Talk:Aspartame/Archive 6

human guinea pigs
It appears that many people who argue against the use of aspartame are long term users who have experienced major health problems like seizures that have subsided upon ceasing their use of aspartame. Is it wise to ignore them? Also I would appreciate it if someone would please explain to me how it is possible to test any drug and be sure a 20 year exposure is not harmful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Short answer: yes, there comes a point where it is wise to ignore them. Long answer: It is important to take consumers' complaints seriously and to investigate them, but a collection of anecdotes isn't the end of such an investigation, it's the beginning (correlation does not imply causation). If investigations show there's no connection between aspartame and the problems people ascribe to it, yet people go on insisting that their problems are caused by aspartame, it may indeed be wise to ignore them.
 * I don't know of any direct test for the safety of “X year exposure” to (synthetic) compounds. The ADI (acceptable daily intake) is a calculated value: NOEL (no observable effect level - usually comes from animal studies) divided by a safety factor of 100.--Six words (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion page is to discuss improvements to the article, not for a general discussion of the topic. TFD (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but this is a controversial issue with medical professionals against the use aspartame. You have a human responsibility to report both sides without bias. Using the term "hoax" is a measure of your personal bias and lack of fairness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet seen a scientific study which shows that aspartame has any harmful properties. There is no scientific basis for the claims which are being referred to as hoaxes, therefore 'hoax' is accurate. If you find one which has reliable scientific evidence, feel free to discuss it here.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  13:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be unethical to represent fringe views as mainstream because some readers might mistake symptoms of actual illnesses as the side effects of aspartame and delay necessary medical treatment. TFD (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is how these hoaxes come about in the first place, essentially.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  14:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In regards to "I haven't yet seen a scientific study which shows that aspartame has any harmful properties." Please see "Suggestion for alternative viewpoint" at the top of the page. Arydberg (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC) If the last reference does not work for you then we are on two entirely different tracks. I agree that the party line is that aspartame is not unhealthy. That it has been defined by the FDA as acceptable. That the world has followed us in accepting aspartame.
 * ✔️ Please point me to the scientific study which shows that aspartame has harmful properties.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  09:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

On one hand we have the accepted medical establishment saying it is safe. On the other side the personal antidotal experiences of long term users saying it is unsafe.

This reminds me of a Groucho Marx  line. “Who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes!” Arydberg (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We have scientific consensus that it is safe, and anecdotes, which are virtually useless scientifically. WP:MEDRS is quite clear on this as well.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on anecdotal evidence states "Accounts of direct personal experience are commonly equated to anecdotal evidence where this form of evidence is not one of the above categories of anecdote, hearsay or conclusion deduced from generalisation. Unlike anecdotal evidence the reliability of accounts of personal experience is normally capable of assessment for legal proceedings." I submit the accounts available on the web are in fact testimonials and are not anecdotal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting concept: scrap WP:RS (not to mention WP:MEDRS) and assume everything on the web is true. They were anecdotes and remain anecdotes, because they are subject to "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. There is a reason that anecdote is contrasted to scientific evidence. Even if we accepted the personal experience blindly ("I was turned into an ocelot.") the assumption of causation is anecdote ("Aspartame turned me into an ocelot."). Quote mining articles is not a substitute for policy.Novangelis (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You are in error here. Testimonials are different from anecdotes and all the latin quotes in the world to not turn testimonials into anecdotes. Please check your accuracy. If you wish to disbelieve the statements that is your choice but you have a responsibility to report them as they are. No lies! Arydberg (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Testimonials are also useless in science (assuming they are any different than anecdotes). Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm dead on, and trying to promote anecdotal evidence to "testimonial" is meaningless because it, still, in no way, even remotely, approximates a reliable source. The responsibility is to construct an article based upon reliable sources, as carefully defined in policy.Novangelis (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If you go to Pub Med and plug in aspartame case histories you get: Systematized contact dermatitis and montelukast in an atopic boy. Castanedo-Tardan MP, González ME, Connelly EA, Giordano K, Jacob SE. Pediatr Dermatol. 2009 Nov-Dec;26(6):739-43. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

2. 'Lone' atrial fibrillation precipitated by monosodium glutamate and aspartame. Burkhart CG. Int J Cardiol. 2009 Nov 12;137(3):307-8. Epub 2009 Feb 10. No abstract available. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

3. Formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines: a possible connection. Jacob SE, Stechschulte S. Dermatitis. 2008 May-Jun;19(3):E10-1. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Free Article Related citations

4. Seizures and hyponatremia after excessive intake of diet coke. Mortelmans LJ, Van Loo M, De Cauwer HG, Merlevede K. Eur J Emerg Med. 2008 Feb;15(1):51. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

5. Aspartame-induced thrombocytopenia. Roberts HJ. South Med J. 2007 May;100(5):543. No abstract available. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

6. Migraine triggered by sucralose--a case report. Bigal ME, Krymchantowski AV. Headache. 2006 Mar;46(3):515-7. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

7. Systemic contact dermatitis of the eyelids caused by formaldehyde derived from aspartame? Hill AM, Belsito DV. Contact Dermatitis. 2003 Nov;49(5):258-9. No abstract available. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

8. Migraine MLT-down: an unusual presentation of migraine in patients with aspartame-triggered headaches. Newman LC, Lipton RB. Headache. 2001 Oct;41(9):899-901. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Free Article Related citations

9. Relief of fibromyalgia symptoms following discontinuation of dietary excitotoxins. Smith JD, Terpening CM, Schmidt SO, Gums JG. Ann Pharmacother. 2001 Jun;35(6):702-6. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

10. Aspartame and symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome. Robbins PI, Raymond L. J Occup Environ Med. 1999 Jun;41(6):418. No abstract available. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

11. Chewing gum headaches. Blumenthal HJ, Vance DA. Headache. 1997 Nov-Dec;37(10):665-6. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

12. Neuropharmacological evaluation of movement disorders that are adverse reactions to specific foods. Gerrard JW, Richardson JS, Donat J. Int J Neurosci. 1994 May;76(1-2):61-9. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

13. Aspartame and seizures. Eshel Y, Sarova-Pinhas I. Neurology. 1993 Oct;43(10):2154-5. No abstract available. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

14. Orofacial sensitivity reactions and the role of dietary components. Case reports. Reed BE, Barrett AP, Katelaris C, Bilous M. Aust Dent J. 1993 Aug;38(4):287-91. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

15. Aspartame and dizziness: preliminary results of a prospective, nonblinded, prevalence and attempted cross-over study. Gulya AJ, Sessions RB, Troost TR. Am J Otol. 1992 Sep;13(5):438-42. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

16. An analysis of FDA passive surveillance reports of seizures associated with consumption of aspartame. Tollefson L, Barnard RJ. J Am Diet Assoc. 1992 May;92(5):598-601. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

17. Starvation ketosis after rehydration with diet soda. Lewis P. Pediatrics. 1991 Oct;88(4):806-7. No abstract available. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

18. Aspartame-induced lobular panniculitis. McCauliffe DP, Poitras K. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1991 Feb;24(2 Pt 1):298-300. No abstract available. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

19. [Chinese restaurant syndrome. Implication of drugs] Galland MC, Comuce C, Bourdillon N. Therapie. 1987 May-Jun;42(3):291-4. French. No abstract available. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations

20. Panic attacks and excessive aspartame ingestion. Drake ME. Lancet. 1986 Sep 13;2(8507):631. No abstract available. [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Related citations Arydberg (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, read WP:MEDRS. We rely on secondary sources (like reviews) to develop articles. (See Aspartame controversy, section on safety).  Relying on case studies from over 20 year ago when current reviews say its safe is against our guidelines. Yobol (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

World's top sweetener is made with GM bacteria
We need to look at this story and see whether it belongs in the article. The claim dates from 1999 and applies to the UK only - we need to see if it is still current. Ironically, HFCS is made from GM corn with added DNA from e-coli. TFD (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Added a MEDRS compliant source. Not sure I see that it is all that relevant (this information probably more appropriate for the phenylalanine article). Yobol (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, we don't want consumers knowing their sweetener comes from a GM source, do we? Could affect sales. TickleMeister (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What about high fructose corn syrup? TFD (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not relevant here. TickleMeister (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how you can declare that it's not relevant to your point; high fructose corn syrup is a sweetener, and its article deals with the use of genetic modification in its production. Making a sarcastic comment attempting to undermine our arguments by attacking our motives isn't the way to contribute to constructive discussion; we're certainly not running to remove mention of genetic modification from high fructose corn syrup, are we? Or is it that everyone who disagrees with you is an aspartame salesperson?  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  09:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like I didn't look very hard at the source; I had assumed it was about aspartame being produced in E coli, not simply the production of phenylalanine. I agree that this has little relevance to the article and would belong in phenylalanine. Frankly the only issue in producing such a product in a "GM source" (which is a blanket term and negative buzzword which doesn't adequately clarify the extent to which genetic manipulation is used in modern science) is in those ignorant of what the process involves. There are many drugs produced by DNA transfection and inducing expression in an organism such as E. coli, especially peptide and protein drugs such as Insulin and Reteplase. TickleMeister, if you're going to make a claim that there are side-effects associated with production of phenylalanine in E. coli, back it up with scientific research rather than using the buzzword "GM", of which you don't appear to have a very thorough understanding, as a reason to add your POV to the article condemn aspartame.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  08:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are numerous scholarly sources (try Google scholar or google books) that tie aspartame to genetically modified e coli. In fact, it is explicitly stated in the source I provided that the bacteria were genetically modified specifically to assist in the production of aspartame. So that's not to be excluded. TickleMeister (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The E. coli is being used to produce Phe, however, not aspartame; this belongs at phenylalanine; there is little relevance here. Why go off at a tangent, explaining how one of the reactants used to synthesise aspartame is itself synthesised? If readers are interested in how phenylalanine is produced, surely they can simply visit the article?  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  09:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, this does not belong at Phe, it belongs here. The gen mods were institiuted to produce aspartame in particular. Not only that, this fact was the subject of a major newspaper article in 1999, see above. Notable, factual, apposite. TickleMeister (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this is no more than POV pushing to try to smear aspartame with the "GM" label. I'm very much in favor of moving this material to the phenylalanine article. Yobol (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I too agree. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've also just reverted the removal of "naturally produces" in favour of "excretes" since E coli. uses Phe as a component of its protein like most other organisms, and as far as I'm aware does not actively synthesise and secrete it; there's no benefit for doing so in a single-cellular organism (and excretion of excess phenylalanine is usually quite negligible). Further, the claim that the use of the phrase "naturally produces" is loaded is complete nonsense, it's purely factual, and also relevant as it explains that E. coli already produces Phe, and that genetic engineering can therefore be used for the relatively simpler task of increasing the rate of Phe synthesis. As I see it, removing this fact is just removing useful content in an attempt to cast the process in a negative light and therefore attack aspartame yet again; it's completely inappropriate.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  08:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, information about the production of phenylalanine belongs in that article, not here. TFD (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The modification of e coli to produce extra phe was undertaken purely and solely to produce aspartame in greater quantities. Read the study. It belongs in this article. TickleMeister (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should read it. The abstract clearly describes a second use: parenteral nutrition.Novangelis (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think there's fairly good indication of consensus here, so I've moved the information into phenylalanine and left a note that aspartame can be synthesised from Phe and Asp, however some additional information on how the reaction takes place and some details of the chemistry, accompanied by a reliable source, would be useful.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  19:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article should contain this information: "Aspartame is manufactured from phenylalanine produced by a genetically modified strain of E. coli" I've added it to other wikis, eg SourceWatch TickleMeister (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned, this is simply attempting to introduce POV into the article using the buzzword "genetic modification". You resisted attempts to clarify the phrase, and it's pretty clear you are simply attempting to cast aspartame in a negative light by whatever means possible. As discussed, the way that phenylalanine is produced is relevant to phenylalanine, not to aspartame.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  09:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith for at least some of the editors here, it seems then that the groupthink has sunk to a new level. Accepting that "naturally produces" is not loaded, while claiming that "genetically modified" is, betrays a certain unexamined bias. "Naturally produces" is a term that sounds all warm and fluffy. It's commonly used in all sorts of greenwashing. It also happens to be accurate in this case. "Genetically modified" is a term that sounds all scary, and also happens to be accurate. Only the warm and fluffy term gets a mention in the article, not the scary one. The scary term happens to be of more interest to people, and more widely covered. People coming to this article are interested, trying to hide the information and claiming it's not relevant and that they can find it elsewhere if they are really interested is questionable. Greenman (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly your point doesn't make sense; the enormous distinction here, is that "genetically modified" was used as a buzzword to cast aspartame in a negative light, while being deliberately vague and avoiding clarifying what sort of genetic engineering was involved. "Naturally produces" is being used to indicate the reason for choosing to genetically engineer E. coli to increase Phe production. It's not "warm and fluffy", it's explaining a key point of the process in a neutral manner: the reasoning behind the method is that E. coli expresses an enzyme which is capable of synthesising phenylalanine from other amino acids. The E. coli is transfected with a promoter sequence which means that it produces an unusually high amount of the required enzymes, enabling it to produce enormous amounts of Phe. Tell me how to adequately explain this process and the reasoning behind it without mentioning that E. coli naturally produces Phe, and brownie points to you.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  15:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to "naturally produces", it is accurate enough. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in arguing that one fact should be excluded because it "sounds bad" while at the same time including a fact that, equally "sounds good". It's naive to argue that "naturally produces" doesn't sound good, while "genetically modified" doesn't sound bad to the average reader. It's also irrelevant how something "sounds". I am happy with the more accurate "naturally produces", but I am objecting to hiding the fact that aspartame is manufactured from phenylalanine, which is produced by a genetically modified strain of E. coli. It's a perfectly neutral explanation, and if you think GMO's are bad, that's fine, but there's no avoiding the fact that people are interested in this fact. They arrive at this article with all sorts of preconceptions - it's not Wikipedia's role to try and guess whether a reader might think something is "bad" and therefore hide the fact - rather, it should be mentioned in a neutral manner, and in the right context. The fact is clearly noteworthy, it's covered widely. Greenman (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you got into a similar discussion in Caramel color and GMO. The same issues apply to this article - whether GMO is good or bad belongs in articles about GMO, not food products derived from GMO products.  TFD (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether GMO is good or bad? You're not following at all - it's about disclosing a noteworthy fact, not arguing for "good or bad". The suggested sentence is perfectly neutral. I can understand why the manufacturer would wish to hide this fact, since it's seen as a negative by many people, but that's no reason for a factual article to hide something that's reported widely, and often out of context. Greenman (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We mention that aspartame is synthesized using aspartic acid, but do not mention that aspartice acid is synthesized from diethyl sodium phthalimidomalonate.  TFD (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So that fact is also widely reported and of interest to readers is it? Are you seriously unable to see the difference? I think not... Greenman (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That something is "interesting" or "widely reported" doesn't absolve us from writing an encyclopedia. That information is clearly more appropriate for the phenylalanine article. Yobol (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The responses here are purposely obtuse. I cannot believe people are unintentionally being stupid, so I presume there's another reason for wanting to exclude the information. That statement, logically, reads similar to "the fact that Cape Town is widely reported as the capital of South Africa doesn't absolve us from writing an encyclopedia (and your unsaid assumption about writing an enyclopedia involves leaving information out). That information is clearly more appropriate for the "Politics of South Africa" article." Is the tactic here to talk nonsense until someone gives up and goes away? WHY is it only (not more) appropriate for the phenylalanine article? The fact that people are looking for the information HERE, in THIS article seems to be of no interest to those trying to exclude the information. After all, if people are really interested in the political situation in South Africa, they can read it in the Politics article, right? Or even better, lets leave the information out there, and put it in the "Constitution" article. If people are REALLY interested I'm sure they'll track it down there. I can only assume people don't want it shown here for some reason that's remaining unsaid. The reason is simple - your biases, conscious or not, are such that anything that a reader may PERCEIVE as negative should be hidden from the article. Greenman (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'm not going to even read a comment which starts with "people are unintentionally being stupid" or accusing numerous editors of some grand plan to protect aspartame, for disagreeing with your POV-pushing. The synthesis of phenylalanine is relevant to its own article, not the aspartame article. The chemical process by which aspartame is synthesised from Asp and Phe is relevant here, and I've already invited others to contribute to explaining the chemical basis of this reaction in the article. (And I note User:Novangelis has done a fairly good job of doing so).  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  18:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a particularly useful response - it again ignores all the points made. In essence, a summary of the responses to date has been "Cos it doesn't belong here and anyone who thinks it does is a POV-pusher" or to bring up something entirely irrelevant like "we're writing an encyclopedia". I would like a better reason please. The question was WHY a fact that's of great interest to people and has been widely reported should not be shown here, in the right context, not a request to simply again and without reason restate the POV that it doesn't belong here. You may feel questions are POV pushing, but the responses have been unhelpful, changed the topic or have missed the point, so I will keep attempting to get an answer. 22:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you really can't see why information about the production of phenylalanine is more appropriate for the article on phenylalanine, I don't think there's much left to be said. Yobol (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to be of interest only to a small minority of people and in fact the only rs that it has any significance is a 10 year old newspaper article. TFD (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What Yobol and TFD said. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is, WHY does it not belong here? Because it also (and more obviously) belongs in another article is not an answer. "It appears to be of interest only to a small minority of people and in fact the only rs that it has any significance is a 10 year old newspaper article" IS however an answer, so thanks TFD for the response :) A quick search for the terms aspartame and GMO brings up 144 000 results. Other similar searches bring up 139 000 and 79 000 results. The answer that it's of interest to a small minority of people is obviously incorrect. However, your next statement says that "the only rs that it has any significance is a 10 year old newspaper article", so the argument then is not that people aren't interested - they obviously are, though they're most likely misinformed. It's on the argument that it's not SIGNIFICANT. There are different kinds of significance. Is it significant in that its presence does any harm? No, there's no reliable evidence for this. But it's significant in that people are interested in it. Take for example the Barack Obama article. Why does it mention that his father was raised a Muslim? Why not that his cousin was a Hare Krishna? Why doesn't the Ronald Reagan article mention his father's religion? Obviously, it mentions that his father was a Muslim due to the conspiracy theories that Obama is a Muslim. It places it in context by stating it was his father, and only for a period before Obama was even born, etc. So why don't we mention that his cousin is a Hare Krishna (yes, I made that one up). Obviously, because no one is interested and it's not significant for that reason. The argument is analagous to the argument above, saying that we should exclude the fact for the same reasons we exclude the fact that aspartice acid is synthesized from diethyl sodium phthalimidomalonate. However, if there were conspiracy theories stating that Obama was a Hare Krishna and planned to introduce forced chanting at school assemblies, and there were hordes of blogs repeating the information on Obama's Hare Krishna links, of course the article would mention it, in the right context. So the obvious interest that the estimated one-third of the US population who think that Obama has a Muslim have in his religion leads to its inclusion. The correct response to interest, misinformed or not, is not to bury one's head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. It's to respond with the correct information. Why not here? Greenman (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Reagan article says, "Reagan's father was of Irish Catholic ancestry". The aspartame+GMO returns a lot of conspiracy theory webites.  "ronald reagan"+gmo returns 1 million hits.  "coca cola"+gmo returns over 2 million hits.  It means nothing.  TFD (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, "It means nothing". QED. Again your response ignores the points, and leaps on some unrelated point (like Reagan's father, which I should have checked - clearly it was mentioned because he was Catholic - unusual in US politics - there's no mention of Reagan's mother's, or Carter or Bush's father's religion, for example, either of which would have been a better choice). If you were trying to argue coherently, you would have compared the Google results with "aspartame diethyl sodium phthalimidomalonate", the example given above as supposedly of equivalent importance - which returns a massive 125 results. Obviously the GMO fact is of far greater interest. Obviously, but that "means nothing"? So, let's reverse the question. What would mean something? How would a fact of interest to many readers that could be perceived as negative get into the article? Judging by the above, it couldn't, with reasons such as "it doesn't matter", "POV-pushing" or "it appears in a conspiracy website". Greenman (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Greenman, the aspartame articles are hopelessly borked by a group of tendentious editors. I've more or less given up on getting them balanced. In this instance, the fact that the product is manufactured using GM elements is being suppressed. It's only one of many instances of informarion suppre$$ion and information management. Have a look at the Independent article cited at the top of this section. See the legal warning at the beginning of the article? You have an industry here that is highly litigious, promotes disinformation campaigns (eg websites claiming how harmless the chemical is), and so to expect them to ignore wikipedia would be unrealistic. TickleMeister (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, again, assume good faith. These accusations about those of us that disagree with you are somehow corporate shills is getting quite old.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't take it personally - it's naive in the extreme to imagine industry is not actively involved in articles of interest to them, and it's to be expected that there'll be a strong reaction when people see the history here. Pointing out the obvious is not the same as claiming everyone involved in a corporate shill. This article is poor, but not the worst of them. Many Wikipedia articles suffer from being written almost exclusively from a company's POV, and many are far, far worse than this. Look at something as innocuous as the Content Management Systems for example, some written almost exclusively by the company responsible. The hope for Wikipedia is that there are also enough neutral and open-minded editors to keep a perspective. Greenman (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's naïve to think that of an assortment of random editors online, maybe not everyone who disagrees with you are part of a grand conspiracy and being paid by aspartame manufacturers. I suggest you move up the hierarchy of disagreement considerably if you expect your arguments to be given any weight, because currently there appear to be at least 2 editors stuck in the Ad Hominem section, as well as attempting to push a negative bias at all costs.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  02:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that prior to this edit mere days ago, my sole involvement in this page was copyediting and vandalism reversion (and by all means check my edit history if you think I'm here to promote aspartame). I am a completely neutral party.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  02:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "industry is involved in" != "everyone is a corporate shill" and != "everyone who disagrees is part of a conspiracy". Similarly, not everyone else is a conspiracy nutcase POV-pusher. Right, now that that's out the way, can people please respond to the points above about why a fact of interest should not be included? So far, much of the level of debate on this page is not high up the chart :) Greenman (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * GM is certainly a controversial topic, and people may wish to know what food items contain it. But it would make more sense for those readers to go to the GM article to find out which foods contain it (which aspartame btw does not). I sense that you have more against aspartame than GM, and are looking for negative things to add, rather than writing the article based on mainstream sources.  It may be that those sources are pro-aspartame, but we are not here to correct that.  TFD (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to only go to the GM article, because people read or hear about the connection with aspartame elsewhere, come to this article to find out more, and find... nothing. If someone hears that climate change is caused solely by the sun, and visits the climate change article, they find useful resources that could inform them and place the role of the sun in context. Not so in this case. Greenman (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Even assuming great dollops of good faith, I too suspect that there is a conflict of interest here, since I honestly don't see why else anyone would describe "naturally produced by" as being biased despite the fact that it is explanatory and required (I note that there was no answer to my request to rephrase the statement without using the word natural but without losing any information about the process). Nor is the manufacturing process of Phe relevant to the article: we now have a bit of chemistry about the manufacture of Aspartame, which is useful, but going into Phe production is just going off at a tangent: this was actually significantly more information about its production than at phenylalanine, which is why I moved the explanation there. The only reason I can think that anyone would push for the description to be here is that you want to label apartame as being a "GM" product, which has certain negative connotations, which I originally attempted to address by describing the actual process in detail rather than using such a label.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  10:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you acknowledge "GM" has negative connotations, and not that "naturally produces" has positive ones. (Note that I supported the inclusion of "naturally produces" as a more accurate description). A look around your average food aisle will show you heaps of "natural" foods, and not too many trumpeting their GM credentials. Clearly GM does have a negative connotation to many, and "naturally" a positive one. Both can also be accurate descriptions, in the right context. The bias is in saying the one is fine, but the other isn't, simply because it could be construed negatively. Saying fact A will be excluded as it could be seen as negative, the essence of much of the argument above, is the same as saying fact B will be excluded because it could be seen as positive. Clearly that line of thought should have nothing to do with it - accuracy and context is important, not perception. If that's accepted, then, the question is is it important to include? You are arguing against, saying that it's a relatively unimportant part of the process. Which it is. But for a relatively unimportant part of the process it's become strongly associated with aspartame, and readers come here looking for information. The article should address this, not ignore it. Obama's father's religion is relatively unimportant, the role of the sun in recent global warming is relatively unimportant - these topics are all addressed in those articles because of the interest. Greenman (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And we're back to running in circles with our arguments. This thread seems to have run its course. Yobol (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed - it goes in circles as no one responds to the issue. However, it will only run its course if someone responds to the issue using reason and logic, not by changing the topic or ignoring the point. Greenman (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Go check "aspartame" in wikipedia, son." "But Dad, there are thousands of hits on Google saying it's true!" "Son, I said go check wikipedia! It's a pretty good encyclopedia, so it'll definitely have somehting about that." TickleMeister (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Dad, I heard that aspartame is made from phenylalanine that is made by GM bacteria. Is this true? I need to know for my school project."
 * "Dad, I heard that aspartame is made from phenylalanine that is made by GM bacteria. Is this true? I need to know for my school project."

"Go check "phenylalanine" in wikipedia, son."  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Son, click on phenylalanine in the Aspartame article." TFD (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On a more serious and to-the-point note, information directly related to Aspartame is here. If there's something missing, feel free to add it: a user just added information about the chemical process of synthesising Aspartame from Asp and Phe, for example. In the rather artificial scenario posed by TM above, the student could confirm their suspicions that aspartame is produced from Phe, as well as the glorious details of how that is done, and if they were interested in how Phe was synthesised commercially, they could simply click on the phenylalanine wikilink and find out. That's how the encyclopaedia works. We stay on topic, and link to other articles which branch out from the topic.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  00:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a GM food additive
You are correct that people can hunt down the GM origins of asp in the phe article. BUT, since whether or not a food or food additive is GM is a major issue for many people, as can be seen by the very existence of the article in a major newspaper entitled: "World's top sweetener is made with GM bacteria", it behoves us to include that fact here. This is similar to the way some composite foods are now under regulatory instruction to be labelled as GM if any part of them is GM. For instance. since 2001 the Australian food safety body, Food Safety Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), has required that GM foods carry the words 'Genetically Modified' in the ingredients list if a GM ingredient is included. There is ample cause therefore to include the fact that asp is (entirely) composed of a GM constituent. Moving that fact to a phe article, and deleting it here, is a deliberate attempt to cover this up. I suppose it's to be expected with a product like asp that has sales of around ONE BILLION DOLLARS a year. TickleMeister (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bulk chemicals are commodities. Apart from subtle differences in isotopic ratios, they can be brought to any arbitrary purity, and are chemically indistinguishable. A discussion of whether or not phenylalanine is produced via GM technology is not relevant to discussion. What is relevant and interesting is the coupling of phenylalanine methyl ester with aspartic acid via a certain Pseudomonas strain to give aspartame directly. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "What is... interesting is the coupling of phenylalanine methyl ester..." I'm sure most readers would agree this is much more exciting than any GM link :) You cannot really believe this. It's beyond belief. You may as well argue that the tooth rabbit article should include an interesting discussion about the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorphaa rather than what people would actually want to read about - whether it collects teeth! There's more than a slight disconnect from reality... It's a major issue of great interest to people, and if there's no coherent reason given, the fact must return to the article. Greenman (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Believe what? Is industrial production not relevant to the discussion on this compound? If you familiarize yourself with the CHEMMOS, industrial production routes, and annual consumption figures feature quite prominently in what an article about a chemical should have. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why can't we have both, Rifleman? IOW, why not the stuff that interests chemists as well as the stuff that interests the bulk of the readers? Sound fair ? TickleMeister (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * One article written in one major newspaper 10 years ago does not establish notability, You mention that "composite foods are now under regulatory instruction to be labelled as GM if any part of them is GM".  Do you have any evidence that aspartame is one of them?  TFD (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If FSANZ is invoked, their description of aspartame does not contain the phrase genetically modified. (The word "natural" does appear in the description, in reference to the amino acids, although I would not make inferences based on a word that is used ambiguously.) Aspartame is approved for use and does not appear on their list of genetically modified foods, approved or under application. Ongoing ad hominem attacks and inappropriate use of font highlighting and capitals ("excessive highlighting") does not make sensationalist headlines into facts, especially when the body text would reject the inferences that have been drawn from the headline.Novangelis (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the talk page violation, Novangelis. It was the first thing I noticed, which was the intention and proved the soapboxing nature of the content. Per WP:REFACTOR I've fixed it. The alternative would be to block the editor. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing prohibiting the use of the sort of emphasis I used to highlight key pharses, so that is not a "violation" nor will I be "blocked" for doing it. I chucked your threat on my Talk poage into the garbage, where it belongs. I'd revert your chamges to my comments on this page if I could be bothered, but I'm not going to waste any more time when I'm not being paid by a corpoaration to do this crap. TickleMeister (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Brangifer, please stick to the point instead of issuing threats and changing the topic. Rifleman failed to understand the point above, asking "believe what?". I will repeat again, combining the two sentences into one so that everyone follows. You cannot believe that readers are more interested in the coupling of phenylalanine methyl ester over aspartame's GM link. There has been no attempt to argue that readers are not interested in this, simply deflections, misreadings and now threats. We have established that aspartame is not "genetically modified", right? So why the straw man looking at lists of "genetically-modified" foods, and not finding aspartame? The point is not that aspartame is genetically-modified in the same way maize is. The point is that some people believe this, and come here looking for information, and find nothing. I will again ask why in this case, the aspartame article contains no information, while other articles and examples I've pointed out above do contain the helpful information? Please stick to the point, and answer this question. Greenman (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Refuting wild, ambiguous claims is not a straw man argument. That list is germain, since that organization was invoked as a basis to include it. Nothing has yet established that any aspartame violates the invoked 2001 provision. An article from two years prior cannot. The text about phenylalanine manufacture is overly simplistic. With multiple techniques for manufacture and multiple sources of raw material, we need facts, not guesses, about the role of recombinant technology. Extrapolations are original research and nothing has been established by sources.Novangelis (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Independent links aspartame & GM again
New report makes the link again. This has to go in. It is highly germane (note correct spelling of germane please), and of clear public interest. I quote the relevant text:

It also notes that "95 percent of European respondents rate GMO foods as potentially unsafe." TickleMeister (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post notes that aspartame is "genetically modified" here. Text = "a genetically engineered version of the artificial sweetener aspartame". Also another report with text = "The NutraSweet Co., a subsidiary of G.D. Searle and Co., awarded Genex a contract in 1983 to supply genetically engineered raw materials for the low-calorie sweetener aspartame. At the time, the deal was thought to have a potential value of hundreds of millions of dollars for Genex, and accounted for almost 90 percent of the company's revenue in the first half of 1985. The settlement with NutraSweet also frees Genex of the burden of a legal battle dating back to 1985. After the termination of the contract, Genex filed a $40 million lawsuit against NutraSweet for fraud and violation of federal antitrust, racketeering and securities laws. Under a settlement reached in late July, the parties agreed to a mutual release of all claims and the payment of a nominal sum to Genex." TickleMeister (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And in another news outlet (Times Herald-Record), we read : "Other foods, like commercially grown papaya, zucchini, tomatoes, several fish species, and food additives like enzymes, flavorings and processing agents, including the sweetener aspartame and rennet used to make hard cheeses, also contain GMOs, according to Greenpeace." TickleMeister (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And another — really, there are too many mentions in the News to continue. So who wins this one, the wikipedia volunteer editors or the PR men? TickleMeister (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Once more, we are all volunteer editors. Please again, assume good faith.  This is so tiresome.  When you do not get your way TM, or think you will not, you claim we are corporate shills.  Why do I constantly have to point out that I do not work in the sweetener industry?   Once more for the record, check my user page, it says where I work, and what I do for a living.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you talk for all editors? My comments don't apply to you; please stop naively assuming that everyone discussing this immensely profitable chemical is, like you, pure of heart. Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ticklemeister, we have all heard your opinions on aspartame, and they represent a fringe view that no one thinks belongs in the article. If you want people to believe that aspartame is evil, you need to presuade the scientific community, after which we would alter the article accordingly.  BTW why do you not target HFCS?  TFD (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop with the ad homs and personal comments. I have no opinion that matters, but I do see a lack of balance in the article and a deliberate attempt to whitewash all negative information from the article. Why don't you explain why you initially noted that this information was missing and yet now you support excluding it? Peer pressure? TickleMeister (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS sources
There are plenty, eg this one and this one. TickleMeister (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What the MEDRS sources say is that phenylalanine can be produced using genetically modified E. coli, and that this is one of the compounds Aspartame is made of (“can be used as a building block for the low-calorie sweetener, aspartame”.; “the mother compound of a sweetener, aspartame”). None of them says it's the only way used to synthesise phenylalanine, nor do they say that this is the only phenylalanine that is used to produce aspartame (or the most common). Your other sources don't really provide additional information, so what is the wording you propose? Just so we're clear, I checked all of your sources and they're not too great. The Washington Post article (November 1990) e.g. states that the biotech company Genex “lost a contract to produce a genetically engineered version of the artificial sweetener aspartame” in 1985. A bit of googling reveals that his contract was about producing phenylalanine (who'd have guessed that?) so they're rather imprecise. The second Washington Post article cited (August 1987) actually gets it right, stating Genex was to “supply genetically engineered raw materials for the low-calorie sweetener aspartame”. The Times Herald Record (July 2008) cites Greenpeace saying that aspartame contains GMOs - an imprecise characterisation at best since the aspartame itself neither contains any organisms nor is produced by them. The Scoop article (July 2007) is about Fructooligosaccharides and only mentions aspartame in a half sentence “The use of genetically modified bacteria in the production of sweeteners like aspartame and FOS, is of growing concern having been linked to allergy symptoms, bloating, flatulence and stomach upsets in users. Previously production of L-tryptophan using a GM bacterial process resulted in a very rare disease Eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, killing 37 people and permanently maiming 1500.” So the take-home message is phenylalanine can be made using GMOs. Which is covered in the phenylalanine article now. I personally wouldn't object to having one line in the aspartame article stating that one of the amino acids used to synthesise aspartame can be produced using genetically modified bacteria, but that's about it, and the wording needs to be in a way that is acceptable to the other editors working here, too.--Six words (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC) btw: do you still work on those “work pages” of yours? If you don't please ask an admin to delete them.


 * I would not put it in, since mainstream sources ignore it. We don't put something in because editors find it interesting.  TFD (talk) 13:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "mainstream sources"? The information is in publsihed MEDRS studies, in newspapers, in books (I can supply links for books too). So what, apart from those, are mainstream sources? TickleMeister (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have strong feelings either way. --Six words (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Scoop "article" is a "Press Release" and not a RS, and certainly not a MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, that must have escaped my attention because I was busy asking myself what “Fructooligosaccharides in baby formula” might have to do with aspartame. Good point! --Six words (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against putting such information in the article, as long as it can be done according to policy. That's the main thing here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep it out - inclusion is against MEDRS. TFD (talk)
 * LOL. TickleMeister (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Market share
It's funny that the discussion page is more protected than the article page! Anyway, I'm not all that keen on wiki bullshit politics, but the [citation needed] on nutra-sweet being the most common form of aspartame as a sweetener is just someone raging. Take five seconds to google and you will see both FORBES and WIKIPEDIA confirmed that aspartame is the most common sweetener. Not to mention the infinite packs of nutra-sweet on every table at ever restaurant for the last 35 years... Oh wait. that's not academic is it... http://www.forbes.com/global/2005/0110/020.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_substitute Willpower101 (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone putting a tag on an unsourced claim is not "raging". It is standard procedure. A lot of those blue packs are Equal, not NutraSweet. I don't have the numbers (if I did they'd be in the article). With the AminoSweet brand in the Asia-Pacific region, things aren't as clear as you make them out.  I did the five minute Google search. I did get a few hits including a few from Forbes (possibly including the one you found which does not include the word NutraSweet and aspartame appears in one graphic—it was about sucralose). Thank you for your effort, but the statement was a comparison about brands of aspartame. The data is confusing.  One article will compare tabletop sweetener sales, another will be exclusively about beverage industry suppliers, and the grail of what I would like to find would be a recent 5 year bulk aspartame sales by annual tonnage and price. For now, we don't have data to support one brand as sales leader in either a general or specific market, much less the more ambiguous "most notable" brand.Novangelis (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus, one cannot use wikipedia as a source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Newbie here, blundering about.
JH Roberts has written a 1000-page book about his 1200 patients with problems related to aspartame. Seems to me that Wikipedia should at least mention this! Roberts, HJ (2001) Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic (Sunshine Sentinel Press). I have not read it; I don't consume many of the 6-9000 items that contain aspartame, so I don't worry about it myself. Nevertheless, I find no reason to trust government agencies when corporate profits are in the balance, and I do think that anyone presuming to write a Wikipedia article about aspartame *should* have read this, and be able to comment on it without bias.Ferren (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You say you are new, so first off welcome. We have to use reliable sources (see WP:RS) and in the case of medical claims (WP:MEDRS).  This is a self published book that fails both of those.  We rely on secondary sources, review type articles from scientific peer reviewed journals primarily.  Again, welcome to wikipedia, once you learn some of the policies it can be quite rewarding here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The corporate profits factor is exactly why you can trust official claims that aspartame is safe. Imagine the billions that the international sugar companies and the makers of patented artificial sweeteners would realize if they could just find some way to hang aspartame, a cheap generic that anyone can synthesize by the ton.  You can always trust big companies to go where the big money is, and little revenue would accrue from corruptly supporting aspartame. Ornithikos (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)