly mention "alternative medicine", per-se. ] (]) 14:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:::I would suggest you answer the question I actually asked. Citing external ] sources that describe aspartame as 'alternate medicine'. ] (]) 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Here are a couple: <ref>{{Cite book |last=Leader |first=Dr David |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8z88CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA19&dq=alternative+medicine+aspartame&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVvvj8l4X5AhXEJ0QIHXExDVQ4ChDoAXoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=alternative%20medicine%20aspartame&f=false |title=The Alternative Medicine Cabinet: Your Reference Guide to All-Natural Self Care |date=2015-06-30 |publisher=Lulu.com |isbn=978-1-4834-3257-1 |pages=19-20 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Bowling |first=Allen C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-qt0qjtyzqQC&pg=PA79&dq=alternative+medicine+aspartame&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWn8K6moX5AhWvDkQIHfqzDroQ6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q=alternative%20medicine%20aspartame&f=false |title=Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Multiple Sclerosis |date=2010-04-20 |publisher=ReadHowYouWant.com |isbn=978-1-4587-5343-4 |pages=79-83 |language=en}}</ref> ] (]) 14:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::I asked for ] sources stating that aspartame is an alternative medicine. As far as I can see, neither of the sources you cite states anything of the sort, instead (correctly) describing it as an artificial sweetener. I also doubt either would meet ] criteria anyway. ] (]) 15:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::I think you misunderstand: the ] is about aspartame being called a poison by alternative medicine practitioners. I also don't see why those sources would fail ]. ] (]) 15:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::No, it is (amongst other things) about aspartame being called a poison by conspiracy theorists. Some may well be alternative medicine practitioners, a great many clearly weren't. And I'm sure, given the scope of 'alternative medicine', there are practitioners who have no opinion about aspartame, one way or another. ] (]) 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::::That's reasonable; so it will stay with conspiracy theories but not alternative medicine. ] (]) 15:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


:::Comment: WP considers (at least atm) altmed and ] to be pretty much the same, so vaccine stuff fits pretty well IMO. Aspartame is less obvious, I think, afaik it isn't used to treat patients. In the past there have been discussions at ] that concluded that the sidebar didn't fit there. ] (]) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I have justified it, please read the section you just posted to. If you take objection to my justification, discuss it here. What makes you say it is 'slanted'?
::::Well in this case vaccine hesitancy and aspartame controversy are both recommended by alternative medicine practitioners, so the topics should equally qualify for the navboxes. ] (]) 15:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


I would like to the take the opportunity and propose the removal of ], ], ], and ] from the alternative medicine navboxes for the same reason as was given aspartame in this discussion. ] (]) 15:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing 'slanted' about it, it reflects the information in the GAO much closer than what you have reverted to. Both lines that you seem to take objection to are DIRECT QUOTES FROM GAO87. The rewriting of the section regarding the questionnaires is much more accurate than it was before.


:This is the talk page for the aspartame article, not the alternate medicine navbox. ] (]) 15:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, if you choose to delete my edits please leave cogent explanations. Thank you.


{{reflist-talk}}
:Advice regarding original research was left above and, it would seem, ignored. Regarding the external links, please see ]. ] (]) 21:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


== new link ==
Please be specific in regards to what it is you consider Original Research. I added 2 direct quotes from GAO87 and I included detail from source regarding the questionnaire data. Where is the 'original research' ? ] (]) 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


here is an interesting link.
In regards to the external links please see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_to_be_considered #3
Again, the external links are not used as source, they are directly relevant to 'Aspartame Controversy'. ] (]) 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:Please see ]. As for your external links. Not worthy of discussion. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


https://www.endalldisease.com/aspartame-linked-to-leukemia-lymphoma-in-groundbreaking-study/ ] (]) 17:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I truly cannot see what it is about using direct quotations from GAO that makes you consider it Original Research. Please be specific.
Also, 'not worthy of discussion' is mighty poor form. Obviously a documentary regarding 'Aspertame Controversy' is relevant to 'Aspertame Controversy'. ] (]) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


:Nothing remotely relevant to article content: see ]. ] (]) 17:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
:Please see ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] for good measure. Oh, and you're approaching ]. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:12, 10 July 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSkepticism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

To-do list for Aspartame controversy: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2012-03-11


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : Scientific publications -- weak Gone --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Alleged conflict of intrerest prior to 1996 -- should this be merged into discussion of approval?
  • Expand : Why the US approval process caused controversy
    • Charges of COI in DOJ handling of FDA's Fraud allegations against Searle.
    • Charges of COI in hirings of 6 FDA personnel (described in GAO 86 report to Metzenbaum)
    • Studies by Olney and others dismissed.
    • Expand and integrate the timeline in the article
    • Charges of COI when new FDA commissioner overturned unanimous decision of PBOI
    Senator Metzenbaum's role in returning the controversy to the news. Why the Ramazzinni studies contribute to the controversy
    • Allegations of COI in industry-funded critiques of Soffritti studies
    ...
  • NPOV : Remember that parts of this article that deal with medical safety follow WP:MEDRS and should rely on secondary sources and must reflect the preponderance of medical opinion, while other parts of this article that deal with historical, social, legal, etc. aspects explain the controversy should rely on secondary sources as much as possible but are not subject to WP:MEDRS.
  • Verify : Different types of sources are appropriate to different sections of this article.
Priority 1 (top)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL


Meta analysis about research outcome related to industry funding

I would like to add a few meta analysis about aspartame and the research outcome in relation to industry funding. It seems odd to me that nearly every industry funded study is in favor of aspartame while most independently funded studies are not. Any objections to include these meta analysis in the article? https://lightenyourtoxicload.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Dr-Walton-survey-of-aspartame-studies.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015869/ --Mikeschaerer (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I moved your thread to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads go. It increases the chance other editors will see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Mikeschaerer also, your first link seems incomplete. However, lightenyourtoxicload.com seems unlikely to be a WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Mikeschaerer - I made this revert at the Aspartame article. The "lightenyour..." source is not WP:RS, and the PMID 27606602 review is WP:OFFTOPIC for aspartame itself, but rather is a review of bias in research. In my opinion, it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT as an "aspartame controversy". Zefr (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Zefr Could you elaborate why the source "lightenyour..." is not compliant with WP:RS. Also what about this review? http://www.laleva.org/it/docs/Millstone_EFSA_Aspartame_9Jan2014.pdf --Mikeschaerer (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The "lighten..." source has no bibliographic information, such as when/where it was published, whether it was peer-reviewed, etc., so remains without WP:V. For an encyclopedia, we need high-quality reviews by authoritative sources, WP:MEDASSESS. The 2013 EFSA assessment of aspartame - mentioned in the first sentence of the Millstone paper (which also has no bibliographic info) - states, as does the FDA, that there is no concern about the safety of aspartame. These are acceptable WP:MEDRS sources, which confirm there is no scientifically-validated "controversy". --Zefr (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, for one, there are at least 17 peer-reviewed citations (in publications considered good enough for Google Scholar) for the Malton study dismissed here as "unlocatable", at least half of which are affirmative citations:
On the other hand, while PMID 27606602 *IS* a general review of sweeteners, this peer-reviewed source (which is PLOS One) also goes into detail on the aspartame controversy, on why the peer-reviewed article considers the methodology of the FDA *AND* the EFSA seriously flawed in regards to aspartame, both in how aspartame was originally introduced and in how studies corroborating harm of aspartame are dismissed as supposedly unsound, and cites a number of scientific and peer-reviewed sources who agree on that both the FDA and the EFSA exhibit gross disregard for proper methodology on the issue.
FYI, the EFSA themselves officially consider any critiques of their methodology as entirely irrelevant and not even worthy of serious consideration or any cause for self-criticism, by virtue of simply calling them just "reviews, presenting no new scientific evidence" or mere "opinion pieces": Report on the meetings on aspartame with National Experts, 2009 (see Appendix 1: Papers considered by the Organising Team but not included in the Report, pp. 58-62). In other words, the EFSA doesn't give a damn about methodology, they just need an excuse to only support studies funded by aspartame manufacturers and industry utilizers. Their other trick, as openly outlined in the 2009 report, is to declare any peer-reviewed study corroborating harm and its observed biomolecular paths of action which they can't explain away with "flawed methodology" (on which they are critizized by all the above considerable sources as mentioned in the peer-reviewed PLUS One article) as "just anecdotal", no matter the amount of case studies presented in the given peer-reviewed source or the sound plausability of the biomolecular observations in accordance with what is scientifically known for certain about molecular biology in regards to the aspartame-related components and substances discussed (such as metabolites of aspartame after it's been broken down by the human organism, for instance).
In short, all of this reeks strongly of the grave misconduct in regards to the other industry-sponsored supposed remedy to caries and obesity, which was dental fluorosis that led to phenomena such as Colorado brown stain (see photos for it in the dental fluorosis article, namely the "severe" cases), where supposed caries resistance was a trade-in for considerable other damage to human teeth integrity, bone structure, the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, and thyroid (see the general article on fluoride toxicity on that), and where all criticisms of it from within the scientific community and research into it was for a long time considered some laughable "conspiracy theory" supposedly related to the Red Scare. --46.93.153.58 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

death

Here is a 16 year study reported by the New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/health/diet-soda-health-death.html?searchResultPosition=1

Claustro123 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That is hardly usable here. Let's look at the title and a few sentences from the article. They tell us that this is a very general study not applicable to Aspartame specifically.

Death by Diet Soda?

A new study that links artificially sweetened beverages to premature death is prompting public angst. Some scientists say it has significant flaws.

... a new study that found prodigious consumers of artificially sweetened drinks were 26 percent more likely to die prematurely than those who rarely drank sugar-free beverages.

The study, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, followed 450,000 Europeans over 16 years and tracked mortality among soft-drink consumers of all persuasions — both those with a fondness for sugary beverages and those who favored sugar-free drinks.

The rest of the NYT article also refers to "other research in the United States has found a correlation between artificially sweetened beverages and premature death." Again, not specific to Aspartame and the number of confounders is enormous. The lifestyles of people who tend to drink large amounts of soft drinks, sugary or otherwise, isn't good, so there is no surprise here. Are large quantities of artificial sweeteners not good for our health? Probably. Large quantities of junk food and empty calories are not good. Large quantities of unsweetened fruit juices isn't good either. When free from the slowing effects of their natural fibers, they assault the pancreas and can cause blood sugar spikes. Any diabetic knows this. Too high a percentage of even "natural" sugars in the diet isn't good, and one can get far too much compared to what one would get just eating fruit as is. It's hard to "overdose" on apples or oranges in their natural state. The stomach can only hold so much at a time. -- Valjean (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal from the alternative medicine navbox

@AndyTheGrump

The navboxes have long included a variety of topics related to alternative medicine, including general controversies, purported poisons, or related people. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Possibly. However, given that Misplaced Pages isn't a reliable source, inclusion of an 'alternate medicine' navbox in an article on aspartame would seem to require a better justification than that. Can you point to sources that describe aspartame as an 'alternative medicine'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Would you then also suggest the removal of Big Pharma conspiracy theories, Oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis, Vaccines and autism, MMR vaccine and autism, and GMO conspiracy theories from Template:Alternative medicine sidebar? Because like Aspartame controversy, those articles also don't directly mention "alternative medicine", per-se. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest you answer the question I actually asked. Citing external WP:RS sources that describe aspartame as 'alternate medicine'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Here are a couple: Altanner1991 (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I asked for WP:RS sources stating that aspartame is an alternative medicine. As far as I can see, neither of the sources you cite states anything of the sort, instead (correctly) describing it as an artificial sweetener. I also doubt either would meet WP:RS criteria anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand: the Aspartame controversy is about aspartame being called a poison by alternative medicine practitioners. I also don't see why those sources would fail WP:RS. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
No, it is (amongst other things) about aspartame being called a poison by conspiracy theorists. Some may well be alternative medicine practitioners, a great many clearly weren't. And I'm sure, given the scope of 'alternative medicine', there are practitioners who have no opinion about aspartame, one way or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
That's reasonable; so it will stay with conspiracy theories but not alternative medicine. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: WP considers (at least atm) altmed and Pseudomedicine to be pretty much the same, so vaccine stuff fits pretty well IMO. Aspartame is less obvious, I think, afaik it isn't used to treat patients. In the past there have been discussions at Chemtrails that concluded that the sidebar didn't fit there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Well in this case vaccine hesitancy and aspartame controversy are both recommended by alternative medicine practitioners, so the topics should equally qualify for the navboxes. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to the take the opportunity and propose the removal of Oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis, Vaccines and autism, MMR vaccine and autism, and GMO conspiracy theories from the alternative medicine navboxes for the same reason as was given aspartame in this discussion. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the aspartame article, not the alternate medicine navbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Leader, Dr David (2015-06-30). The Alternative Medicine Cabinet: Your Reference Guide to All-Natural Self Care. Lulu.com. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-1-4834-3257-1.
  2. Bowling, Allen C. (2010-04-20). Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Multiple Sclerosis. ReadHowYouWant.com. pp. 79–83. ISBN 978-1-4587-5343-4.

new link

here is an interesting link.

https://www.endalldisease.com/aspartame-linked-to-leukemia-lymphoma-in-groundbreaking-study/ Claustro123 (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing remotely relevant to article content: see WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Categories: