Talk:Aspartame/Archive 4

Banned in Venezuela?
Is aspartame and products containing it banned in Venezuela? I came across this report while doing a search TickleMeister (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is not true. Venezuela banned Coca-Cola Zero because they claimed it contained sodium cyclamate, an artificial sweetener that is banned in the U. S.  TFD (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. TickleMeister (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweet Misery
It seems someone even made a film about the safety issues of this chemical. It's not even mentioned in the article, although IMDB has a page. I found mention of it in this other video. A quote from that video is interesting: ''Dr. Ralph Walton, a professor of psychiatry at Northeastern Ohio University’s College of Medicine, recently did a survey of aspartame studies. He found, that the results of industry sponsored research turned out very differently from the non industry sponsored studies. "I looked at the medical literature, addressing the safety of aspartame. I found 164 studies. 74 were funded by the Nutra Sweet industry. Every single one of them attested to the safety of aspartame. Of the 90 independently funded studies, 83 identified a problem."'' TickleMeister (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this film doesn't meet WP:MEDRS requirements for commenting on aspartame's safety.Yobol (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't, but you must be careful not to misunderstand what MEDRS is all about. That policy dictates what sources are required for medical information. If you want to insert a medical fact into an article, let's say "3% of pregnant women suffer pre-eclampsia", then you need to back that up with a MEDRS. But if you want to state that there is a controversy over a chemical, and part of that controversy included the making of a movie, then that's a completely different issue, more one of notability. TickleMeister (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then referencing the movie would seem to me more appropriate for Aspartame controversy, then?Yobol (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably, although we do have a small section on the controversy in this article too. TickleMeister (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The movie doesn't even meet WP:RS standards. Verbal chat  07:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

University of Hull study
The study by the University of Hull (see BBC report)should be out in early 2011. Perhaps we need to add it to the page. TickleMeister (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In early 2011, when it's published, we probably should. Verbal chat  07:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, I'll put it into my calendar. TickleMeister (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit protected
Please replace Equal with Equal ( Equal ) in the first sentence of the marketing section. -Atmoz (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This has now been done. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Source request
A new user has pointed out that "Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision. It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hayes then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hayes later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame." is unsourced, over at New_contributors'_help_page. It should be sourced or removed, and one of those should happen soon per WP:BLP (assuming the people involved are still alive). Verbal chat  20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like this has been introduced by a single-purpose account in march. This editor only ever made this one edit so I don't think s/he will provide a source, but I'll leave a message on Njm121's talk page anyway. If nobody finds a reliable source, this needs to be fixed once the article is unproctected again.--Six words (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * After a bit of googling it looks like the passage was taken out of this freezerbox magazine article. Being a verbatim quote of the freezerbox article without any attribution, it's a copyright violation, so it cannot stay in the article like this. I also doubt that freezerbox can be considered a reliable source. --Six words (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to be at the New York Post as well Also, a lot of the early history of aspartame is covered in a NYT article that could be more used in our article  TickleMeister (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this perhaps the original source, a student of Dr Hayes'? TickleMeister (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it is not the original source because it does not mention the voting process. Clearly Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. approved aspartame but there are no reliable sources to show that the approval followed anything but normal procedure.  TFD (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, we have this from the NYP (link above): "The FDA refused to approve aspartame for more than eight years because of health concerns. Aspartame's manufacturer, G.D. Searle, hired former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld as its CEO in 1977. He promised to get aspartame approved via political connections. In 1980, a public board again voted to keep aspartame off the market. That ban was eventually overruled by Arthur Hull Hayes, the new FDA commissioner. In 1983, the chemical was approved for use in soft drinks despite the objections of the National Soft Drink Association. Hayes resigned a few months later, eventually taking a job with p.r. firm Burson-Marsteller, which represented aspartame's manufacturer. After hiring Rummy, G.D. Searle went from $28 million in the red to $120 million in the black, according to PBS's "Frontline."" So this all comes from the PBS program. Is it viewable online? TickleMeister (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The exact description of the voting is in the book Millionaire & Healthy. You can see it here. The voting on the Commission is also discussed in this book Moral Issues in Business ...There may be more if you have time to look. TickleMeister (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you took a look at the dates of publication you'd see that the freezerbox article predates the NYT article and "Millionaire & Healthy", so if their article has the exact same wording, that really only means that they either copied the freezerbox article, or the freezerbox article itself copies another source without proper attribution and so do the others. Tto copy&paste copyrighted material isn't allowed, so even if it's been done in other articles, too, this section has to be removed. From what I see in the voting isn't discussed in "Moral Issues in Business" (the part you linked to doesn't say so and searching for 'aspatame+vote', 'aspartame+voting' get 0 hits, 'aspartame+commision' gets none that is relevant).--Six words (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold on, the wording in the "Millionaire and Healthy" book is not the same as the freezerbox article, so I don't think they are related at all. TickleMeister (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't check it as I read your comment to mean it had the same wording (that's why I said "if their article has the exact same wording"). I don't think the book even meets WP:RS, but the claim that Hayes brought in a sixth person to the commission so he could overturn the panel's decision is a serious accusation, therefore it requires exceptional sources.--Six words (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Six words. TickleMeister (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the key issues are that Hayes broke the deadlock with his vote, and later worked for a company linked to the aspartame manufacturer. Are these the data points we need to get sourced? TickleMeister (talk) 01:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We can establish via NYT that (1) Hayes approved aspartame and (2) he then moved on took a job as senior medical consultant for Burson-Marsteller, a public relations agency that represents Searle. The minutiae of votes and impropriety may be more tricky to establish, but by working my way through the archives of this Talk page, I see the whole story was originally published in a UPI report. Trying to find it.... Here's a quote from the archive: What we do know is that numerous HHS/FDA officials involved in aspartame's approval received lucrative positions in related industries/companies. For example, Hayes was reported to receive $1,000 per day from Burson-Marsteller. In addition, a UPI investigative piece reported that NutraSweet Co. paid Burson-Marsteller up to $3 million a year for PR services. One other tidbit from the piece: "But a former Burson-Marsteller employee, who requested anonymity, said Hayes was hired precisely because of his decision on NutraSweet and other issues affecting company clients." TickleMeister (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody disputes that Hayes approved aspartam. That's what the article said before march and that's what it'll say next month, it's all about the current wording that insinuates the decision was "fixed". I don't think we need to cite a source headed "Sweetener wories [sic] some scientists"; this article was published in 1985, since then multiple peer-reviewed publications have addressed those worries, so it's outdated. About Hayes' job at Burson-Marsteller it also says "The company says Dr. Hayes, who is also dean of New York Medical College, has never consulted on anything having to do with aspartame or any other product he ruled on at the drug agency."--Six words (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the key things are his appointment by Rummy, casting of the decisive vote on a deadlock to approve asp., and subsequent employment by a asp-connected company. I agree that the minutiae of forum-stacking and his activities at Burson-Marsteller are of minimal interest, and poorly sourced, and should therefore not be in the article. TickleMeister (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ajinomoto funding of review study
Back to the issue of the funding by Ajinomoto of the exonerating review study through Burdock Group's selected panel. Some editors raised objections even to mentioning the funding as an attempt to blacken by "innuendo". I produced the WebMD source, adjudged ok by the RS noticebaord. Here's another source, also RS, from [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430255/ Environ Health Perspect. 2008 June; 116(6): A240] TickleMeister (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The funding should only be mentioned with appropriate context, and the source was not appropriate not for the implicit criticism you attempted to insert. Verbal chat  09:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way — that study should be mentioned once on the page, with all data attached i.e. a full description. It should not be used all over the article as an answer to all studies that raise questions, as in "Study "A" says aspartame makes your eyeballs grow hair, but another study (Ajinimoto-funded review) found no problems. Study "B" says aspartame may cause hepatic cancers in rats, but another study (Ajinimoto-funded review) found problems with the study design." ... and so on. TickleMeister (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ajinomoto sues supermarkets that ban aspartame
It should be made clear that the manufacturer is prepared to sue anyone attempting to restrict sale of the chemical. . TickleMeister (talk) 04:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Case lost, but of course they will appeal. I've added all this to the Temp page. Please take a look. TickleMeister (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're spinning that story. They weren't suing over restricted sales, they were suing for defamation. You wouldn't fault Apple for complaining should Best Buy begin a PR campaign saying "Apple is Terrible", but that's about what Asda did with their anti-additives campaign. -- King Öomie  13:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Am I "spinning" it on the Temp page? Did you bother to check? TickleMeister (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The notion that I didn't "bother" to check would indicate that that decision would have any impact on what I said, which was that your portrayal of the case on this page is slanted. As your portrayal here is that Ajinomoto sued Asda for DARING not to sell its products, rather than suing because Asda openly and publicly insulted their products, I'd say I'm correct. The temp page has nothing to do with it. -- King Öomie  16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while we're on that page, get rid of all of the instances of using "however" to link two sourced statements. That's synthesis. -- King Öomie  16:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are spinning. You should not call for others to assume good faith when you have failed to demonstrate good faith or assume good faith of other editors. Your claim that "the manufacturer is prepared to sue anyone attempting to restrict sale of the chemical" is nothing but spin. Asda's actions were in response to a competitor which was not sued and Asda did not ban the sale of aspartame, only discontinued it from is brand-line. Even though you did not the claim about who would be sued in the temp, your modification of a quote from "Asda told FoodManufacture.co.uk that it would continue to use the term 'no nasties' on its own-label products." to "Asda said it will continue calling aspartame a 'nasty.'" is absolutely spin.Novangelis (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The way it was added to Ajinomoto was also clear spin. I agree with the complaints above. Verbal  chat  17:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in to perhaps show some consensus, I feel the same way as Verbal and Novangelis. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, pile on guys, why don't you? I put this section in after quickly reading the first news report. But the more reports I read, the better I understood what Ajinomoto was complaining about, and that's reflected in the edit to the Temp page, if not necessarily here. That's where the action is. To King, I'll look at the use of "howevers". However, sometimes "however" is used properly when two studies are contrasted. TickleMeister (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just not when the 'however' is used to imply a conclusion not touched on by either source. -- King Öomie 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Study A shows X[1], however, that study was funded by Ajinomoto[2]".
 * In this example, two sources are combined with "however" to draw the conclusion that the study's funding detracts from the legitimacy of its findings. If this conclusion is reached by a third source (which must also pass WP:RS- TinFoilHats.com not welcome), that may be used, provided it's attributed as the opinion of that source, not as simple fact. -- King Öomie  16:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Straw man? I don't see that construct in the article. TickleMeister (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, it was meant as a hypothetical example. If that was in the article, I would have removed it myself ;D -- King Öomie  14:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Approval process history
I saw this report in The Guardian. It's an excellent source for data about the controversial nature of the approval process, and contains this interesting quote that echoes something I quoted from the Sweet Misery section above: In 1996 a review of aspartame research found that every single industry-funded study found aspartame safe. But 92% of independent studies identified one or more problems with its safety.

Once again, this establishes the case for identifying studies as "industry funded" if they are such. So therefore this is not me trying to introduce "innuendo" or "FRINGE" or pov, as has been claimed. TickleMeister (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which specific review is that a reference to? Is it a published study? Yobol (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't had time to look it up yet. Still reading the archives. Perhaps you can do a scan on this? Are you interested in achieving a npov page, perhaps aiming for feature article status? Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You can start here TickleMeister (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears to be from this ...doesn't come up in a pubmed search, so probably not peer-reviewed and therefore it doesn't meet WP:MEDRS (or even WP:RS, for that matter) standards. As an aside, I guess I'm confused by the methodology he's using.  In the list of "non-industry funded" articles that have an "adverse reaction" is a 1995 study done on a nerve cell line.  How exactly does a cell line have an adverse reaction?  I also find it somewhat amusing that the studies can be divided cleanly into either "safety supported" or "adverse reaction identified" categories, as if the only "safe" substance is one that doesn't have any known side effect at all...Yobol (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the study was not published in a peer reviewed journal. But it was referenced in a RS (The Guardian — see first link in this section), and it does make an interesting point about the contrast between industry funded and independent studies. TickleMeister (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because an otherwise typically reliable source publishes unreliable information doesn't make the information suddenly reliable.Yobol (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Once it's in a RS, it's ok to quote in a controversy article, with attribution. TickleMeister (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, did you know milk is a poison? Yeah, if you drink more than your body can break down before it hits your intestines, you'll feel sick! In some people, that amount can be as little as a few ounces! It really should be banned, but the corrupt FDA will never step up and do it. -- King Öomie 13:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a RS for that please add it to the article on milk. And you are sooo right about the FDA. They would never approve a harmful drug. They even nailed Vioxx before it got approved. TickleMeister (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * you gotta read between the liiines, man- check out Lactose intolerance! A widespread genetic predisposition to be sickened by milk? And symptoms stop when they stop drinking it! This is the smoking gun we've been waiting for!
 * Oh if only there was a shred of evidence to suggest Vioxx was anything more than an error. You know, as opposed to a 40-year coverup. -- King Öomie 12:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lactose intolerance you could say is the rough equivalent, for purposes of our argument, to phenylketonuria. Those are known risks. The controversy swirls around the unknown ones, or rather the reactions many people have to the chemical but who are not suffers of PKU, and the worrying finding in some studies on other issues. In fact there are some controversies surrounding milk, but it's far more complex than an intolerance issue.
 * You seem inordinately trusting of regulatory agencies. The Feb 2003 Scientific American has a piece called "Bad Medicine, Why Data from Drug Companies is hard to swallow". Some key points:
 * Companies (even the biggest ones) are massaging data to an unbelievable degree to get their drugs approved. This includes excluding data and misrepresenting data.
 * Companies pay the FDA $500,000 for each drug approved. The FDA is therefore approving more and more (useless and sometimes harmful) drugs, even when the studies supporting the drugs are clearly flawed and massaged.
 * These are not my opinions, but those of highly respected independent scientists. TickleMeister (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And you seem inordinately cynical. These two bulletpoints here- how valid were they 35 years ago? Because that's the length of the coverup we're talking about. NASA must have given them some pointers. -- King Öomie 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding a timeline graphic
It strikes me that the approval process was quite complicated, with lots of players and events, stops and starts. I suggest we create a timeline graphic to assist in understanding what happened, and when. Any comments? TickleMeister (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First you need a reliable source that documents the approval process. TFD (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, we have lots of those. I'm talking about the non-controversial aspects, of course. TickleMeister (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a better fit for the controversy article, actually. It's not especially relevant to the compound itself. -- King Öomie  14:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

POV dispute
I am finding this article extremely difficult to edit due to what I regard as a highly POV mindset in a group of editors who have this page on their watchlists. These editors seem to have decided that this chemical is harmless and safe, and all my attempts to edit in a NPOV —based on the fact that there are studies highlighting problems, and researchers expressing concerns, and people reporting adverse effects, and governments running investigations— are treated as laughable examples of the internet "hoax" about aspartame's dangers. I am treated rudely and with scorn, or with outright contempt. No attempt is made to improve the article or work in a collegial manner. Both aspartame articles bristle with inaccuracies and a pro-corporate POV. The archives show that I am not the first person to be treated like this. TickleMeister (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure how to respond to this, other than to say that your version of events is hardly news amongst editors who've tried in the past to make conspiracy theory articles more... ambiguous as to the veracity of claims. This individual was similarly not taken seriously by the other editors at the article (though nothing you've done comes close to that particular edit). -- King Öomie 14:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your version of events above; just because others disagree with your interpretation of policy doesn't mean there is a "pro-corporate POV" going on. I would favor removal of tags on both this and Aspartame controversy; just because one user doesn't get to tilt the article their way doesn't mean the article violates WP:NPOV. Yobol (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I too disagree, I have a pro WP:MEDRS and pro science attitude. Most other editors interpret things differently than you is all, and dare I say, the majority of those of us that post here and the other place that you posted this disagree with you.  This is not some sort of bias or conspiracy, it is following policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also pro-science and pro-MEDRS. I don't like the way you imply that I am not. I would suggest that allowing an industry funded review to stand in the lead, unqualified as to funding, exonerating the chemical, when there are ongoing investigations into it, shows a remarkable lack of NPOV. TickleMeister (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also disagree, and have removed the tag - after removing the unsourced and problematical statements discussed in the thread "source required" above. It might need so further copyediting. Verbal chat  20:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The archives and some recent comments supporting me here show that this is a live issue, your removal of the tag notwithstanding. Do not edit war the tag with me. I have replaced it, pending discussions and possible RfCs on the issue. TickleMeister (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder what you think about all pharmacological research, nearly everything is industry/manufacturer sponsored. Do you regard all those as biased as well ? If so, there should be a POV tag on every article dealing with some medicine..... Aspartame is probably studied in more detail as most medicines and definitely more as any other food ingredient (natural or not). It has been studied by many authorities worldwide and basically all studies show that it is safe. It may have side effects in some people, yes, but so has chocolate (allergies) or alcohol. And we are not forbidding these either... So you should see things in perspective.Knorrepoes (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not whether I regard something as biased or not, it's that the question has been raised in RSes by others. TickleMeister (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC on whether we can describe a pro-Aspartame review as "industry-funded"
The controversial sweetener aspartame was given a clean bill of health by a review study funded by its manufacturer. There are reliable claims that this compromised the study's findings (see here). Can we qualify mention of this study as "industry-funded" in the article? Some editors maintain that qualifying the study is "innuendo". TickleMeister (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by previously involved editors

 * Include - there is a significant controversy over the credibility of the industry-funded panel and their findings, and presenting the panel's findings without qualification about funding acts to conceal that fact. This gives the wrong impression that the findings are universally accepted. This is even more urgent because the panel's findings are presented in the lead in a way that absolves the chemical compound from any suspicions, namely: "A recent medical review on the subject concluded that "the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener"". TickleMeister (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, for future editors who make attempts to insert NPOV into an article about this highly profitable chemical (worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually) and face similar trenchant opposition, here is the proposed edit I linked to above as background info (and which, based on some comments here, will soon go dead, I suspect):


 * Thank you. TickleMeister (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that the review panel was composed of what some sources allege are highly compromised people. I quote: ''A reader might ask, "Is it possible for there to be an unbiased review of aspartame, made by Ajinomoto and Monsanto, where the review is funded by Ajinomoto, authors have done paid work for Monsanto, several authors have official positions in trade and research associations funded by Monsanto, Ajinomoto, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, etc., several authors work for corporate advocacy groups, one of which called aspartame toxicity a 'nonissue,' and one author who consults for companies that sell aspartame and in the past has said that aspartame is safe?" I think a reasonable answer might be, "No! Are you kidding me?!"'' From here TickleMeister (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a reliable source, nor is the website it was copied from (holisticmed). --Six words (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd go so far as to say calling these scientists "highly compromised" is probably a WP:BLP violation. Yobol (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Write to the website owner and tell him. Quoting it here is certainly no BLP vio. The same text is in TESTIMONY FOR HB2680 & SB2506 - BAN ASPARTAME IN HAWAI — a US state government document. TickleMeister (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * While holisticmed is free to say whatever they want about anyone as long as they're willing to bear the consequences, WP:BLP applies to every article on Wikipedia. Mr Gold's opinion about Ms Magnuson is irrelevant here, and none of the documents are a reliable source for what you claim (both holisticmed and his testemony are self-published sources. BTW: Hawaii's department of health opposes the bill. Their testimony concludes "The Department understands that public health would be further served if it would concentrate its efforts on the food safety inspections of the regulated community, food recalls of adulterated foods, and not the monitoring of the removal of aspartame-containing foods, which are already considered safe.").--Six words (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with Six words and Yobol. Further unsourced, poorly sourced or POV comments about living persons will be removed, as I have done with TM's BLP violations at Aspartame controversy. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Question for 6words: do we have anything about the attempt to ban aspartame in Hawaii in the aspartame articles? If not, why not? TickleMeister (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wild guess: Nobody suggested a wording to include this "attempt to ban aspartame" without giving it undue weight. Some points I think it should include would be that this was a political movement rather than a scientific evaluation (most politicians aren't toxicologists, are they?), and (of course) that aspartame wasn't banned in Hawaii. It might also include that the bill was at least in part caused by the "Ramazzini Study" that was later reviewed by the EFSA and the FDA who both found the data they were given didn't warrant the conclusions the Ramazzini Foundation had drawn. I guess the bottom line of what I am saying is this: suggest a wording that describes it neutrally, find an appropriate place for it in the article and source it properly (preferrably with reliable a secondary source). Discuss it first and gain consensus, and everyone will be happy. What do you mean when you say aspartame articles? Is there an alternative article, or are you talking about your draft at /temp?--Six words (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Exclude There is a fringe element that wishes to discredit the scientific consensus on aspartame by attacking the research and presenting criticisms from writers outside the scientific community.  Unless any of these views are published in scientific literature they fail reliability as sources.  The purpose of this article is not to provide a platform for promoting views that have no scientific acceptance.  TFD (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But I point to non-fringe people with non-fringe concerns. Just because some truly fringe people took issue with aspartame does not mean there are no valid concerns. We must not throw out the baby with the bathwater. TickleMeister (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fringe refers to "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". We should not provide any validity to those ideas in this article, or promote them  by presenting ad hominem arguments against the scientists who study aspartame.  TFD (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Straw man. There are no ad homs in this issue, AFAIK, and describing the 90+ published studies (From the BMJ 2005;330:309-31: "Other studies (a total of 91) that attest to aspartame's potential for harm can be found in an online review of peer reviewed literature") that raise concerns as "fringe" is a novel interpretation of fringe. TickleMeister (talk)
 * An ad hominem argument "is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise". That is the case here, the validity of the science is attacked by claiming that the scientists were influenced by the funding.  The source you quote is a letter to the editor in the BMJ - can you please tell us which if any of the studies to which the letter refers should be in the article.  TFD (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Exclude It is clear that the editor is trying to imply impropriety and/or that the results of the study (and any other studies that point to the safety of aspartame) are less than reliable due to their particular funding. However, no evidence from a reliable source has been provided to suggest any actual wrong doing on the parts of any researcher.  "Innuendo" is an apt term to suggest wrong doing or to cast doubt on results of the study without providing any evidence that anything was actually wrong with the study/results in question. If no actual evidence is provided to suggest that results were tampered with or are otherwise unreliable, we should not imply such with our wording, per WP:NPOV.Yobol (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to all RFC participants Please note that the link provided in the text of the RFC, that purports there are "reliable claims that this compromised the study's findings", and leads to here is a temporary page set up by the editor who initiated the RFC to flesh out his proposed edits and is not part of an actual article. Yobol (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they'll be looking at the text and sources, not the fact that it's a working page. TickleMeister (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Exclude The controversial sweetener aspartame was given a clean bill of health by an independant review study funded by its manufacturer, though the scientists were unaware of the source of funding and the funding was conducted in the usual manner for such reviews. Per 2/0, TFD and Yobol (who echos my previous comments), and per previous discussion. Verbal chat  11:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exclude per above, especially WP:FRINGE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Exclude The review in question was published in a peer-reviewed toxicology journal and confirms the findings of previous safety reviews. --Six words (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exclude I agree with the above Knorrepoes (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exclude Even if the source qualified as reliable, using it to insinuate that a particular study is tainted is an improper synthesis. Further, since a POV flag has been raised repeatedly, the working page should now be considered a POV fork, outside the parameters allowed for subpages.Novangelis (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Include Stating the disparity of findings from 'industry-funded' and non-industry-funded research is clearly of interest to the article. We don't need a MEDRS to state that, we just need to have an attributable source that makes that claim. It is not within our remit to choose sides here, simply state what is in the public record. WP:FRINGE does not strike me as a valid argument for exclusion, as 2/0 points out; This is the very reason why authors are made to disclose affiliations and funding sources. The Guardian source is valid for the quote "In 1996 a review of aspartame research found that every single industry-funded study found aspartame safe. But 92% of independent studies identified one or more problems with its safety.". John Briffa with more than 240 pieces in the Guardian alone is, at least, a 'notable commentator' and it wouldn't matter if his opinion was stated on his blog or accepted as a letter to the editor in BMJ, "This review is particularly worrying as it shows that, although 100% of industry funded (either whole or in part) studies conclude that aspartame is safe, 92% of independently funded studies have found that aspartame has the potential for adverse effects" is not MEDRS related, he is not making a medical claim out of the blue, he is commenting on published research. Unomi (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: the "research" (the actual "study", not the Guardian article) that is being quoted is self-published on a website and not a WP:RS. Yobol (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter, we aren't sourcing to the research, we are sourcing to a statement of opinion. I take it that you are fine with the Guardian bit then? Unomi (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where it already is sourced in the article? No, or I would have removed it already. Yobol (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exclude. Without a source satisfying our strict sourcing requirements for articles of this type and stating that the funding source improperly prejudiced the study's conclusions, this is inadmissible. It's pejorative and, potentially, a BLP violation to boot. Of course, that Ticklemeister, Unomi and several additional editors abuse Wikipedia as a soapbox for fringe causes such as aspartame conspiracy theories is reason enough for me.
 * Thanks for taking time out from denying the existence of AIDS to attack me and another editor. I feel honoured. TickleMeister (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Concerns about industry are not irrelevant. The latest EHP issue notes that the debate about banning asbestos has been tainted by industry consultants such as ChemRisk and Exponent (consulting firm) who are really no different than the Burdock Group. The group of scientists renewing the call for the ban of asbestos include some of the same scientists who recently raised questions about aspartame, a group which includes highly qualified oncologists without any financial conflict of interest. This page currently omits any discussion of the scientist opponents of aspartame and claims that the health risks are entirely unfounded, while the aspartame controversy page allows for only a short paragraph, which , in a startling outright violation of neutrality, tried to delete twice (second attempt). I can't be accused of trying to hype the problems with aspartame: in addition to noting the anti-aspartame scientist perspective, I wrote the pro-aspartame substantive criticism of the "Ramazzini" study which these concerns are based on (diff) and personally am not overly concerned with the substance. This brings up the question, however, as to whether we should similarly treat asbestos as being "debatably harmful" and secondhand smoke as being "harmless" simply because these industry-funded contractors have dominated the literature. Unfortunately, we aren't scientists and probably no one here (with the exception of myself to a rather limited degree) has done much analysis of the primary literature which these statements are being based on. So it is very easy for us to get a skewed impression by a couple biased reports from secondary sources. II  | (t - c) 18:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I, and, I would assume, other regular contributors have more than a passing familiarity with the scientific literature on aspartame. Based upon this familiarity, I agree with most reviewers and regulatory authorities that the scientific literature does not currently support the adverse side effects claimed for aspartame, whether by a small number of scientists or by conspiracy theorists. Please note that this does not prove in any way that aspartame is truly harmless. It may indeed be quite harmful to human health. However, our role as Wikipedia editors is to reflect current knowledge about the subject, and current knowledge is that aspartame is safe. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not our job to suppress controversy and disagreement within the scientific community. We must report the true situation, which is that there is disagreement, with the majority opinion currently saying that it is generally safe at recommended intake levels. We can do all that, and still report the negative findings. We are not here to SELL the chemical. Or are we? TickleMeister (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop insinuating that other editors are acting based on a commercial bias. It is a violation of the policy against personal attacks.Novangelis (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by previously uninvolved editors
Exclude per WP:VALID and WP:PARITY. Sources of funding in medicine (and, I assume, studies of food additives in general) are a legitimate and sometimes grave concern, (ref) but sourcing is required. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This MEDRS refers to an internet source that hosts these pages : industry funded studies and independent studies. I'm sure someone here will find a way to exclude this on a technicality though. TickleMeister (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: That's not a MEDRS, it's a comment on a MEDRS. The author's reply to that comment describes the "internet source" quite well: "[...]an online review of studies on aspartame that merely lists study number and funding sources without any scientific content or systematic review."--Six words (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By definition, it's published in the BMJ, is therefore part of the medical literature, and is available via PubMed, and is covered by MEDRS. The review in question, done by an academic medical professor, is widely referenced on the internet, and is cited in a MEDRS-acceptable source, as we see above. The fact that this article turns a blind eye to it is troubling. TickleMeister (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're wrong. A key feature of MEDRS is that they are peer-reviewed - letters and comments aren't. Even if this comment was an acceptable source, that wouldn't automatically turn the sources it cites into acceptable sources. Did you even bother to look at this "review" properly? By that I mean did you do more then count "positive" and "negative" outcomes? Frankly, I'm not surprised Dr Walton couldn't get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, as apart from being no more than a list sorted by year/funding, it's not even an accurate one. Sorry to say that, but it looks like you're willing to use any source, as long as it confirms your opinion. Don't tell me you'd want to use that "review" if it said most of the "non-industry funded" were in favour of aspartame (I still wouldn't, because in my eyes it's rubbish). Above you say you're a scientist - please act like one. You probably know about the different levels of evidence (if you don't you can find a comprehensible introduction to the subject here). If there are reviews or even meta-analyses, then expert-opinion, case-studies and unblinded tests just won't suffice. Your reason for editing this article (being a self-identified sufferer of aspartame-headaches) makes you biased - it's possible to stay neutral on such subjects, but it's pretty hard. I'm not questioning your good faith, but perhaps it's just not possible for you to properly weigh the sources on a subject you feel so strongly about. So what's troubling here? It's you constantly implying that other editors act in bad faith. --Six words (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me dodge the flurry of personal attacks here to contest what you're claiming. MEDRS does not specifically exclude letters to journals from use. Moreover, MEDRS names WedMD as an acceptable source, and WebMD has a whole article discussing the controversy of Ajinomoto's panel review. The there are the articles in two of the world's leading newspapers, the NYT and the Guardian. So you trying to spin this as me pushing a barrow is absurd. Moreover your claim that the existence of reviews and meta-analyses trumps individual studies in all instances goes against the spirit of MEDRS in a profound way. I quote: "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported" — now the studies showing potential or actual problems with aspartame and/or its metabolites are much more than a "tiny minority" and are totally deserving of mention here, and even more so in the Aspartame controversy article (note: I am finding it impossible to insert any new data into that article because of tag-team reverting without cogent reason). There's something distasteful going on here, I'm just not sure what it is right now, or what the covert motives are ... TickleMeister (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no personal attacks to avoid (except your claims of PR shilling, etc). You are trying to abuse the sources, and go beyond what they say or only represent one side of the "debate". This goes against our core policy of WP:NPOV. I'm afraid I agree with all the other editors criticisms of your proposals as they would be misleading to readers. I would also endorse 2/0 and 6words WP:MEDRS comments. Please stop trying to turn this into a battle, and Wikipedia is not the place for WP:ADVOCACY or crusading for "teh WP:TRUTH". Verbal chat  09:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your insertion of inverted commas around the word debate is asinine, considering this compound is currently under investigation by the British Food Standards Authority because of all the adverse effects reported. TickleMeister (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I said this on the other talk page, but I think it bears repeating here that the FSA, when describing that very report, makes the point that aspartame is safe. It also says that the study is due to anecdotal reports of side effects people consider themselves to have. FSA release. Doesn't seem to be any debate there, just normal science doing what science does. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So a government authority gets so many reports of side effects that it sets up an inquiry, but we pooh pooh that, do we? How many chemicals are under investigation because of consumer complaints in the UK, any idea? TickleMeister (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. When the report is finished, we can discuss adding it. Note that the PR disagrees with what you have said. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You were right the first time =D -- King Öomie  15:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time I use yahoo rather than check in a real dictionary. Fixed. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * RfC Comment. Exclude. I have previously been completely uninvolved with this page, and I came here from the RfC notice. I read the section of the page about the controversy, and it already presents the fact that there are dissenting views in an NPOV way. Labeling a source as "industry-funded" is pejorative. There would potentially be nothing wrong with adding the letter criticizing the study as a source for the statement about critics alleging a conflict of interest, but there is no need to add the proposed wording of the text. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your compromise solution is acceptable to me. TickleMeister (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that. I hope that I was of help. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Exclude per Tryptofish: I've come from WP:WQA rather than WP:RFC, interestingly enough, but I am an uninvolved editor. I think the long discussion above has adequately explained why this phrasing should be excluded. <span id="gw_sig" style="background:#FFFFC0"> Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  18:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)