Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive 3

Nancy Merkle hoax letter
The deconstruction page is about how to decide if a source is 'credible', lets leave it at that. To what degree the nancy merkle letter is notable outside of the deconstruction exercise is debatable. But if it is to stay it should be presented NPOV, saying it is a 'one sided debate' is not NPOV, nor factual. Unomi (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From the web page: "It's safe to assume that the individuals who believe that Aspartame is dangerous are sincere. It would also be accurate to use this Web site as an example of one side of the Aspartame debate. However, with no verifiable facts available to support the statements made by Ms. Martini, and a fair bit of confusion regarding the authorship and credibility of this article, it would be smart to pass on this Web page as an authoritative source of information." It is POV to not describe the actual conclusion. Confusion doesn't automatically lead to zero credibility. Immortale (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I misread what you wrote. I thought you were describing the deconstruction exercise as a 'one sided debate' (redface). Unomi (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the spin-editors don't want it anyway because according to their vision all statements that put aspartame in a bad light, are false and have to be made ridiculous. If that means they have to twist and bend or plain lie about the conclusions of cited references, then that's what they'll do. Any attempt to change an anti-aspartame cited reference gets scrutinized into the smallest detail, with the recent GAO poll as a good example. All that this exercise does is telling people: Look out, this is just one side of the story and shouldn't be used as the only source. To me that is a fair statement but to call it "not credible" is a very dangerous leap of faith. Bad faith in my opinion. Immortale (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Nancy Merkle letter falls under "internet hoaxes". The Betty Martini usenet messages they were derived from fall under "activism".  I think these are useful sources for documenting activism and hoaxes.  But I don't think that we should think about these materials in terms of the "medical" or "research" parts of the article.  Martini is not a reliable medical source, even though she refers to a medical doctor who has published several case studies and has a strong opinion on the safety of aspartame.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand Wikipedia correctly, then our opinions don't matter, it's the opinion of the reference that counts. And the Deconstructing Web Pages does NOT say it's NOT credible. But those who disagree here say: well, if you read between the lines, what they really mean is that it's not credible because they don't say it's credible. Since when is this allowed in Wikipedia? I objected to this website earlier here and opinions were divided. Besides the disagreements, is this really the best example that the whole wide Internet can give in the matter of criticizing the dangers of aspartame? I've read the word WP:WEIGHT so many times, where is the weight here (and don't drag the Canadian government in here again). Immortale (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, it pertains only to the Nancy Merkle letter, which I think pretty much everyone has to agree plays a small if visible part in the aspartame controversy. Further, by sleight of hand it tries to discount the controversy as a whole. But admittedly I have not really read up on the sources that the nancy merkle letter was such a big deal. From what I can gather it is a synthesis of the previous claims by Olney et al, with some some extra goodies such as fibromyalgia and lupus thrown in for good measure.. She certainly does not come across as the most credible of people, but... I agree that we can probably do better than that. Unomi (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several parts to this article. It might be simpler to try to talk about these sections separately, because they need very different types of sources.  Wikipedia can't cover EVERYTHING about the controversy -- the article is merely a jumping-off place for people who want to go and find out more.  This article provides essential background and enough words that people can search for more at the library and online.


 * The preponderance of medical evidence -- the one titled "Reported Effects". The standard for reliability there is WP:MEDRS.  This is actually pretty cut and dried -- the "textbook" or "mainstream" advice on aspartame.  I think we all agree what that is, and that it doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with it.  Maybe "Scientific Studies" goes with this, too, because that section is mostly about facts like the quantities of substances of concern in a can of soda, as well as documentation of several government agencies conclusions based on the total body of work on aspartame.


 * Emerging research. The standard here also has to be WP:MEDRS.  Wikipedia editors opinions on whether Soffritti's studies are flawed, whether Magnusson's criticisms are valid, or whether Soffritti's rebuttles of those criticisms make sense -- none of this should go into the article.  Soffritti did two studies, Magnusson criticised them, Sofritti responded to those criticisms, Canada asked for the raw data, the world's standards on aspartame did not change as a result of the Soffritti studies.  I think that's all we can say about it.  John Garst's folate hypothesis, for example, wouldn't fit here because it has no WP:MEDRS sources.


 * The history of the approval process in the US and elsewhere, including the story of how the GAO was called in to investigate because of concerns about irregularities or improprieties and conflicts of interest. Editors have selected the GAO87 report because it covers the timeline through 1987 and is available online, and presumably because non-governmental watchdog groups have generally said that the GAO is a reliable source.  This information is split into pieces.  "Approval in the United States", "Alleged Conflicts of Interest...", and "Attempted political bans and voluntary withdrawals". Reliable sources for this section are going to be the GAO 87 report, reliable newspaper stories (news stories, not op-ed or letters to the editor), Congressional Record and any other government documentation, press releases from government agencies, etc.  Not MEDRS.


 * The history and current state of the popular aspartame controvery and current public opinion. SNOPES is an appropriate source for the Markle/Merkle chain letter, I think.  The "how to figure out if a web page is reliable" page documents the controversy itself is notable.  It does pretty plainly deride Betty Martini's claims.  A FOX news affiliate once turned Martini's claims into a story, complete with interviews.  The clip is still available on YouTube.  Several books, like "Excitotoxins", "Sweet Poison", and Roberts' book on "Aspartame disease" -- I don't know of any sources (news story, newsmagazine, infotainment feature, book review, best-seller list archives) to tell me they are notable.  Similarly for like the "Sweet Misery" documentary or John Garst's folate hypothesis.  If any of these reach notability in the future, it should be added then.  One thing missing here is a word on public opinion of aspartame.  Is "the public" actually worried?  But do they keep buying it? Rate of change of Per-capita sales in markets that can afford it?  Loss of market share to Splenda? Sainesbury's marketing decision to phase it out?  Soda-makers' introduction of Stevia-based sweeteners?


 * --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But, back to specifics. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is a WP:NOTABLE organization that decided to put aspartame on its "bad" list after the Soffritti studies were published.  That's notable, and I don't think it should be lumped in the same paragraph with Merkle/Markle/Martini.  The CSPI press releases are better written, but were not distributed as far and wide as the chain letters were.  The fact that the Ramazzinni foundation has sponsored Soffritti's recent research is documentation that the scientific controversy continues.  This, I think, is covered in the section on the Ramazzini foundation.

Hi SV Resolution,

first of all I like your post: thank you for the clarity on it. Second I have to say that I'm not in place to discuss all the topics you touched but I have got some idea about Soffritti. It's a matter of fact that the world's standards did not change after the Soffritti studies but this doesn't mean that there are no issues (demonstrated or not yet demonstrated) about aspartame. A matter of fact is that Soffritti pointed out that according its research the aspartame is carcinogenetic. A matter of fact Magnusson, paid by the aspartame maker, said that the Soffritti made mistakes. A matter of fact is that nobody did a long run research (as Soffritti did) on the effects of aspartame. A matter of fact is that a following research showed that

"Conclusions: Government agencies, drug companies, and the chemical industry should conduct and compare the results of 2-year bioassays of known carcinogens or chemicals for which there is equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity with longer-term studies, with and without in utero exposure. If studies longer than 2 years and/or with in utero exposure are found to better identify potential human carcinogens, then regulatory agencies should promptly revise their testing guidelines, which were established in the 1960s and early 1970s. Changing the timing and dosing of the animal bioassay would enhance protection of workers and consumers who are exposed to potentially dangerous workplace or home contaminants, pollutants, drugs, food additives, and other chemicals throughout their lives."

I would like to see reported in the article the facts. Do you think that I'm asking too much? --Calgaco (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Calgaco -- I listed all the parts this article has, but I really meant to stay on topic -- the Merkle part of the "history of the controversy on the internet and in public opinion" section. I don't think the paper you quote (url?) belongs in that section, because I don't think it has influenced popular opinion. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * SV Resolution -- Regarding


 * the very specific topic I'm not in place to make any comment
 * the Soffritti controversy you may find the urls and the facts below (please see the following item within this talk)
 * the url you asked was reported as well below. Please find it here for your convenience http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/pdfUpload/Environmental%20Health%20Perspectives_Vol%20116_%206_June%202008.pdf


 * Hope the this helps--Calgaco (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ramazzini's study
Hi, I read the criticism about the Ramazzini's paper but, in my understanding, nobody addressed the main flaw Soffritti pointed out: the discharge of allegation of the carcinogenicity of the aspartame it is because the rodents are killed within 110 weeks. Moreover the studies criticized by Soffritti were based on small samples. Do somebody knows if this is true or wrong?

After my reading of the above mentioned criticism I'm quite puzzled because instead of reading a counter study on a large sample that examines the rodents after a longer time the critics just said this or that, in the Soffritti's paper, is wrong. I don't think that this is a good "scientific" method to prove that the issues raised by Soffritti are not valid. Does anybody has more knowledge about the controversy? If not my proposal is to amend the current version mentioning that the criticism to the Soffritti 's findings did not address the main issues reported by it.

Please let me know. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.8.17 (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have found this http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10716/abstract.html

"Conclusions: Government agencies, drug companies, and the chemical industry should conduct and compare the results of 2-year bioassays of known carcinogens or chemicals for which there is equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity with longer-term studies, with and without in utero exposure. If studies longer than 2 years and/or with in utero exposure are found to better identify potential human carcinogens, then regulatory agencies should promptly revise their testing guidelines, which were established in the 1960s and early 1970s. Changing the timing and dosing of the animal bioassay would enhance protection of workers and consumers who are exposed to potentially dangerous workplace or home contaminants, pollutants, drugs, food additives, and other chemicals throughout their lives."

I think that this goes on the direction of the Ramazzini's study...

Moreover I found that the following

http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/pdfUpload/Environmental%20Health%20Perspectives_Vol%20116_%206_June%202008.pdf

About "Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven doi:10.1289/ehp.10881" it is written that "The authors received payment from the Burdock Group during the preparation of an expert review of the safety of aspartame. The Burdock Group managed the independent review, which was financially supported by Ajinomoto Company Inc., a producer of aspartame."

More in general it seems that Magnuson and Williams’s were sponsored entirely by Ajinomoto, the manufacturer of aspartame.

My proposal is to add this information to the article

This version seems to have more information about the critique of the Ramazzini study, I don't see why we don't include it. Unomi (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tom harrison, please don't delete what you don't like because you don't like it. Here, in the talk, please explain your reasons. Thanks--Calgaco (talk) 07:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Calgaco -- I think this article is not a place for the amount of detail you put in about the Ramazzinni studies. I think that section should be pared down again, by quite a bit. The purpose of this article is not to present enough info. from the sources to convince anybody, but to briefly review what's out there, tell what the current state of the scientific back-and-forth is, help readers figure out where they can go to read more. I think "slight but statistically significant dose-dependant..." is a pretty good summary of the Soffritti results. Some of the same people who signed the CSPI letter to the FDA also authored the opinion piece in favor of full-lifetime toxicity studies in rats. Interestingly, the Davis et al. note "concerns regarding the questionable quality of other earlier negative studies" (referencing Davis), but don't mention criticisms levelled against the Soffritti aspartame studies, which makes it look like the commentary is not NPOV. The letter and the commentary are a double dose of documentation that the same group of people are convinced the Soffritti study is important. The commentary of Davis et al. may or may not be as valid as the commentary of Magnusson et al. -- not our job to have an opinion (WP:OR) -- so it may be appropriate to give both sides about the same weight. --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi SV Resolution: As usual I like your posts. I agree with the principles you stated like "the purpose of this article is not to present enough info. from the sources to convince anybody" but, on the other side we should mention the relevant facts. Do you think that you could be able to summarize the 8 items quoted above in a couple of sentences? I think that this will make happy everybody. --Calgaco (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of fact that this was the largest research on the aspartame
 * It is a matter of fact that this was the first research on the life span of the rodents
 * It's a matter of fact that the world's standards did not change after the Soffritti studies but this doesn't mean that there are no issues (demonstrated or not yet demonstrated) about aspartame.
 * A matter of fact is that Soffritti pointed out that according its research the aspartame is carcinogenetic.
 * A matter of fact Magnusson, paid by the aspartame maker, said that the Soffritti made mistakes.
 * A matter of fact is that nobody else did a long run research (as Soffritti did) on the effects of aspartame.
 * A matter of fact is that another research showed the "common sense" the results of 2-year bioassays of known carcinogens or chemicals are not definitive at all (do you think that the effects of 2 years smoking are the same of 20 years smoking?)
 * A matter of fact is that the testing guidelines were established in the 1960s and early 1970s and, as shown, they are not any longer in line with "the best practices"


 * I think that most of this could be done, but I am not sure about the last two. It doesn't matter whether I would compare a 2-year rat study to a 20-year human study, and the commentary by Davis et al. does not establish that currently accepted "best practice" for animal toxicity studies is a full-lifetime study, with or without fetal exposure.  I'm busy in real life for a few days.  I hope someone does just that before I get back.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * About the toxicity, in my opinion, it says that 2 year byoassays is likely to lead to fake results. This is why it suggests to revise the guidelines (written 40 years ago). I hope to see you soon here. Bye --Calgaco (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Davis commentary suggests revising the guidelines. That does not establish that the scientific community have actually reached consensus on a new set of guidelines.   I've started with the last version of this section by Tom Harrison, and added a bit about other scientists' opinions in opposition to the critical commentaries.  It's kind of apples to oranges, though, and I'm a bit unsure of my wording.  Nobody is criticizing Soffritti for doing a full-lifetime study.  They are saying that Soffritti et al made other mistakes.  The Davis paper lauds Soffritti for doing a full-lifetime study, but doesn't say anything about any other possible flaws with the study.  The bit about the Guardian accusing Soffritti's critics of conflict of interest is not WP:MEDRS, and may belong in another section of the article.  The CSPI letter to the FDA is borderline here, at best, and may belong in a WP:Controversy section of the article, also, as it documents that the controversy continues in the scientific community without actually being a WP:MEDRS reference.  Below is a proposed replacement for the Ramazzinni section of the article  --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In a controversial 2006 publication, the European Ramazzini Foundation Institute reported a slight, dose-independent, but statistically significant increase in several malignancies of rats, concluding that aspartame is "a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake". After reviewing the foundation's claims, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) the US FDA, and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) discounted the study results and found no reason to revise their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame. A comprehensive review of aspartame safety stated that the Ramazzini studies were flawed in several ways and that the researchers had misdiagnosed lesions as malignancies, while another study stated that the Ramazzini researchers ought to have improved upon the methodologic and conceptual weaknesses that had been present in their earlier paper. Other researchers have defended the statistical power and experimental design of the Ramazzinni study while criticizing earlier studies Some popular news outlets accused scientists who criticised the Ramazzini studies of conflict of interest, and the Ramazzini Foundation continued to claim carcinogenic effects.


 * I think that it would be best to spend some time detailing the problems with Soffriti's 3 studies (2005, 2006, 2007) and mentioning the defense. Additionally, the letter from CSPI was published in a Pubmed-indexed journal, and it was also reported in Science. You're also missing another paper from Huff and Ladou defending it. See these 3 references in my revision from a few days ago, properly formatted. However, Huff et al. do not really engage the problems highlighted by Soffriti. Magnuson states that "we believe it is highly likely that the present findings are due to infection and not aspartame consumption". Soffriti does engage this point by pointing to a 2008 EPA publication by Caldwell et al. who say infection is unlikely to have caused the cancers (I haven't seen the paper). Other issues highlighted in Magnuson et al. (2007) include uncontrolled dosages, unspecified diet, overcrowded cages, and cancer incidence within historical ranges.  II  | (t - c) 21:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed this issue is now being discussed yet again. A peer-reviewed comprehensive review in a reputable journal, with numerous authors in addition to the much-vilified Magnusson, found that the Ramazzini authors overdiagnosed cancer in their animals. The methods and results were criticised by multiple regulatory agencies around the world. That a few scientists defended them in low-impact journals and that conspiracy theorists criticised the "mainstream" in the popular press is interesting but really doesn't command much weight. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't simply exclude what appears to be reliably-published information based on the arbitrary decisions of a couple editors. There's details that we don't cover here which can be covered, and until they are, this page won't rest in peace. The "few scientists" actually about equaled Magnuson et al. in number if not in substance, and included veteran carcinogenesis bioassay researchers like Huff. II  | (t - c) 00:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion has not really ceased over this past month. I think it is worth being clear on which parts of the article are WP:MEDRS and which are WP:CONTROVERSY.  Criticisms in the popular press clearly belong in WP:CONTROVERSY sections, documenting that the controversy is still alive in the popular press. But, I think, not in a WP:MEDRS section.


 * Unomi, Calgaco, Immortale, how do you feel about the prior version proposed by II? Is there consensus that this version of the Ramazzinni Section represents the scientific back-and-forth in an evenhanded way?  Do you feel it is necessary to include the Davis commentary, which, as II and I have both mentioned, advocates full-lifetime studies but does not comment on any of the other aspects of the Soffritti aspartame studies.  If you feel II's version needs changing, how much changing do you think it would need to ?  It is already pretty dense with references the interested reader can follow for more reading on both sides of the controversy.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 00:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My previous revision does not give undue weight to the critics (one sentence at the end) and clarifies some basic details (currently, Magnuson's "improvement" looks like a non-sequitur since the 2007 study isn't mentioned). However, it doesn't really inform the reader why there's a controversy, and I wouldn't say it's my final proposal. Magnuson et al.'s criticisms should be noted specifically (diet, dosage, misdiagnosed hyperplasias, infections), and Soffriti and Huff's rebuttals should be mentioned. It should be clear to the reader that Soffriti and Huff did not engage most of the criticisms.  II  | (t - c) 00:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can squeeze in some time on this tomorrow. Will it inflame things if I create a new version of the article?  Doing it in the talk page is ugly and silly.  The result will be something like what I did above and something like II's version.  I'm going for evenhandedness, not "truth".  Calgaco -- it will be as though I had reverted your edit and started over.  Will you revert my edit? --SV Resolution(Talk) 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am all for more detail, I doubt that II or SV R would write a section that exhibited POV, intentionally or otherwise. I hereby endorse all efforts for adding more detail until otherwise noted. Unomi (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of all the opinions I've read, I agree the most with II and Unomi. Also I like to know why we need a section called "controversy" in an article called "controversy". Isn't the main aspartame about WP:MEDRS and this one about the Controversy? And as long as we have a gossip section called "internet rumors" the weight argument shouldn't be mentioned too many times... Immortale (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Unomi "I am all for more detail, I doubt that II or SV R would write a section that exhibited POV, intentionally or otherwise. I hereby endorse all efforts for adding more detail until otherwise noted".

@SV I was for a proposal of a new version of the paragraph here in the talk but I will not revert your changes.--Calgaco (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Keepcalmandcarryon please  try to understand that maybe your opinion is just one opinion hence try to follow the discussion in the talk. Thank you.--Calgaco (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how mentioning that some (referenced) parties have raised the issue of potential COI is somehow violating BLP. I must admit I was a bit surprised to find out that Burdock was the neutral 'firewall' that was supposed to keep the researchers from knowing who the sponsor was. I mean, to think that the researchers wouldn't be able to figure that out is stretching the limits of 'suspension of disbelief', that is ofcourse just my imperfect opinion. I am not willing to extend that to saying that there was wrongdoing involved, but in the interest of full-disclosure I think that should there be references citing allegations of COI they warrant mention. I agree that an 'interminable back and forth' is not desirable, but I think we can succeed in striking the right balance by an iterative process, there is no deadline.  Unomi (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As I am quite stupid in my simple mind the employee does what is paid for. --Calgaco (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree naming a section "controversy" is silly. What I wanted to say is that there are several parts to this controversy.  Some parts of it can follow WP:CONTROVERSY guidelines.  Some parts of it should follow WP:MEDRS.  And there is more than one type of WP:MEDRS section -- the "cut-and-dried" and the "controversial".
 * The part we are discussing right now is the scientific controversy -- specifically, how to properly represent the back-and-forth about the Ramazzinni-sponsored work of Soffritti et al. I think we can all agree that this section must conform to WP:MEDRS standards and WP:NPOV.  Or problem is to succinctly summarize without WP:SYNTH, as no textbooks cover this most recent work.  Our own points-of-view shouldn't matter.  Much.  The readers can read our summary, and choose to read from the references.


 * In this section, WP:WEIGHT does matter. It's WP:MEDRS.  Reliable, synthesizing secondary sources would be nice, but we don't have them.  Peer-reviewed scientific studies have more weight than commentaries (non-reviewed) in the same peer-reviewed journals.  Official statements and press releases from governmental food safety organizations tell us what they decided, but not precisely how or why.  We don't speculate.  Allegations of COI might be illuminating, but I'm not sure how to fit that in.  The Guardian piece is not WP:MEDRS, and might fit somewhere else better.
 * This may take a few hours, slotted in between other daily priorities, so I'll work in my own namespace for a bit -- User:SV_Resolution/aspartame_controversy_section. Comments are welcomed.  Please refer to specific diffs from the history.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Calgaco, I, too, encourage you to please read the history. The language about conspiracy and hoaxes has been the topic of previous discussion and consensus. The WP:WEIGHT issue and WP:MEDRS have been described quite well by SV Resolution, so I won't belabour the point. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Keepcalmandcarryon I'm sorry to ask you an additional effort but you have to explain your reasons to me and to some more users that above just mentioned their perplexities. Thank you for keeping you calm,--Calgaco (talk) 14:29, 26 March
 * Again, please read the talk archive; there's no need for me to explain matters that have been discussed in the past. Also, please note that continued edit warring will be referred to the appropriate noticeboard. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it and, again, please consider the opinion of the others there (in the archive) and here. If you want to refer something to the appropriate noticeboard please remind to start saying that you ignored this discussion. Thank you --Calgaco (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * @SV I have posted in your sandbox the "proposed" actual version and I have added some comment. --Calgaco (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The comment above about synthesis of primary sources still applies, with corresponding concerns about due weight. Tom Harrison Talk 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Some users are trying to discuss. If you have anything more to say please give way. Thank you --Calgaco (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please build consensus for significant changes. Per WP:OR, articles should not synthesize primary sources to advance a thesis. Tom Harrison Talk 15:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Tom you made a major change deleting a lot of point that you don't like without a word in the current discussion hence you have the build the consensus. Thank you for your understanding. --Calgaco (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you made the change from the consensus version, and others immediately objected. You can't just rewrite the article and declare your work the new established version. The burden is on you to justify your change and build consensus for it. Tom Harrison Talk 16:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The change you claim I did it was sic et sempliciter the previous version of this article. Please don't keep blaming. --Calgaco (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Which Soffritti studies does Magnuson review in "Aspartame: a safety evaluation"
Does anyone have a copy of this paper? Which Soffritti studies do they review?
 * 1) March 2006 -- "First experimental demonstration..." in Environ. Health Perspect (avail online Nov 2005)
 * 2) September 2006 -- "Results of long-term" in Annals of the NY Academy of Science
 * 3) September 2007 -- ""Life-span exposure ..." (avail online June 2007)

Thanks --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The review covers four papers with Soffritti as the first author, including the March 2006 and September 2006 papers. The authors responded to the September 2007 paper in 2008. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Email me at imperfectlyinformed@gmail.com and I'll send you the paper. II  | (t - c) 21:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparing reported risk to reported risk of other dietary choices
Soffritti et al reported a "small but statistically significant" and dose-dependant risk of malignancy associated with aspartame use. In real life, size matters. Several studies have found statistically significand and dose-dependant risk of malignancy associated with consumption of red meat, for example.

The EPIC paper on meat, fish, and colorectal cancer in humans reports that 50-year-old residents of Europe who eat < 20g red and processed meat per day have a 1.28% probability of developing colorectal cancer in 10 years, while those who eat >= 160g/day have a 1.71% probability. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to compare this to Soffritti's results without doing a lot of WP:OR that I wouldn't really know how to approach anyway. Experts -- is this a dead-end idea for an encyclopedia article? --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not here to prove or disprove but to report. Sometimes it's like the people here prepare for a lawsuit in court. Immortale (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does anyone think it would improve understanding of the topic to report on the MAGNITUDE of the risk Soffritti et al report? How much more likely were near-ADI subjects to be diagnosed with malignancies? --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Immortale: "we're not here to prove or disprove but to report". For the Soffritti studies, the most reliable source is a critical review in a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal. That's what should be used, not letters to the editor or personal conjecture.
 * On "small but statistically significant", my statistician friends can entertain themselves for entire careers with pointing out the fallacies in biology articles, where the authors typically do not employ statistical techniques of the highest rigour and often completely ignore e.g. the multiple comparison problem. You can find cancer associations with all sorts of things that have no meaningful connection with cancer. I'm not saying (and also not not saying) this is the case with Soffritti et al., but we shouldn't be analysing the paper ourselves; instead, we should let the experts review it, and here they have completely discounted the Ramazzini studies based upon their quality assessments. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article should report the criticisms from the EFSA panel (which criticised the data analysis as well as adherance to GLP) and the Burdock group. Are you saying we should not report the magnitude of the reported increase in risk of malignancy associated with aspartame because it is irrelevant, given the magnitude of the criticisms of the study?  --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm for all kind of criticism but in an ordelry manner:
 * 1) the study
 * 2) the criticism
 * 3) the conflic of interest of the criticism
 * 4) the public autorities
 * 5) the support to the study

Please don’t forget to quote the following facts
 * It is a matter of fact that this was the largest research on the aspartame
 * It is a matter of fact that this was the first research on the life span of the rodents
 * It's a matter of fact that the world's standards did not change after the Soffritti studies but this doesn't mean that there are no issues (demonstrated or not yet demonstrated) about aspartame.
 * A matter of fact is that Soffritti pointed out that according its research the aspartame is carcinogenetic.
 * A matter of fact Magnusson, paid by the aspartame maker, said that the Soffritti made mistakes.
 * A matter of fact is that nobody else did a long run research (as Soffritti did) on the effects of aspartame.
 * A matter of fact is that another research showed the "common sense" the results of 2-year bioassays of known carcinogens or chemicals are not definitive at all (do you think that the effects of 2 years smoking are the same of 20 years smoking?)
 * A matter of fact is that the testing guidelines were established in the 1960s and early 1970s and, as shown, they are not any longer in line with "the best practices"

Thank you, --Calgaco (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is off the topic of the magnitude of the effect reported by Soffritti et al. Do you think, based on the Soffritti papers, that we can make a statement about the magnitude of the increased risk Soffritti would expect at ADI, 2xADI, etc? --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see here http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/pdfUpload/Eur%20J%20Oncol%20Vol%2010%20107-116_2005.pdf and let me know if it helps. --Calgaco (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Carcinogenicity of Aspartame:Soffritti Responds
To whom is concerned from http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/pdfUpload/Environmental%20Health%20Perspectives_Vol%20116_%206_June%202008.pdf

*First, Magnuson and Williams imply that our findings (Soffritti et al. 2007) should be discounted because the incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in the high-dose group “were within or near the reported historical control ranges.” As reported in our study (Soffritti et al. 2007), the incidence of lymphomas/leukemias observed in both sexes treated with 2,000 ppm aspartame is nearly double the concurrent control (Soffritti et al. 2007). The suggestion that concurrent control data should be ignored is contrary to the widely accepted standard of good laboratory science. to some kind of bias (i.e., infection) that would affect only treated animals but not the controls. We have responded in detail to this hypothesis in our article (Soffritti et al. 2007) and in an earlier letter (Soffritti 2006). To support their assertion, Magnuson and Williams mislead readers by stating that “the lung was often the site of lymphoma again in this [second] study.” However, we actually reported that we observed the diffusion of neoplastic tissue not only in the lung but also concurrently in various organs (liver, spleen, mediastinal and other lymph nodes). (Soffritti et al. 2007) Infection as a mode of action for induction of rat lymphoma has been recently examined by a group of scientists at the National Center for Environmental Assessment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Caldwell et al. (2008) found that a careful examination of available information does not support the hypothesis that the observed lymphomas/leukemias in the ERF bioassays are a general effect from infection. The reports of chemically-induced lymphomas/leukemias by the ERF seem to be chemical specific.
 * Second, Magnuson and Williams attribute our findings (Soffritti et al. 2007)
 * Third, the idea that we must provide a “biologically plausible explanation” for human or rodent carcinogens is a timehonored approach to postpone or prevent the application of regulatory measures to minimize carcinogenic risks. The reality is that this explanation is quite often unknown, as is, in general, the mode of action behind the carcinogenic process.

Regarding Magnusson et al. it is written The authors received payment from the Burdock Group during the preparation of an expert review of the safety of aspartame. The Burdock Group managed the independent review, which was financially supported by Ajinomoto Company Inc., a producer of aspartame

Hope that this helps. --Calgaco (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

POV
Dear Tom, I think that most of people here understand you point of view. You have the right to think what you like. The issue is when you insists to mould the article in the way you think. This is POV. For example I have tried to show here in the talk that Magnusson has been paid by the aspartame producer and your answer is, instead to reply, to edit the article in this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&diff=280044695&oldid=280030545. As already mentioned please try to build the consensus instead of causing flames. Thank you for considering that. --Calgaco (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't want to cause any flames. I've reworded and used a different citation. Tom Harrison Talk 18:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The incipit before was now is
 * The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of controversy regarding its safety since its initial approval by...
 * The artificial sweetener aspartame is safe for all but a very few people.

This article is called "Aspartame controversy" so before it was neutral now you have anticipated something that should be explained in the following of the article because safe is a "conclusion". I think that you may realize yourself how POV it is. --Calgaco (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all. My change is a scrupulously neutral summary of the source cited, and was made to accommodate your objection to the previous version. It's sourced to the BBC, and includes a quotation. Tom Harrison Talk 18:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your reference is a secondary reference to a primary refence already present in the incipit. You should not multiply the references to the same study. I think that this way to act is clearly POV. --Calgaco (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In fact, secondary sources are preferred. See No original research. Still, in the interests of maintaining the collegiality and amity for which this talk page is knows, I'll change it yet again to accommodate your concerns. Tom Harrison Talk 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you missed the point. I'm not talking about sources I'm talking about references. Let me try to be more clear: if I quote the same research 10 times because 10 newpapers has written 10 times about it I'm wrongdoing. I cannot disseminate in the article 10 references to the same  research. Is that clear? --Calgaco (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the distinction you are trying to draw between sources and references. Do you then agree with me about the need to rely on good secondary sources? Tom Harrison Talk 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think about the latest change, incorporating the new BBC reference? Tom Harrison Talk 18:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tom I m considering myself a man that likes peace. I have tried to explain unsucessfully what should be fair. I will not revert your last edit and I will leave the judgement to the communnity. Mayby somebody else will propose the “right” version. For today I wish you the bests. --Calgaco (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you're very gracious. Tom Harrison Talk 19:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tom, why are you using a BBC reference for safety and health? That violates MEDRS. The review is a secondary source. Please cite it instead. I don't agree with the statement in the lead either, as it's not the way to lead an article on the controversy. The last few sentences of the lead already say that aspartame is safe. II  | (t - c) 19:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the scientist a MEDRS? Verbal   chat  09:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Origins
In the lead it says: "The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of controversy regarding its safety since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974." But in the section "Origins of the aspartame controversy" it starts with: "The controversy about aspartame safety finds its origin in some individual scientific studies, as well as in rumors spread over the internet." The source for this statement is taken from an article at about.com, written by David Emery, who describes his experience as: "Professional credits include stints as a freelance journalist, staff writer for a TV sitcom, and contributing editor of a satirical newspaper. Mr. Emery first won recognition in the online world as an arch commentator on the outer limits of Net culture with Iron Skillet Magazine, "a compendium of offbeat views run through the blender of the author's savage sense of humor ... [with] on-target skewerings of strange ideas" (Houston Chronicle). He has covered urban legends and folklore for About.com since 1997." Quite the expert we want to bring into this article to make important statements on aspartame, right? He uses the Nancy Markle letter as the main proof that the controversy is a hoax.

The second source mentioned is from Time Magazine, from about the same time and using again the reference to the Nancy Markle letter as proof to ridicule the entire controversy. The author Christine Gorman used to write columns about health for Time and is by no means an expert. Real newspapers such as the New York Times have reported regularly prior to 1999 about the controversy but are ignored here. Not even 60 minutes from december 1996 is mentioned (60 Minutes is a valid source in wikipedia I just learned). We need to have a better description about The Origins of the Aspartame Controversy. Immortale (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, I had been planning to rewrite the origins section once I found the time but by all means I think it should be expanded and explained.
 * The GAO87 report clearly says that it was considered a controversy in 1987, by rights the controversy started when the initial '74 approval was overturned within a few months. Unomi (talk) 09:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree either.--Calgaco (talk) 10:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

False
Hi,

I saw that "false" first and "factually inaccurate" was added. This led again to a chain of edit and undid. My point here is to ask for a general agreement to avoid such a kind of “fights”. My proposal is to leave the article as much neutral as we can by avoiding using adjectives. For example in this specific case we should avoid using expressions such as false, true, wonderful, etc. My proposal is to:
 * 1) explain what is the controversy (definition)
 * 2) explain the reason why of the controversy
 * 3) illustrate the main sources (papers/research, blog, etc.) of the controversy
 * 4) report the counter studies and the decision of the public authorities
 * 5) report what the “controversial” researchers replied to the critics

All above should be done without taking side and, hence, avoiding to anticipate any judgment/final conclusion. I hope to find a common agreement on this. --Calgaco (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree Unomi (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree about avoiding facts. The article should follow WP policies and guidelines, not give undue weight or avoid factual reporting because it is rather damaging to the argument of some fringe believers in a conspiracy. The five points have nothing to do with whether the false/factually inaccurate modifier is supported. It is supported, and some variation of it should remain. Later we refer to the rumours as an elaborate hoax, perhaps this should be added. Verbal   chat  13:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Merkle/Markle chain-letter(s) embellished on a Betty Martini usenet posting. Those postings (which she continues to post in various forums and on her website), are extrapolations from Blaylock's and Robert's writings, which are not generally accepted by the scientific community.  That's quite a mouthful, though.  How can we say that succinctly?  How about "an unverifiable internet chain letter". Calling it a chain letter is more specific and more accurate than calling it a rumor, which is vague.  Calling internet chain letters unverifiable is as redundant as calling a rumor unreliable.  But I think we can all agree that:
 * The Merkle/Markle chain letter ignited public controversy (TIME, SNOPES, and a consumer website featured it)
 * The Merkle/Markle chain letter is unverifiable or unreliable, and not a good source of information on any confirmed, postulated, or scientifically-debatable effects of Aspartame.
 * I don't think this "origins of the controversy" section is a WP:MEDRS section. It has statements supported by reference to TIME, SNOPES, and a consumer website. --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi SV, you made an example. This article refers to the controversy so, in some way, we should talk about it in a plain way. Can we agree please to do it without any flame? --Calgaco (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is consensus, we can keep this change --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that: it is a very good example on how to neutrally report facts. Thank you. --Calgaco (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That said, there are false claims and very misleading statements in the Merkle and Martini letters. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, I'm using facts and wikipedia's guidelines. You know that, that's why you avoid discussions and start making character comments instead. Just now you added an identical reference, to imply more weight. You also added the dubious reference again to Aurora Saulo Hodgson Extension Specialist in Food Technology, Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences who wrote an opinion piece for some journal at the University of Hawaii. She doesn't use any sources in her writing, so it's not verifiable. And these sources are supposed to be the best there is to find to explain the controversy as a hoax? So you have a comedy writer, a health columnist and a "Extension Specialist in Food Technology". Since when is grabbing for straws a wikipedia policy? These aren't scientific experts who have published their statements in peer-reviewed journals. Or does that rule only count for editors who come with negative findings on aspartame? Immortale (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was a cut and paste error. Thanks for WP:AGF. You seem to need to read WP:RS and WP:V again. Verbal   chat  20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Immortale! --Calgaco (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read WP:RS, have you or do you just like to decorate your posts with wiki references? It says: "Statements of opinion. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." There's more to say, but you probably come with another wiki abbreviation to justify what you're doing. Immortale (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let us not explode. That U. of Hawaii reference wasn't added today.  It's been there for a while.  After so much editing, many of the references have come loose from the statements they were originally supposed to be anchoring.  Immortale, you propose that it doesn't meet WP:RS for the context in which it is currently used.  If you feel another reference is better for that statement, please improve that part of the article.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was added recently as another reference to the section "Origins of the aspartame controversy". It's used at other places in the article as well, but it still is an opinion and I'm pointing out that we cannot turn opinions into statements of fact. Do you agree with that? Immortale (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would simply commend you for recognizing this is not the strongest reference to document the mainstream view on aspartame safety, and improving the article. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of References for Ramazzinni section
I made a timeline to help me understand the sequence of events in the Ramazzinni section, and to help get the article back into order, with the refs glued back onto the statements they belong with. I think it would be awkward to have it right on this talk page, so I've created a subpage for References for Ramazzinni section


 * Very very nice, well done. Unomi (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy
This subsection confuses me. As a subsection of Aspartame controversy, I would think it would explain how certain scientific studies got the controversy started. But I don't think it does that. The pieces of this subsection:
 * 1) Results of survey in the GAO87 report -- not a scientific study.  Maybe belongs at the end of "approval process", as a rough guide to medical and scientific opinion in 1987? Moved to previous subsection. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) References to papers from different "eras" in this controversy.  Lists the areas about which researchers were (and continue to be) concerned, but does not explain the origins of the scientific controversy. Papers were about reported and postulated effects of aspartame, so I moved this paragraph there, eliminating the subsection. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Governmental and WHO food safety -- not scientific studies Moved to "approval outside the us".  But this does not inform the reader about the origins of the aspartame controversy.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Definition of ADI -- a link to the definition of ADI should be sufficient.  The link to the NCI statement on aspartame is not necessary to define ADI. I deleted that --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Discussion of how a can of soda compares to ADI -- maybe this should go in Aspartame_controversy, to illustrate why these sections state that the majority of medical authorities say that the amount of aspartame/phenylalinine/aspartate/DKP in food products is too small to cause the reported effects. Moved to Aspartame_controversy --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Conclusions of the GAO87 report -- belongs in the approval process (and, actually, is covered there, in different words), or in Alleged conflicts of interest.  Combined with existing conclusing of "approval in the US". --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Should Aspartame controversy summarize the scientific studies that were considered as part of the approval process, and how they contributed to the controversy? Searle studies? "The Japan study?" Other early studies? --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we could do with a timeline of sorts that briefly cover important events in the aspartame controversy.
 * As far as I understand Olney and Blaylock were both mostly concerned with pregnant women and young kids, perhaps appeals to emotion, perhaps because they perceived some increased exposure risks. We can easily see that while the ADI represents 21 cans for an adult, it represents roughly 7 cans or 2 liters for a 9 year old.
 * As I understand it there are 3 major causes for the controversy
 * Perceived faults with the research/analysis which holds it safe, combined with research results which was perceived to be incriminating it.
 * Perceived faults with the FDA approval process.
 * Perceived improper influencing of people involved, e.g. the fact that the criminal charges were allowed to expire, the lack of re-validating the findings on the grounds of which it was approved.
 * While Nancy Markle may have made the controversy more noticeable, it is clear from the number of news articles (and the actions of Metzenbaum) that predate the chain letter, it was by no means part of the 'origin'.
 * I think that the scientific studies deserve to be mentioned; I wonder if anyone has the heart to actually look at what these 100+ studies were.
 * Unomi (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read the Soffritti researches and even though I cannot say that I'm an expert I can say that I know something. For example in the link that I provided to SV you can see how the different doses of aspartame is "supposed" to cause cancer.--Calgaco (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we really have to parrot the industry example of the 21 cans for an adult? We already established that aspartame is present in at least 6000 different products, and these aren't all drinks in a can. It's marginalizing the consumption of aspartame while in reality besides drinking from a can, it can be in yogurts, chewing gum, sweeteners, the list is long Immortale (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unomi -- I think you are saying that this article does not explain how concerns about Searle's research, the FDA's reversal and the protests from some of the PBOI members, Metzenbaum's statements from the Senate floor, and the GAO investigation all fed the controversy. There are a couple of well-written sentences at Sugar_substitute.


 * Remember that you cannot review or synthesize Searle's body of work for this article. You need to see where others have done that.  Start with the newest reviews from both sides of the controversy, and work back through their citations to find the earlier reviews of the Searle studies.  Check for mention in the GAO87 report of which studies the PBOI members had problems with.  You might want to construct a timeline of references and then distill it all into a few sentences.  You may find you wind up using exactly the same references that are already in the article, but some bits have been reworked so much that the citations have dragged anchor a bit.


 * Calgaco -- If you find statements about the size of the reported effects, that would be illustrative, especially if you can find comparison to the cancer-causing potential of other items banned or approved for food -- like liquor (esophageal cancer) or grilled meat (stomach and colon cancer). I haven't found these comparisons so far, and I'm afraid it would be WP:OR for us to calculate that Soffritti's data say their rats (male and female combined) were 18% more likely to develop some kind of tumor at 100 mg/kg, and 31% more likely at 5000 mg/kg.  Of course, it is hard to say exactly what the dosage was, since Soffritti just made an assumption that EVERY rat ate the same mass of food per kg bodyweight every day -- they did not actually measure how much food was eaten in each cage each day.  Maybe the high-dose rats were leaner and lived longer because their chow had 10% of the macronutrients replaced by aspartame. Or maybe they even ate less because they didn't like the taste of 10% aspartame chow.  There is no way for anyone to know.


 * Immortale -- The reason we quote the 21 cans figure is that this is the figure that we can find. For yourself, you can calculate your total daily load if you consume a chewable vitamin, breakfast cereal, sweetener in your coffee, a yogurt, a couple of cans of cola, a few sticks of gum, and a bowl of ice-cream.  But to put that into the article would be WP:OR.  You can find out the amount of aspartame in a paper packet, but I'm not sure it is easy to find the amount in a 6-oz or 8-oz cup of sweetened yogurt. I think the can of soda is the item is heaviest in aspartame.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

More on Conflict of Interest
Part of the early controversy, as raised by Senator Metzenbaum, was around the Chicago US attorney office. I have added some of this information, from the congressional record and a WSJ article. I see now that I have neglected to mention Metzenbaum's role in this controversy. As he held Senate hearings and commissioned the GAO to write two different reports, I think his role in this controversy is notable. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the earlier Congressional Records or the letters between him and Orrin Hatch, in which he spelled out his concerns over the quality of Searle's safety studies and the appearance that Searle had quashed a Federal grand jury investigation by getting their lawyers to hire a couple of US attorneys from Chicago. Some of these materials are republished on dorway, but I hesitate to link to reprints there, even though I think they probably reproduced these items accurately. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on a timeline at User:SV_Resolution/aspartame_controversy_section. It's a mess. Not everything is in timeline order, and some of the references are a mess, too. If anyone wants to help work on cleaning it up and putting it into Talk:Aspartame_controversy/Timelines, in a "Origins of controversy" section for our reference, that'd be a great help. I'm still trying to understand how Metzenbaum got involved. Maybe it was a letter from Olney? I'm thinking that, the more organized our references are, the more likely that this article will STAY improved, once we get it that way. Wishful thinking --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
What about that notice of neutrality dispute? Can anybody give a short list of items from the article that are not covered appropriately? Can we work on them, one by one, and cross them off the list? And then remove the dispute tag? --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I didn't get any quick objections, I'm going to propose that, if there are no objections after 7 days, we remove that neutrality dispute template. As I see it, editors of various points of view can agree on several things about this article
 * 1) There is no neutrality dispute about the article properly representing the mainstream view on the safety of aspartame, in the "reported effects" section, using appropriate WP:MEDRS sources
 * 2) There is no neutrality dispute about the article presenting information on the origins of the aspartame controversy
 * 3) *Approval in the US (documented by the GAO87 report)
 * 4) **Deficiencies in the Searle studies that led to the approval stay, and how the FDA vetted those studies
 * 5) **Concerns that the DOJ did not indict Searle on fraud charges
 * 6) **Concerns about the COI that resulted when Searle's lawyers offered jobs to two Chicago US attorneys
 * 7) **Concerns about the appearance of COI when the new FDA commissioner overturned the unanimous PBOI ruling to re-approve aspartame
 * 8) *Metzenbaum's role in bringing this controversy back to the daily news (senate hearings, GAO investigations, questioning former-US attorney skinner's nomination to transportation) (currently missing from the article)
 * 9) There is no neutrality dispute about the article's presentation of the "Markle" email chain letter based on Betty Martini's Usenet posting (and this sections use of sources appropriate to WP:CONTROVERSY)
 * 10) There is no neutrality dispute about the articles presentation of the Aspartame controversy section, its use of WP:MEDRS standards to represent the publications, or its use of government press releases to represent mainstream response to the recent studies and other publications.
 * 11) *This includes the Ramazzinni Foundation studies.

If we find that there is consensus on the neutrality of most sections, we can turn out attention to any problematic sections. --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You did a much better job than Keepcalm but I don't think the article is neutral yet. There are too many private opinions presented as general facts. What should be the difference between the regular Aspartame article and the Aspartame controversy article? To report the controversy I would think, not to present safety reports from the industry. Why isn't there a section on Monsanto, who pushed aspartame consumption to new levels. Monsanto is a very controversial company that have tried to bribe governmental health agents in several countries (one example here). They have offered jobs directly to FDA officials that worked with the aspartame approval. There are many independent researchers who have serious concerns about the aspartame safety (this NY Times article from 1985 reports that for example). It's true that most governmental agencies approved aspartame but the controversy is that the majority of the scientists representing such panels had private financial ties with the food industry. A link to explain the tactics of the industry in this could be pointing to this article. But at least the work you've done SV Resolution is definitely an improvement. Immortale (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's about Monsanto put it in their article, then we can maybe summarise anything relevant and add a link. KeepCalm did a very good job, there is no need to be uncivil. Verbal   chat  09:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * @Immortale -- Thanks for responding. Please don't criticize other editors, though -- we're all trying to improve the article. You wrote about a lot of things, and I have trouble separating them from each other.  Can we talk about one part of the article at a time?  It seems to me you say:
 * ...to report the controversy...not to present safety reports from the industry. Yes (on reporting the controvers)... no (not presenting industry safety studies).  As I see it: Following the FDA stay on aspartame's approval, the FDA CFSAN and UAREPS in 1977-1978 investigated 15 crucial Searle safety studies (with raw data) and found them acceptable (once some transcription errors were corrected) for evaluating aspartame's safety.  The PBOI analyzed these studies and concluded they showed no evidence of neurological risk by any mechanism.  The PBOI thought more aspartame/cancer research was needed, and were certain aspartame would never be sold again.  The incoming FDA chairman's advisory panel said the PBOI had made mistakes in analyzing the cancer data, and that fixing the mistakes lead to the conclusion that it was not reasonable to suspect aspartame of causing cancer.  The FDA chairman rescinded the stay on aspartame's approval.  (... other scientific work ...) Today, the mainstream opinion is that aspartame does not cause cancer.  The Ramazzinni foundation has financed two recent studies, which are controversial.  Soffritti claims advantages to their experimental design, while other scientists debate the advantage of some of these design elements and point to other procedural problems. One could mention the scientific biases.  Magnuson viewed aspartame as safe even before she went to work for the Burdock group (which does scientific contract work for big businesses).  Soffritti viewed aspartame as unsafe even before he went to work for the Ramazzinni foundation.  I think this kind of approach describes the scientific side of the controversy dispassionately. I don't think you'll find consensus for leaving out the fact that CSFAN and the independant review team (UAREPS) thought those 15 studies were adequate and OK.  Or for making any radical changes in the way this part of the story is told.  Because these are the facts we can find in the GAO87 report, as well as in the Rumsfeld book.
 * they have offered jobs Yes. Concerns over conflict of interest contributed to the controversy.  Is this a neutrality dispute, or is it just something we can add to our to do?  The 6 FDA personnel in the GAO86 report, and the 2 US attorneys Metzenbaum investigated in Senate hearings.  The GAO found that the 6 FDA personnel had not broken any rules, but noted that the rules had changed since the time of the investigated incidents, and, of course, declined to comment on whether their actions would have been prohibited under the new rules.
 * Not every reference is appropriate for this article. The 1985 newspaper article can document media exposure at the time, but cannot document current scientific opinion because it is over 20 years out of date.  The blog entry is not WP:RS, though the blog author's book (Doubt is Their Product) might be -- perhaps for an article on the hazards of tobacco, beryillium, or diacetyl, or to an article about how large industries have tried to game scientific peer review and safety regulation in the US, the Bush administration's anti-regulation stance, or to OSHA/NIOSH and US workplace safety issues.
 * And here's something we haven't covered: other outcomes of the controversy. Partly as a result of the investigation of Searle, the FDA introduced GLP standards and other rules for companies to follow when seeking FDA approval.  Just before the FDA began to permit electronic submission, drug companies would submit an actual truckload of paper detailing not only their test results but also their compliance with the FDA rules(I don't know a reference for this -- just anecdotes).  And, of course, the rules about government personnel accepting jobs in regulated industries or with lobbyists have changed, as well, as mentioned in the GAO86 report on Metzenbaum's FDA 6. --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently it's okay to criticize me, but when Keepcalm erased several weeks of my edits (in cooperation with other editors) without debate, it's being interpreted as a "very good job"?? It's not against the wikpedia guidelines for me to state that the article is an improvement compared to Keepcalm's edits. Anyway, doesn't the Food Industry have a COI? And shouldn't independent research have more weight in the aspartame research? The original approval was based on studies for aspartame in dry foods. Most adverse reactions were found in consumption of soda drinks, which lacked proper testing. Why wouldn't Spinwatch be a reliable source? Contrary to the urban legend sites, Spinwatch has an advisory board consisting of academics, professors, scientists, journalists, politicians with lots of credentials. Is there an independent source that states that the mainstream view claims that aspartame doesn't cause cancer. I mean that the industry claims it, is no surprise but that doesn't mean it's an objective conclusion. The tobacco industry still claims that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Immortale (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Immortale, you raise some very important issues. And I have a hard time keeping them all in my head at one time.  Would you be willing to answer the questions I started this section with:  Of all the sections of this article, do you think we have gotten beyond the neutrality dispute?  Are there any where you are certain we are still in dispute?  Are there some where you are not even sure?  I'd like to know if it is possible to identify the problem areas, and work on consensus there, while also identifying the areas we've managed to improve.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 12:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology at RS/N
A source which is used in this article is being discussed at RS/N: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard II  | (t - c) 17:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we decide which journals are reliable? Can we decide which articles in  journals are suspect?  Or do we need to come up with a levelheaded way of stating that the industry paid for the paper?  "Some industry-funded scientists stated that the Ramazzini researchers ought to have improved..." In the body of the article and/or in the citation?  Do we need to list funding (where known) for every cited scientific paper?  What about other publications? Should there be a change to WP:RS and/or WP:MEDRS and the citation templates? --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

COI, funding, wording
Can anyone suggest a suitable wording for noting funding sources for reviews and critiques of scientific studies? --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about like this?: A 2007 safety evaluation funded by aspartame producer Ajinomoto[5] found that the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates...


 * - just simply stated, with reference. I believe that it's incredibly important to point out COIs in this issue, as that is a major source of conflict in the controversy. ClubEd (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

@Verbal -- you have twice reverted statements like this, from two different editors. Please discuss. Perhaps you can make a good suggestion for how the article should address the issue of COI and reliability of industry-funded scientific publications as it pertains to the aspartame controversy. Certainly, the high incidence of this topic in the blogosphere and at anti-aspartame web pages is a testament to the fact that it is an important component of the controversy. I don't think Aspartame controversy is the only place editors are struggling to grapple with the problem of how to represent these sources. --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Verbal (talk | contribs) (51,739 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by ClubEd; Get consensus first for such edits."

Right then, do we have a consensus that it is not a contentious alteration to leave in the statement asserting that aspartame has been determined safe according to the "the weight of existing scientific evidence," as long as the COI is mentioned? Or is it less contentious to remove that line altogether? ClubEd (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What COI? I'd like to see a WP:RS that there is a COI (not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR). A statement asserting that aspartame has been determined safe according to the the weight of existing scientific evidence should suffice, and can be supported by many WP:RS. Thanks, Verbal   chat  14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There are an abundance of RSs for the fact that corporate funding for research can lead to tainted papers and advertising sources in journals lead to publication bias. If this were not the case why do you think that every major journal requires authors to state if they have interests? Lets not be silly here. I would invite Verbal to enumerate just what research has constituted this scientific evidence. Perhaps you are referring to the research that was so shoddy and or misleading that the FDA recommended that searle et al should be criminally prosecuted for? Unomi (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that funding can have an effect, that is well documented. But for us to allege a COI in this instance we need a RS that states there is or may be a COI. Please bring it/them here for discussion. Just showing that it was funded by industry via another entity is not enough, in fact that kind of arms-length funding sounds as though it may be to address any such COI concerns. Try to stay civil Unomi, my comment wasn't uncivil or baiting in any way. We can't WP:SYNTH a COI. Verbal   chat  15:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unomi, it's not about Searle's research, but specifically the Magnuson report. This report was funded by Ajinomoto, which is a major producer of Aspartame.
 * Verbal, does Wikipedia not have guidelines for COI specifically? If I'm guessing correctly, you're maintaining that to mention the source of the study (even without stating that there is a COI) would require a RS that states both the funding source, and that such funding represents a conflict of interest?ClubEd (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the funding could be mentioned, but my understanding is that it wasn't funded directly. To make, or imply, a COI we need a RS stating that there is/was/maybe such a thing. The funding of one study is already mentioned in the reference list, but I think it should be restricted to Burdock group. And yes, to mention the funding we need an RS for that (reports usually include this information). Verbal   chat  15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My edit was footnoted with a source, here is another one, from a pro-Magnuson study article that states "funded by unrestricted support from Ajinomoto Company Inc, a Japanese firm that produces aspartame" - http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/564923_print. I'm not ignoring the section "Funding Source not a Factor" from the article that explains the blindness of the sponsorship, as I doubt we'll find any research contesting or confirming their funding methodology quite yet. And the edit did not state a COI, but of course it is implied. Anyway, as I stated earlier, the funding of aspartame research is incredibly relevant since the funding issue is a (if not the) major source of conflict in this controversy. (A study you may have already come across: A survey of aspartame studies by Ralph Walton MD of Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine found: "Of the 166 studies felt to have relevance for questions of human safety, 74 had NutraSweet industry related funding and 92 were independently funded. One hundred percent of the industry funded research attested to aspartame's safety, whereas 92 percent of the independently funded research identified a problem.") ClubEd (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal, I am deeply sorry for my knee-jerk reaction, I went beyond what was appropriate. Regarding the Magnuson report, as I remember Ajinomoto hired the Burdock group to head up the report and according to Jacobsen as cited in webmd researchers were bound to know they were funded by industry and 'they got what they paid for'. Burdock group themselves are hardly a neutral-party, their slogan says it all.. Unomi (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Jacobson (CSPI) alleged COI But Jacobson notes that the panel was highly accepting of studies finding aspartame safe -- and highly critical of those linking aspartame to possible health risks.


 * "They say Ajinomoto paid for the study but researchers didn't know who paid. Well, they knew it was industry. And some of these people are longstanding industry consultants," Jacobson says. "You get what you pay for. What we need are high-quality studies, such as those that could be done by the National Toxicology Program." --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The people who have made the argument for the conflict of interest are: Soffriti of the Ramazzini Foundation and Huff et al. in the IJOEH. Perhaps a compromise would be to put the funding in a footnote with a note that the sponsor wasn't revealed to the authors until it was published. When Magnuson and Williams sent their letter in, the EHP (Environmental Health Perspectives) required them to acknowledge their industry funding. I don't think that Wikipedia should take a lower bar of disclosure than EHP. II  | (t - c) 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree.--Calgaco (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Now both of the Magnuson paper citations have their notes about funding sources.  Do we have consensus that:
 * It is OK to include information on funding/affiliation on any of the publications cited in this article?
 * The only A WP:RS we have to document allegations of COI against the Magnuson et als. Crit. Reviews. review is the Huff paper.
 * The CSPI (Jacobson) statement on COI, and the webmd report of the CSPI statement is not an appropriate source for this section of the article.
 * --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

About point 1 please find below my personal opinion: More in general: it is really relevant to mention that the guidelines and the protocols were issued 40/50 years ago and that means (at least) that they are outdated. This implies that the supposed safety of the goods sold is not based on "the best practices"... --Calgaco (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * a) It is really relevant to mention whether there is a conflict of interest (I make the good A, then I pay some scientist to demolish a research that raises concerns about my product)
 * b) It is really relevant to mention that the supposed "independent" review was paid by the aspartame maker and that the independent scientist didn't say a word about that
 * c) It is really relevant to stress that the supposed "independent" review didn't prove anything but just criticized some aspects of the Soffritti's research. A counter research would be required to prove that aspartame is really safe but nobody around here is available/interested to support a research on the rats lifetime.


 * Calgaco, let's get it done. Please look at the section as it stands now: do we have consensus that, in the Ramazzinni section, 1) funding of the Magnuson review is properly noted (in the reference) 2)In the final sentence of that section, the suggestion of COI by Huff et al. has been properly noted (someone who has access to that paper, please review) and 3) the CSPI statement alleging COI is not mentioned, and this is appropriate to the Ramazzinni section.  Criticism of Searle's studies from the 60's and 70's based on current GLP doesn't fit in this section on the Ramazzinni studies. --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

To Scientizzle, on the edit showing that the panelists were unaware of their sponsor: I think this is an appropriate edit, however, I'm pretty sure that I have responded to this point several times, and I know other people have. Since you have science in your name, I'm guessing you're not terribly credulous. The review was done by the Burdock Group. This is a company whose main job is to facilitate regulatory approval for its clients. Ajinomoto paid them some money (we don't know who was aware of their payer); William Waddell then selected the panelists, who were presumably paid a fair sum. To say that there was no potential bias here is absurd. Whenever one hires a company which serves the industry and has a reputation of helping its customers to maintain, there's a strong possibility of bias in the selection of reviewers. This is evident in the fact that the main reviewer chosen was Magnuson, who works at a similar company (Cantox International, a company which works to "facilitate timely approvals"). Anyway, this was a fairly crude attempt to reduce industry bias which probably had a negligible effect. I'm not saying the paper is wrong in any respects, just that the assertion of "no bias" is ridiculous. This method of deflecting the bias attack is one we'll no doubt see more of in other areas, and it's one that isn't taken all that seriously, as evidenced by the fact that EHP required the Magnuson and Williams to disclose their conflict of interest without any excuses. II | (t - c) 23:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As some of you know, this issue has come back now and then and we can conclude that there is such a thing as industrial bias. For example, Spinwatch shows this. Or Sourcewatch on the International Sciences Institute. Both are reliable sources. The Magnuson review favors the industry and left out a large part of independent research or ridiculed it. It doesn't contain one positive word about any aspartame research that showed adverse effects, while at the same time glorifies every research that proved aspartame as safe. Even if most of such research took place during one or a few days. Exactly how Ajinomoto wanted it. It's what the Burdock Group works with. And that's what creates the controversy about Aspartame: industry versus independent research. To say afterwards that the contributing scientists didn't know who was behind it, needs to be proved by evidence. We cannot just take people's word for it in Wikipedia, right?
 * SV Resolution, I had very little time this week, but will try to find more time to work on the article. Immortale (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Immortale -- let's get the job done. Please be specific on the details you take issue with, so we can reach consensus on this part of Aspartame controversy.  Some of your issues are beyond the scope of this article -- please explore and/or expand appropriate wikipedia articles, to which this article can wikilink.  I think we can represent the facts encyclopedically, and point the readers to the WP:RS sources on both sides of the controversy.  This will allow readers to find exactly the essays you would like them to read.  And this article will be a "boring" encyclopedia article that merely states the mainstream view on aspartame's safety and recounts the history of the controversy, with sufficient reference to reliable information on all sides of the story.  Which is as it should be.


 * This articles says that Soffritti alleged the CritRev review had COI. This article states that Burdocks's stated function was to shield Ajinomoto and the investigators from each other, but does not say whether or not it accomplished that, since we have no evidence either way.  International_Life_Sciences_Institute states Soffritti also alleged COI in the EFSA decision, but is not sourced -- can you improve that article with references from the sourcewatch entry?).  If we can find where Soffritti criticized EFSA, I think that would cover COI re: reception of Ramazzinni studies.  Do you agree?  The reader can easily find out how the Burdock Group makes its money.  Do you agree?  The article links to WP:RS sources, and contains enough information for the reader to find the essays you'd most like them to read, as well material that many feel represents the best science on aspartame safety.  Do you agree?  When people keep saying "COI", they start to sound like children saying "no fair" when they don't get their way.  It would be more interesting if you could find evidence that the accused actually erred in their conclusions (as we attempted to do by citing the letter to the FDA in support of Soffritti's studies).


 * Yes, I have tried to narrow the discussion. Because I'd like to get one section in good shape and move on to another section.  The issue of how big industry sometimes uses "bad science" to make money is too big to cover in Aspartame controversy.  Please find out where at Wikipedia it is already covered and improve that article encyclopedically with reliable sources.  As it is relevant to the aspartame controversy,  there will be a natural way to link that such an article, allowing the interested reader to plunge down yet another rabbit hole.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited around here in a while, or much in general, so perhaps I've missed any actual response to this point in the past. (Although, if this is true, why wasn't this information included within the article before? Seems an important detail...) In any case, what I mainly object to is the use of insinuation in place of actual fact. "There were no known conflicts of interest" is a dramatically different claim than "no bias", which is not something I have ever suggested, nor would, or a suggestion I've seen about this review. "No known conflicts of interest" from the journal publisher is a self-evidently important note of support, whether individuals here choose to dismis it or not. That anyone on this talk page chooses to believe the individuals and/or corporations involved should not be trusted is not relevant to this article; likewise, pure speculation regarding the review process and renumeration is irrelevant and specious. Do any of you know the actual source of European Foundation on Oncology and Environmental Sciences funding that covered the big aspartame study? I don't. Hell, I'd never heard of it until I'd stumbled upon into this quicksand trap of an article a year ago. I'm sure I could imagine some potential sources of bias or maybe suggestive politcal leanings. They wouldn't be relevant to the article, either.
 * Before I get accused of something I'm not doing, however, let me make clear: it's perfectly possible that aspartame is not as safe as advertised and/or that there have been underhanded dealings to subvert the normal scientific and safety controls. However, these are big allegations and should be represented responsibly and supported by only the highest quality sources. I have no dog in this fight (other than as an occasional consumer of aspartame, I guess), so what I primarily object to is the classic pseudoscience tactic of trying to turn a perceived weakness of one side into support for the other. It's not. These are the ridiculous games of 9/11 Truthers, anti-vaccinationists, and ID/creationists. Past instances of individuals or organizations doing (alleged) Bad Things only have relevance to this topic only if there's actual evidence of improper activity. Otherwise, this is simply poisoning the well.
 * Bottom line, the mainstream position (apparent in the scientific literature and from various regulatory bodies) on aspartame is clear: it is generally safe for consumption at recommended levels. Per WP:FRINGE, this article should not try to rewrite that reality into the anti-aspartame case. This article should clearly explain the various controversies and claims, and fully provide the unambiguous "mainstream rebuttal" to these points (in a practical manner with due dilligence to prose and clarity). Keep that up and eschew the weak conspiracy-mongering and proof by assertion. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that, by focusing on the available reliable information, editors with different views will be able to come to consensus on what belongs in this article. Any additional reliable and relevant information that surfaces will be used to improve the article.


 * Certainly, the combination of industry-sponsered criticism of recent research and irregularities in the product's toxicology evaluations might remind some of the kinds of things that have happened with other products, some of which turned out to be unsafe. And if we have reliable sources that say that this has had a notable effect on public perception of aspartame (the aspartame controversy), we need to wikilink or reference that information appropriately.  If reliable sources show various scientific opinions on the safety of aspartame, we must link or reference that also.  I think that by focusing just on the sources and what they actually say about safety of aspartame (a WP:MEDRS topic) or history and current state of the controversy (a WP:Controversy topic) we can weed out bad sources and OR and tell the story the way an encyclopedia ought to tell it.


 * Certainly, the kinds of things that have sometimes happened with this article might remind some of the kinds of things that have happened with other wikipedia articles. Lately, discussions here about what types of sources are appropriate in different contexts seem to have progressed to consensus.  So I am hopeful that, by focusing on the details, we will be able to plod along and work our way through presenting this reliable information in a neutral way.  This talk page has lately been less exciting than formerly, and I hope we can keep it that way.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All involved editors: Have we resolved the neutrality dispute in the Ramazzinni section of the article?
 * yes -- we are using WP:RS to document different scientific views, and allegations of COI. --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to backtrack a bit, but I notice that the footnote to the very neutral sounding "A 2007 safety evaluation found that the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener.[5]" does not mention that Ajinomoto is an aspartame producer, nor does the Ajinomoto wiki page mention anthing about aspartame. To the casual reader, this fails to even hint at a COI. Should we not revert back to the edit "A 2007 safety evaluation funded by aspartame producer Ajinomoto found that..."? ClubEd (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, we are trying to avoid such an unsubstantiated CoI "hint". Verbal   chat  14:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Why don't you add aspartame manufacturing information to the Ajinomoto article? It is entirely relevant information about the company and better than cramming more into a footnote on this article. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ClubEd -- I added ajinomoto food products llc as producer of aspartame for you. Is noting the funding source of a cited reference an 'unsubstantiated COI "hint"'?  When EHP required a disclosure of the CritReviews funding on Magnuson's critique of the Soffritti studies, was that POV-pushing? --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, good thing to add. Verbal - the COI was well substantiated above and a consensus was reached. I think the main problem here is a confusion about what a COI means. A Conflict of interests does not mean that illegal or dishonest activity has (necessarily) taken place, but (according to Wikipedia) that simply "an individual or organization...has an interest that might compromise their reliability. A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it...." Ajinomoto profits from the sale of aspartame. They initiated and funded a study that attests to their product's safety. That is a textbook case of a conflict of interests. The page continues: "A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below – but it still exists." The third party separation does not make the COI go away. ClubEd (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's a hint of wrongdoing to mention the COI. But surely there is a study that can be used for such a key statement that is not tainted by a COI? ClubEd (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the WP:RS that taints this study? Verbal   chat  19:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article does not state that the study is tainted. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article currently says Soffritti accuses Magnuson of COI, but in the source I only see "Magnuson and Williams mislead readers".  --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC) article now conforms to the source --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, this is in reference to the Magnuson critique of Soffritti's second aspartame study, not to the CritRiviews paper. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, this is a discussion about a Conflict of Interest, not taint. Any source connects Ajinomoto to the study is a RS for COI. ClubEd (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ClubEd, you said "But surely there is a study that can be used for such a key statement that is not tainted by a COI?", and my question was asking you for a WP:RS that "taints" this source, or that this source is "tainted". I also disagree that any RS that links them is evidence of a COI, that is a synthesis (WP:SYNTH) - we need an WP:RS that makes allegations of COI or "taints" the study. I did not introduce this terminology, rather I'm asking you to back up your use of it. I agree with SV, this article does not currently say the study is tainted - and nor should it, with out a very good RS. Verbal   chat  14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean that the study has been corrupted, but tainted in that the COI casts the shadow as to whether or not it is a neutral study (a bad word choice of mine). If we have a choice between a RS with COI or one without, why are we using the former? Nothing in this article should claim that the study was tainted, because there is no source to back that up. My key point is that by definition of the term "Conflict of Interest", there exists one in this study. That is not synthesis or speculation or opinion. The study may be perfect and conducted completely properly, but regardless (according to the wiki definition of the term), there still exists a COI. ClubEd (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, but you are still synthesising a conflict of interest - we need a RS to make that claim. If there is more than one source great, add them all - but we shouldn't remove this source. Verbal   chat  14:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So which part of this statement requires a RS?: "an individual or organization...has an interest that might compromise their reliability. A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it...." A source that states that Ajinomoto sells aspartame, and that they have a financial interest such sales? I am not synthesising a conflict of interest. There is no leap or accusation to be made. Ir is a basic and direct definition for this term. ClubEd (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, you need a RS that makes that jump to include it in the article - it is too far for us to make it as editors. Verbal   chat  14:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no jump. It's as if were stating if a study is peer reviewed or not peer reviewed - just according the definitions of those terms. Let's remember that this is a controversy page - it makes little sense to lead the page with a statement coming from a study with a COI. It just deepens the neutrality issues that this page suffers from. ClubEd (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want COI allegations to be added you have to source them to RS. If you don't, then can we drop this? Verbal   chat  15:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm dropping it because were getting nowhere. I believe that the key issue is that COI does not mean what you think it means. ClubEd (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The other strong scientific statement against Soffritti's first study is the full opinion from the EFSA report. There were some concerns about COI there too, also of the "they know which side their bread is buttered on" variety..
 * Either way, I think this section of the article will read much the same. Do we have consensus on the issue of "neutrality dispute" with regard to this one section? --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * @ClubEd -- I have been responding specifically about the Ramazzini section, while you were talking about the lead. That CritReview paper is the most recent comprehensive review of aspartame safety.  Other options are the 1980 and 1981 JECFA reports and a 2002 review written by NutraSweet employees.  The 2008 Humphries review is specific to the brain, and is more a review of potentially troubling mechanisms he'd like to see explored than of whole-animal aspartame safety studies.  Since there is no strong WP:RS to say it is not reliable, I think it is our best (primary source) update on the mainstream view of aspartame safety.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the lead/Magnuson study statement - My goal has never been to call it unreliable, but to simply (and clearly) state where it came from. "A 2007 safety evaluation funded by aspartame producer Ajinomoto[5] found that...." If there are no reliable sources without COI/industry funding to make such a statement, then perhaps we should remove it altogether. ClubEd (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, if there is a problem with the source then we should quote the RS criticisms and add, not remove a good source because an editor thinks there may be a COI (but that's not been substantiated by an RS, and neither have any specific criticisms been made...) Verbal   chat  15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We should keep the disclosure in the footnote and not add it anywhere else. That way we're in line with the disclosure practices of peer-reviewed journals. The authors of the Magnuson review were highly qualified and did a pretty good job. II  | (t - c) 16:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. COI (and the degree of COI) is documented in the citation footnote. There's a lot that could be written about industry-funded scientific studies, good, bad, and ugly -- that could make a good wikipedia article. Back to the neutrality of the Ramazzini section.  Does anyone still thing there is an active neutrality disput about the Ramazzini section?  --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reported Adverse Effects
Older versions of this section referenced the CDC study of the FDA's collection of adverse effects reports attributed to aspartame. I think they got cut for bad writing or bad references. There are primary and secondary sources for this:
 * press release; 592 complaints received and 517 interviewed by CDC, with conclusion: "Although it may be that certain individuals have an unusual sensitivity to the product, these data do not provide evidence for the existence of serious, widespread, adverse health consequences"
 * report from the CDC researchers, with list of reported symptoms.
 * page 198 "After examining ARMS system data, Tollefson et al. were 'unable to find a consistent link between any particular variety of headache and the consumption of aspertame.' ... the authors noted that case reports such as those received by the FDA are often accepted as evidence of a causal link without adequate documentation of the alleged reaction and without eliminating other possible causes"
 * (Section 7 deals with Aspartame and Headache)
 * -- "did not support the claim that the occurrences of the seizures were linked to consumption of aspartame".

What I don't have is a good source stating why the FDA's and CDC's analysis of these reports became controversial. Betty Martini seems to feel that there is something wrong with the FDA's handling of adverse effect reports for aspartame, and that these reports prove that aspartame is harmful. But I cannot find any reliable source that says these reports prove anything at all.

Is there a wikipedia article on scientific and medical controversies and conspiracy theories, with discussion of the logic errors often found in Betty Martini's writings? --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the 1984 CDC study (published in 1986), 231 of the FDA's 600-odd adverse report cases were interviewed. The investigators couldn't find any real patterns in the most credible 136 cases, and didn't recommend any areas for follow-up studies.  They only suggested that if the FDA were looking to track suspected specific reactions, it ought to develop specific criteria for classifying consumer complaints.  The case of Vioxx was very different.  It was only on the market for a couple of years when specifice serious side effects (heart and kidney problems) led investigators to re-analyze clinical trial data and quantify the problem -- and then Vioxx was recalled, Merck was taken to court, and JAMA called for pharmaceutical research reforms.  All in 5 years.  Of course, there is no large-scale double-blinded clinical trial data available for food additives, so there's nothing to investigate.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Any opinions on the Humphries 2007 paper currently cited in the article? It extensively cites non-WP:RS sources, which seems odd to me.  I think it also makes some misstatements (DKP is derived from methanol?).  ( my notes).  Is the paper WP:RS?  how about some of the letters-to-the-editor that followed its publication search EJCN for paper title -- does anyone have access to these? --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As the topic itself is currently under heavy controversy, with studies and letters refuting eachother left and right, it's probably best to assert opinions in all but trivial aspects of the controversy. Many of the studies cite unreliable information, and so they should be asserted as opinion and same with their refutation. For instance, Devra Lee Davis's letter points out that the huge NCI study relied on some information that actually came from the makers of Equal, who refused to provide any data or further information on their statistics. Rather than remove the NCI study because it is unreliable, I think it best to include it with the refutation. Thus, with that many responses, Humphries should be included provided the information is relevant and notable (I don't have acess to EJCN so I don't really know what it's about and how relevent it is). Excluding otherwise reliable articles because we feel they cite unreliable sources despite the serious nature of their content and wide response they receive may be considered WP:OR. Best to leave the decision on their reliability to the professionals. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can work Davis' criticism of the NCI study in succinctly, that would again help explain the sources of controversy. One of the weirdest things about the Humphries paper is that it cites WNHO 11 times ( http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_brain_damage.htm ). I'd like to show how the paper was received by the experts.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It could probably use expanding, but I did add Davis's criticism to the article already. Also, Google has the first two responses to the article, which are the only two I bothered checking. Search for the title name in quotes and author e.g. "There really is no controversy" Samuels --Odie5533 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Samuels' letter is in support of Humphries paper. We need to see Fernstrom's letter titled ""Aspartame effects on the brain". Humphries' paper is rather unimpressive; it cites some website to say that humans are way more sensitive than rats to aspartame, when the website has no real supporting evidence. I have a copy of the paper which is available by email, but apparently someone has also uploaded a copy to Scribd . We should avoid citing Humphries paper unless there is good critical work on it. I agree with Odie5533 that the NCI study is similarly bad, and it's nice to balance bad work with critical reception. II  | (t - c) 21:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure EJCN's policy on reproducing work (or any journal's policy for that matter), but the letter can be found by Googling. It's in the second hit. Is it legal share a single article/letter with others for strictly educational non-commercial reasons? --Odie5533 (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding that letter and the response from Humphries' co-author, buried deep in the Google group posting (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.alzheimers/browse_thread/thread/4b16a9ea1bae2182), as well as the Samuels letter (http://www.wnho.net/to_food_standards_no_aspartame_controversy.htm or http://groups.google.cl/group/misc.health.diabetes/msg/cf24793321a63c58).


 * The Humphries article may not be a WP:MEDRS source. And I think that, because it quotes earlier anti-aspartame activism web pages with plenty of sources (WP:MEDRS and otherwise), that it is not essential to docmenting this portion of the WP:Controversy, timeline, either.  I'm looking for an "adverse effects missing link" WP:RS or two to show how the anti-aspartame activists became convinced that the CDC and FDA improperly handled the aspartame adverse effects investigation and published a bad conclusion. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of Reported Adverse Effects
Please offer your view: Have we resolved the neutrality dispute in the Reported Adverse Effects section of the article?
 * yes -- we are using WP:RS to document different scientific views. --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The metabolism of aspartame
"The metabolism of aspartame does not damage the body because: (a) the quantity of methanol produced is too small to disrupt normal physiological processes; (b) methanol and formaldehyde are natural by-products of human metabolism and are safely processed by various enzymes;" I added citation needed tags to both of the above statements. JasonAdama (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Section: Aspartame controversy
The NZFSA source appears to be from the New Zealand equivalent of the USFDA. This should make it reliable for the purposes of this article, yes? Especially as it is being cited in this section for the existence of studies and approval regulations; the language could potentially be tweaked.

The source states: ''Aspartame has been authorised for many years in many countries following thorough safety assessments. It offers a safe, low calorie option for anyone who wants or needs to limit their sugar intake; and unlike sugar, aspartame does not contribute to tooth decay. ... However, there is no scientific evidence of any significant adverse affects from aspartame when it is consumed at sensible levels. Even with high doses, the metabolites of this sweetener do not accumulate in toxic amounts.''

The article stated: Several large scientific assessments of available research by expert panels have refuted the claims of negative health effects attributed to aspartame.

I changed this to: Food additive safety evaluations by many countries have led to approval of aspartame, citing the general lack of adverse effects following consumption in reasonable quantities.

This seems reasonable to me, but improvements in wording are welcomed.

This source is also being used to support the statement: Based on government research reviews and recommendations from advisory bodies such as those listed above, aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide.

The number more than ninety countries is not supported, but the remainder of the sentence is. I have not checked the HealthCanada source just now, but this does not seem an unreasonable use of the NZFSA source. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The rest of the sentence does not need a citation (in my opinion), but I believe that the source needs citing for assertion as opinion, and also possibly remove the sentence entirely. I'm sure Health Canada and NZFSA are great institutions, but they don't cite much for sources nor list these "90 countries." As a controversial topic I can understand citing non-reliable sources for opinions, but for things like plain statistics which are meant to be accurate and not the opinion of an organization perhaps an academic source would be preferable. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Verbal and Eldereft 2/0 -- What specifically is objectionable about "According to Health Canada, over ninety countries have established aspartame as safe for human consumption. "? Sure, it could use a little rewording -- the countries have "accepted aspartame as safe" or "approved aspartame".  Odie5533 -- what's objectionable about the wording they prefer? --SV Resolution(Talk) 21:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to take a small jump in the information given, from ninety countries declaring aspartame safe to each one going through government research reviews and receiving recommendations from advisory bodies. While it likely happened, it is embellishing to what the reference actually says. As I said before, while I'm sure many people use Health Canada as a source for information, due to their lack of citations and research into the statistic, I don't believe we can accept it as an assertion. As I said before, I think the entire sentence should be removed. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * @ SV Resolution - I would not call it bad, but the version drawing on two sources is more informative: Based on government research reviews and recommendations from advisory bodies such as those listed above, aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide. In terms of developing an ideal article, either assertion is probably too vague, as they omit which countries and why.
 * @ Odie5533 - The reference says following thorough safety assessments, so I can see your point. Propose: in the first sentence of this section, maintain a causal link between study and approval, but avoid stating that each country conducted their own trials, ignoring extant evidence. Food additive safety evaluations by many countries have led to approval of aspartame by many countries, citing the general lack of adverse effects following consumption in reasonable quantities. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't think we should be using either institution as a source for these "90 countries", since they don't cite where they got it from nor an internal study conducted by the institution. I do not find the statement credible coming from a health institution when the topic of debate is the decisions of these institutions. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Aspartame-info.com says over 100 countries have approved aspartame, also without attribution. Would a New York Times article be a WP:RS for that figure? --SV Resolution(Talk) 12:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, unless it can be proven to be wrong using another more reliable source. Until such a source is found, the NYT can be included as a source. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The NYT often does not cite sources. Is the NYT more reliable than Health Canada? --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (for a simple statistic like this, I mean) --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They are both RS, and there is no requirement that they cite their sources, but if there is a conflict between RS, those which cite their sources would usually be preferable, and university and governmental sites would often be preferable to an op-ed in a newspaper, but they are all RS. It often depends on the situation how one should cite them, and how or whether to attribute them in the text, or only give a ref. Use common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Odie5533 -- what do you think of that line of reasoning? I would be inclined to accept the statement of Health Canada that over ninety countries that have approved aspartame for human consumption.  This is not a statement that these countries have all made the correct decision, or that aspartame is truly safe.


 * I don't think there is a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of convincing Verbal, BullRangifer, and 2over0 that removing this statement would improve the article. If you are concerned that "reviewed" and "found" could be misunderstood in context, perhaps you could improve the paraphrase. Certainly, the Health Canada statement is not explicit about the meaning of review in "countries ... have reviewed aspartame", or of find in "found it to be safe".  But "after the FDA, FAO/WHO, JECFA, and SCF reviewed the research and published their opinions, regulatory agencies in over 90 countries have concluded aspartame is safe"  would be unjustified WP:SYNTH and WP:OR because that "after" bit is not present or implied in either source. Actually, I think the current wording is more neutral than the earlier "established as safe" wording, since that implied that "aspartame is safe" is an established truth, at least in 90 countries.


 * But we're expending a lot of effort on one little sentence. --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "is an established truth, at least in 90 countries" you are equating a country's health safety institution's findings with the opinion of the country. These two are not the same. My problem is specifically with the source being used on a controversy article, and not so much with the wording. If all of you are fine using a health institution's statements as facts on an article that questions health institutions, then there is no need to change it. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm inclined to believe that Health Canada is accurate in its statement that at least 90 ocuntries have approved aspartame and/or stated that aspartame is safe. There is some difficulty here separating statements about the preponderance of evidence/majority/mainstream view on the safety of aspartame from statements about the history of the controversy. Perhaps you can help. --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree to neutrality disputation
I also agree this article is not neutral in tone or content. My main concern is to make the community of contributors more aware that there is much recent research in peer-reviewed mainstream journals that raises entirely reasonable doubts about the safety of aspartame, and its inevitable, quickly formed cumulative toxic products in humans: methanol, formaldehyde, and formic acid, as well as the protective role of adequate folic acid levels for most people:

aspartame, caffeine, MSG, alcohol may cause migraine headaches, C Sun-Edelstein, A Mauskop, The New York Headache Center, Clin J Pain 2009 June: Rich Murray 2009.05.25 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.htm Monday, May 25, 2009 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1573

formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines, the first case series, Sharon E Jacob-Soo, Sarah A Stechschulte, UCSD, Dermatitis 2008 May: Rich Murray 2008.07.18 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.htm Friday, July 18, 2008 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1553

Dermatitis. 2008 May-Jun; 19(3): E10-1. Formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines: a possible connection. Jacob SE, Stechschulte S. Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.

Aspartame is a widely used artificial sweetener that has been linked to pediatric and adolescent migraines.

Upon ingestion, aspartame is broken, converted, and oxidized into formaldehyde in various tissues.

We present the first case series of aspartame-associated migraines related to clinically relevant positive reactions to formaldehyde on patch testing.

re huge reduction in preterm births: folic acid prevents harm from formaldehyde and formic acid made by body from methanol in alcohol drinks and aspartame, BM Kapur, DC Lehotay, PL Carlen at U. Toronto, Alc Clin Exp Res 2007 Dec: Rich Murray 2009.05.12 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.htm Tuesday, May 12, 2009 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1572

"Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority, to enjoy peace, joy, and love by helping to find, quickly share, and positively act upon evidence about healthy and safe food, drink, and environment."

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@comcast.net 505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505

http://RMForAll.blogspot.com new primary archive

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages group with 140 members, 1,573 posts in a public archive

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/messages group with 1197 members, 23,476 posts in a public archive

(talk) 10:51 pm MST, 25 May 2009 (MST) Rmforall (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree this article is not neutral in tone or content. It needs to include evidence from independent studies that show the negative effects of the chemical. It looks like someone is getting paid to maintain this page as part of their job description at the company. Vorpaul (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on the neutrality problem here, it almost sounds like a pay job--the incredible detail, the massive references to medical studies, and the complete lack of mention or reference to almost anything on the other side is quite telling. Where is any reference to www.dorway.com, www.sweetpoison.com, www.naturalnews.com/aspartame.html, etc.? Where is mention of the numerous FDA scandals? Is there any discussion about whether this is another "smoking is ok for you" and "mercury in vaccines doesn't do anything" propaganda job? 219.69.16.77 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)grego


 * I wouldn't trust any of the three the sites you mention and doubt they'd pass as a reliable source. The first is a blog for one. When I read "detox methods" red flags went off that this site is a load of bull. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Did NutraSweet pay someone at Wikipedia to write this article? Why was the initial monkey study in 1969, which results were withheld from the FDA, not mentioned? Or the MBR report detailing rat autopsies in 1972? Sadly, I'm not surprised Donald Rumsfield was President of G.D. Searle & Company... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.109.71 (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is clearly written in favor of Aspartame. I also agree that the Sweet Misery documentary contains very notable information and sources that lend considerable credit to reports of serious health side effects and collusion between members of the FDA and the makers of Aspartame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.77.7 (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. The tone is definitely not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, more information about the papers published by the scientific community in peer-reviewed articles should be added, and the request made by important toxicologists to the FDA to review the last findings from Istituto Ramazzini should be cited in the lead. Letters from scientists in COI should be removed from the page. (Karloff (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC))
 * I tried to discuss here, in this discussion page, some interesting articles about the Ramazzini Foundation studies, just because i suggested to consider those studies for an inclusion in the controversy article, not to sustain an edit war. Well, now no one of my contribution in this discussion is still present, everything i wrote as a comment has been moved. I can accept the deletion of my contributions in the wikipedia article, but those articles have been never considered and moved to the talk archive. I think every scientiic study with relevant data should be referred in the article, mainly those two interesting articles published in peer reviewed scientific sources, Genotoxicity testing of low-calorie sweeteners: aspartame, acesulfame-K, and saccharin, Bandyopadhyay A, Ghoshal S, Mukherjee A. Drug Chem Toxicol. 2008;31(4):447-57 (abstract available online) and Evaluation of evidence for infection as a mode of action for induction of rat lymphoma Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, Volume 49 Issue 2, Pages 155 - 164, Published Online: 19 Dec 2007 (an official US Government document supporting Soffritti's method, abstract available online). Obviously they're not available to everyone, but they still exist out there, just like every copyrighted work cited in wikipedia, so i can't understand why those autorithative articles should not be cited here (unless the reason is WP:WEIGHT, i.e. we should not give space to "criticism/scientific results" in a page devoted to controversies, but just confirm the Magnusson point of view). Karloff (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There absolutely should be mention of the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto. I think this information is vital and speaks volumes of the credibility of Monsanto's biased research and the forced decisions made by the FDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.10.125 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I too agree that this article seems unbalanced, also, going over the history of this article it seems that a substantial amount of information that would be beneficial for the debate has been taken out. While seemingly specious sources and references have been kept in: http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/FST-3.pdf is unreachable at the moment but by reading it via google's HTML cache I can see that it does not seem a source of good information: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:AywoCftL8ocJ:www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/FST-3.pdf+FST-3.pdf. It has no sources and seems to contain information that is in direct contradiction to scientific research. For example: Claim: Aspartame causes increases in appetite and weight. Compare to http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight. 125.26.244.225 (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

These disease hypotheses, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the approval process—which were refuted by an official US governmental enquiry[6]—have been the focus of vocal activism and conspiracy theories regarding the possible risks of aspartame. Is that a joke? if you read that source you will see that at least 5 of the people involved with Aspartame while at working at HHS were later employed by Grocery Manufacturers of America, National Soft Drink Association or directly working for Searle as legal counsel. How do you manage to interpret that as 'refuting' conflicts of interest? Unomi (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

this assertion needs some sort of backup, or justification. Merely stating something does not make it true, and is unworthy of a wikipedia article. "However, the nitrosation of aspartame or the DKP in the stomach likely does not produce chemicals that cause brain tumors" Stuff like this should be summarily removed when not backed up. Where does "likely" fit into an article like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerhug (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. I added a citation needed tag after the sentence "However, the nitrosation of aspartame or the DKP in the stomach likely does not produce chemicals that cause brain tumors." We'll see how quickly it's removed. :) JasonAdama (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A just-passing-through reader of this article (for instance, me) gets the impression that there is no mainstream scientific evidence or opinion that sees cause for concern regarding aspartame. I guess those working on this article need to reach consensus as to whether that is an accurate reflection of the situation. There are after all false controversies where partisans claim there's significant authoritative dissent (e.g., global warming, evolution). DavidOaks (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Ramazzini Foundation section
The study gets cited a lot in context of not so good science being misinterpreted for scaremongering, but not very much for its science. This should inform our coverage of this aspect of the controversy. Please make specific suggestions for wording that would satisfy WP:NPOV. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've failed in my recent attempts to find sources making the link between the science and the anti-aspartame activism. Can you add a WP:RS citing the Sofritti studies in that context? --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Odie5533 -- please be specific about what is missing from the Ramazzini Foundation section that led you to place the unbalanced tag. I'd like to come to consensus and move on to another section of the article.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to focus heavily on Magnuson et al.'s (or Magnuson et al's?) response to the article, without fully describing the research or any response supporting the study. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please get even more specific. Can you propose a new version of any portion of this section? WP:Weight is a tough one here.  There are many more WP:RS pages of criticism of the Soffritti studies than of support.  Do you think one or more aspects of the Soffritti studies or supporting reviews needs expanded coverage?  Or do you think one or more aspects of the criticism needs to be pared down?  --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The criticism needs to be expanded in coverage and not rely so much on the one analysis, and the supporting views need expansion in my opinion. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Read the referenced criticisms and propose some expanded coverage. The full EFSA report is detailed.  Many of its criticisms are similar to Magnuson's.  As for expanding the support of Soffritti, the CSPI letter to the FDA commissioner is easy to get.  If you cannot visit your local library or University to read the Huff paper online, other editors can help.
 * To expand on support for the Soffritti studies, see Soffritti's response to Magnoson's criticism for his citation of a paper supporting the Soffritti's study, and disputing two important criticisms criticisms of Soffritti's work. --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Shoot me an email if you want to see the Huff paper; I'll send you the Magnuson one as well. Unfortunately the proponents of the study don't engage the critics very well. I emailed the proponents asking about that and got no response. Also, there are other animal studies which found no effect which should be reflected in the article. II  | (t - c) 16:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would WP:Weight be improved if we put that quote from the NZFSA in the ref (or took it out altogether) and simply mentioned (with ref), that the NZFSA concurred with the EFSA? --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So I've tried that on for size. That NZFSA PR also says "The claims being made – and widely reported in the media – are doing a great public disservice ... Casting unfounded suspicions about aspartame – a safe alternative to sugar – could cause many to start consuming too much sugar, with the well-known and accepted potentially life-threatening effects associated with diabetes, obesity and similar.".  I'd really like to find good references to those claims being widely reported in the media.  The NZFSA seemed very concerned that anti-aspartame activism would cause people to over-consume sugar. Did other health authorities have the same fear? --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I applaud SV's long-term dedication to improve this article, including SV's scrupulous attempts to remain fair to the various interested parties, but because NPOV does not seem to extend to censoring the views of recognised authorities, I disagree with SV's decision to hide the NZFSA quote. Some may interpret its tone as "caustic", but one's own interpretation of the quote is of little importance. What matters is that the NZFSA is a recognised authority (it is), has been outspoken in criticism of Ramazzini (it has) and shares its stance with other authorities (it does). And that the quote represents NZFSA's position, which I feel it does. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The NZFSA press release is fun to read, isn't it? Nobody is disputing that NZFSA press releases are a reliable source for information about NZFSA's decisions.  I think WP:Weight is more the issue.  We don't include such lengthy quotes from all the sources.  Keepcalmandcarryon, I only reverted because I disagree that this edit was "censoring the views" of NZFSA.  I think that the NZFSA article contains the information establishing the NZFSA as a recognised authority, that the shorter quote I used still makes clear that NZFSA regards the 1800-rat study as worthless, and that the text makes clear that it comes down on the same side of the issue as the FDA and EFSA.  I think that, as I left it, the section does an adequate job of stringing appropriate sources together to tell the story of what the Soffritti studies concluded and how they were received.


 * I know your edit was good-faith. So was mine.  I will most likely not be so bold as to revert again -- I am open to discussion.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 00:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because an organization says inflammatory things doesn't mean you can add it to an article and cite Wikipedia is not censored as justification; the addition itself still needs to be justified. The shortened quote seems to summarize the findings of the FDA, NZFA, and Magnuson et al. so seems useful. The huge block quote thing was not only hard to read, but it had little context and served as nothing more than insults. To be specific, the wikipedia article says nothing of factors affecting life-spans, nor life-spans at all. Yet the quote is cenetered around the findings on life-span. The quote only serves to add confusion and insults. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Odie -- It might be notable that the NZFSA toxicologist has such a low opinion of Soffritti's work. I think I preserved that in the shorter quote, which is still much more insulting than one normally sees in government agency PR.  I can see you have some opinions about what ought to be in this part of the article.  Please write something.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The NZFSA is a national body of experts; as such, it is amongst the most reliable authorities according to Wikipedia, which means we can give its statements relative WEIGHT. Soffriti's comments are not quoted at length precisely because of WP:WEIGHT: Soffriti is an involved party, one individual responding personally to criticism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliability aside (as it has been made clear that to me that the editors of this article see no problem in liberal referencing of health institutions in an article regarding controversy of said institutions), the quote simply does not add to the article. Plain and simple. Not to repeat myself, but, well here I go: the quote specifically addresses life-spans, while the surrounding context makes no mention of the research's findings on life-span. Thus the quote is used to comment on text which is not addressed, rendering it confusing and only illustrative of the NZFSA's mud slinging abilities. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The NZFSA statement is a reliable statement of ... everything in that press release, and it is an entertaining read. I like it.  But I don't think that means it should get more space than the boring paraphrase of the criticisms from the Magnuson paper.
 * It implies that there are many problems with the Soffritti study, without being specific, except to say "the studies showed that those rats fed [aspartame] (even at very high doses) lived as long (if not longer) as untreated rats", which, taken with, "The conclusions drawn by the researchers were clearly not backed up by their own data", implies criticism of the data analysis. This seems to mean something very similar to one or more of Magnuson's statements on the data analysis, although it is not as specific as any of the Magnuson criticisms.
 * The blockquoted NZFSA section is inflammatory rhetoric and reads like a rant. The EFSA's statement reads a lot more like the calm, rational outcome of evidence-based decision-making. Every criticism NZFSA implies, the Magnuson paper and the EFSA report state more specifically and clearly.  I think the article is more encyclopedic, if less interesting, without that quote.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow the statement from Odie5533 -- or perhaps I disagree. The context of the text extracted into the blockquote implies that the treated rats did not, in fact, have shortened life spans.  So I don't find it confusing.  The full NZFSA PR does state that the treated group did not have a shorter life-span than the untreated group.  I do agree that the PR uses several rhetorical techniques that sidestep logical analysis.  Phrases like "junk science", "how do they explain the decision", and "Every right-thinking individual needs to ask".
 * That said, I do think I've found, in this PR, something I've been overlooking -- documentation that "holding meetings and giving talks, as these activists are doing" was significant enough for a national government agency to be concerned and make a statement to try to prevent "potentially life-threatening effects associated with diabetes, obesity and similar" (and similar?). --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We're trying to move towards summarization and facts rather than heavy-handed rhetoric. That's why SV moved the quote; it disrupts the flow of the text and it's largely rhetorical. However, as Odie5533 said, there's one actual detail it mentions: the "treated" rats lived as long or longer than the control rats (see E in this group of charts, for example; note that the boxes are controls). That's something which should be discussed further. II  | (t - c) 16:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's try II's suggestion on for size. --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So Long and Thanks
I'm going to have to drop out of this process indefinitely. I'm sorry that I haven't finished what I started here. Anyone who finds the /Timelines useful, please contribute. Yes, it is tedious work. I know the rest of you can work those "unbalanced" and "POV" tags off the article by collecting and using reliable sources anyone can agree on.

The "origins of the controversy" (non-WP:MEDRS) section may be the right place to better represent the anti-aspartame side of the controversy. Using reliable sources to document notability. Not many people read the rmforall blog, for example, and it gets no news coverage. The 2007 NZFSA press release said of "anti-aspartame compaigners" that "claims being made – and widely reported in the media – are doing a great public disservice", which means that the newspaper articles must be there, and that the activity was notable enough that the NZFSA felt it needed to adress the issue. Where are these sources?

Following the major rewrite that started at the end of last year, I think this article is coming along. It is now full of reliable sources, and the medical sections follow WP:MEDRS. Look at that subtle change to the description of the FDA's reaction to Soffritti's work.

Although the article is about a controversy that generates plenty of inflammatory rhetoric, I know it is possible to find consensus among wikipedia editors who understand that the job of an encyclopedia editor is to string reliable sources together into a coherent (if boring) article that is generally free of inflammatory rhetoric. It is not our job to make the article "tell the truth", only to make it report what is known, according to the reliable sources.

Thanks to everyone who has improved the article. I have enjoyed some collegial and congenial moments. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your hard work SVR, sorry to see you go :| best of luck with all your endeavors. Unomi (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Air Force alert needs verifiable & reliable source
If I recall correctly, this has previously been in the article, but was removed because it lacks a verifiable source, it needs contextualization, and we need to know when it was lifted, IF the alert ever really was given:


 * The US Air Force issued an alert in 1992, warning air force pilots about drinking diet drinks containing aspartame before flying.  diff

I have moved it to here until we can find such a source. Then it can be readded. This has been a part of the anti-aspartame conspiracy theories for some time, and considering how these conspiracy theories have often contained fabrications and misunderstandings, we need to be quite certain about the nature of this alert. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is cited by the book The Secret History of the War on Cancer by Devra Davis, a noted epidemiologist and writer. The book may or may not be any good; however the sources have not been questioned so far as I have found. As the USAF is a RS for the USAF's position, there is no rationale for removing this. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The book may be verifiable, but is definitely not a reliable source. (I have tweaked the heading.) It is filled with suppositions and unchecked conspiracy theories, so we can't use it as a source, unless it is extremely notable for some reason, and then only as a source for its own fringe opinions. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The relevant doc is reproduced as a pdf here. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The document is a V and to some degree RS, but the wording contained in our article and in conspiracy theories is a gross distortion of the content. The wording we use makes it sound like an official Air Force warning, when it's just an article with a comment at the end, which is an informal "heads up" directed at an extremely small potential group:


 * A Heads Up!


 * The Surgeon General's office has reviewed the research on aspartame and feels there is not sufficient evidence to justify a policy prohibiting its use. This article offers a "heads up" to a potential problem which may affect a few people without warning. If one of those people is a pilot, there could be serious problems with in-flight performance. (italics original)


 * The publication is from 1992, so it's pretty dated and can only be used as a historical source. The information about sensitivity to phenylalanine is accurate, and of course if a pilot were one of the few who are sensitive, then the warning would apply to that pilot, but certainly not to all pilots. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At some point, the USAF must have "taken back" that recommendation, as there is no more-recent citation of it available. Does anyone know when that USAF recommendation changed, and how to document that change? --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It would indeed be interesting to know if there was ever any followup to this, but since it wasn't an official warning or used to forbid pilots from drinking soft drinks containing aspartame, we're not going to find a retraction of any kind. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right that we won't find a retraction, since it was just speculation in a non-peer-reviewed article. However, we can find a study done in response to the anecdotal concerns about aspartame and pilots, namely Stokes et al. 1991 . This is a much more reliable source, published in the leading journal on aerospace medicine. I made a couple of edits that summarized this source and also reworded the claim about the Air Force to summarize that source more accurately. It appears that the controversy died down soon afterwards, which is consistent with the theory that most people considered this to be a false alarm. Eubulides (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the wording and even going the extra mile with the new source. It was unfortunate that we were including wording that was spawned in the conspiracy theories. This type of misrepresentation of sources is what makes them so unreliable. That item is much improved by your efforts. Thanks again. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Eubulides made some excellent edits, but this episode doesn't fall under the heading of government action and voluntary withdrawals. Is there another, more appropriate location? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be added back, but not in the government action section. Verbal   chat  20:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps under "Reported and postulated effects"? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keepcalmandcarryon, talking about moving something, then deleting the piece instead could be construed as WP:Gaming. How about you decide where it should be moved, then move it?  --stmrlbs | talk  09:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved it per KCACOs suggestion, as it clearly doesn't belong in Government warning section. Please suggest alternatives here if you're unhappy, and WP:AGF. KCACO acted properly. Verbal   chat  09:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, this was a good faith edit made by Maxpont that was an attempt to satisfy the consensus reached on this talk page. Verbal reverted it, then later put the paragraph back in with a different header. KCACO did not act properly, in that he did not move the article, as decided by consensu, but deleted it. And left it like that. It is right there in the history of the article. --stmrlbs | talk 05:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Notable, legitimate controversies may be reported in this article. It's not clear to me that anecdotes reported in a single trade magazine are sufficient to establish the notability of the aviation claims. In any case, on such claims, medicine should have the last word, provided medicine has in fact examined the issue. Here, a double-blinded study found no evidence for any effect of aspartame on aviators' performance. I'm not sure that these dated, obscure allegations should be reported here at all: another reason why I felt comfortable removing it. (Note that I didn't actually "delete" the sentences; as User:Stmrlbs correctly states, it was always "right there in the history of the article" for anyone to pick up and paste back in.) Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

where's the cite?
Verbal reverted a request for a cite for this sentence "Years later, a misleading and unverifiable hoax chain letter spread over the internet, increasing popular awareness of the incident and stoking the controversy" with the reason, "the cite is below". Let's see, there are 90 cites below. Care to say which one is the source for the statement about a hoax email? --stmrlbs | talk 07:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I found it and added it.  --stmrlbs | talk  07:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but I think SV removed the cites from the introduction - treating it as a "lead" for the subsections. There were many more references there I believe. Verbal   chat  08:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * first, I didn't add the to the introduction.  There were no cites in the section to whic I added the  .  Please check next time before reverting based on assumptions.  --stmrlbs | talk  00:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm correct. Verbal   chat  09:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, from the history, this request for a cite was not made in the introduction, it was made in the first subsection . And, I did a search of the archives, and I could find nothing about SV saying anything about not needing cites in the introduction.  But, perhaps I am wrong.  Since you did the revert based on SV's decision, and you stated that "you are correct", can you please show me where SV states this?  Thanks. --stmrlbs | talk  05:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is Nancy Markle so many times in the article?
It seems with all the information available about this controversy, that this is giving undue weight to one part. I think a reference in the introduction and more about this in the Internet rumors and activism section is enough coverage. It certainly doesn't belong in the origins.. the controversy existed before the Nancy Markle email. --stmrlbs | talk 01:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The hoax email using her name was touted and circulated by Betty Martini and Betty is the main driving force behind keeping this controversy going. Without her activism it would likely have been dead by now. She is what would be called a "super activist". She lives for this cause and does nothing else. Her husband is a Jehovah's witness pastor, but instead of using her time to support him, she uses huge amounts of time on the internet and traveling to the meetings she speaks at. She gets lots of prestige from this passion of hers. If you want to waste alot of time reading exactly the same huge email message over and over again, try participating in discussions with her in internet forums. You'll quickly learn that no amount of evidence to the contrary will make her even slightly alter or amend her mails. It's the same story. It's a rather sad and painful experience to see someone so obsessed that no amount of evidence can affect them. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * She might have fanned the flames, but she was not the origin of the controversy. How she fanned the flames is covered in "Internet rumors and activism".  --stmrlbs | talk  06:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Quite correct. There was controversy before her appearance on the scene, but it was dying out as the scientific evidence(or LACK of scientific evidence for any significant dangers) kept showing no signficant danger for normal people. She worked in a doctor's office at some point in time, and that made her (in her own mind) a medical expert, so she started her activist crusade, and in her book there is practically no illness (she has a very long list) that is not attributable to aspartame, and according to her people are constantly falling over dead everywhere because they are drinking Diet Coke. That's her version of the vast problem. Now if it were sweetened with Stevia, then all would be well. One wonders if she has stock in it.... Her lack of understanding of many things medical and scientific makes her use logical fallacies and tout uncertain research as the gospel. She is closely allied with dubious doctors like Blaylock and Roberts, and she supports them, even though Roberts' claims to knighthood are apparently trumped up or bogus. How she fanned the flames is through internet activism, among other methods. Some consider her to be the actual originator of the Markle letter, which uses a fictional account of a speech to give it undeserved status, and that when it was exposed as a hoax she changed the story to make it appear to be a distortion of one of her original mails, but some consider that it was actually her all along who created the hoax. Unfortunately such things are hard to prove and therefore we can't write that in the article. We just don't know for sure. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that her letter had the impact that it did and that it shouldn't be in the article or that it isn't an important part of the history. But the article isn't about her.  It is about the aspartame controversy.  I'm just saying it doesn't have to be in the article so many times.  A mention in the introduction, and more discussion in the internet section should cover it.  --stmrlbs | talk  08:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem. Contrary to the heading for this section, the Markle letter (Nancy Markle doesn't even exist) isn't mentioned "many times" in the article. It is only mentioned in one section, and not even in the LEAD. Since you started this thread, I'll allow you to revise the heading. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll allow me? Why thank you, BullRangifer! I didn't realize I needed your permission to edit this article, but it is nice to know that I do.  :)
 * However, in reading the history, I have a better idea of what SV was trying to do. So, I'll go with the flow, leave it as is.  --stmrlbs | talk  21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's try to maintain a civil tone, please. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's okay. I left myself open for that one by using poor language. I'm sensitive to people changing other people's headings. I meant that I'd rather Stmrlbs do it than that I do it, since he had started the thread. I obviously know that he doesn't need my permission, as indicated by the preface of my comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, BullRangifer, I, too, feel uncomfortable too with just going in and changing the whole meaning of the headers without discussing in on the talk page, too. It is just common courtesy to do so.  Right, Keepcalmandcarryon?  --stmrlbs | talk  01:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you going to revise the heading? Right now it's misleading. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BRangifer, don't worry, I didn't see anything in your comments to raise civility flags. Stmrlbs, misleading headlines should be changed with or without discussion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * BRangifer, what do you think would be a better heading? I was thinking Origins and Resurgence.. but I don't know.  sounds a bit forced.  Do you have any suggestions?  --stmrlbs | talk  07:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's better than the present heading. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

External Link

 * Deconstructing Web Pages - An exercise deconstructing a web page to determine its credibility as a source of information, using the aspartame controversy as the example.

^ While I find this link appropriate in and of itself (and rather funny, in a ridiculing-the-tinfoil-hats kind of way), is it really required? I mean, it's obviously biased (in favor of empirical evidence and burden of proof, but still), and seems a very coatracky way to teach people about the importance of verifiable sources. Isn't it enough to simply not link to fringe sites, and explain why (as has been done on this page already)? -- Kingoomieiii ♣   Talk   18:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I think more about it, I'm pulling the link down. I'll be keeping a close watch to make sure Monsanto, the FDA and/or the Illuminati don't add it back ;D -- Kingoomieiii ♣    Talk   18:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted as I don't see any good policy reasons for removal, per WP:EL. And I don't work for any of those people. Verbal   chat  18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also don't see any good reasons for removal, and feel the link adds value and is of interest. An external link being POV is not a problem. Greenman (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My only concern about it at this point is that the page itself is about how to determine the verifibility of a source on the internet, and in doing so, it discredits an individual anti-aspartame page. Linking it here seems disingenuous, as the refutation was merely incidental- and the main purpose of the page has absolutely no bearing on the article itself. But I'm fine with leaving it in if no one else has similar gripes. -- Kingoomieiii ♣    Talk   20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is what the EL section is for. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

reasons for reverting KCACO's edits
KCACO (keepalmandcarryon) made these edits:. As MaxPont said in his edit summary to change the headers back to the NPOV headers they have been since SV's version, the controversy should be reflected in the text. Plus, KCACO did a bit of weaseling with changing the 1992 date to "early 1990's", then placing it before the "1991" edit, to make it appear that the Airforce warning was published, then the study came out after the warning. The reverse is true. The 1991 study with 13 pilots was published, then the 1992 warning article came out. Verbal supported KCACO's version by reverting efforts to correct this with the edit summary NPOV. I requested discussion, and Verbal reverted again without discussion. So, I'm documenting why I made the edits I did here. --stmrlbs | talk 19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that the versions "Insulin resistance" and "US Air Force and aviation reports" are more neutral, and better than the "No effect on flight performance" and "No effect on insulin resistance" alternatives. Since this seems to be the consensus view, and proposed changes should be discussed here first. Greenman (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, it should be noted that the edits by KCACO (keepalmandcarryon) were disruptive. MaxPont (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

European ban
Aspartame is apparently banned in Europe for children's products (whatever that means) according to and. I haven't seen other sources for this, can anyone else shed some light? If this is the case, this should be mentioned in the "Approval outside the US" section. Greenman (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We're dealing with one very unreliable website copying something from another very unreliable website. If it's true, then we'd need reliable sources. Please find them. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They are probably referring to Directive 94/35/EC: "Except where specially provided for, sweeteners may not be used in foods for infants or young children, as specified in Directive 89/398/EEC (5)." Note that "as specified in Directive 89/398/EEC (5)" ("(5) is just a footnote with a literary reference) clarifies that this is about "[f]oodstuffs for particular nutritional uses are foodstuffs which, owing to their special composition or manufacturing process, are clearly distinguishable from foodstuffs for normal consumption, which are suitable for their claimed nutritional purposes and which are marketed in such a way as to indicate such suitability", the particular nutritional use being that for "infants or young children in good health".  "Sweeteners" are defined as artificial sweeteners in this document.
 * It's quite a stretch to refer to this as "Aspartame banned in Europe for children's products" as the two sites do. In fact I would guess that this rule came about for the following reasons: 1)General precaution when it's about babies. 2) Sweeteners are not tested specifically for babies, and there are special issues. 3) There is really no point since there is no need at all for "light" products for babies (although some parents might not understand this and some reckless manufacturers might exploit their stupidity). 4) To prevent a race between manufacturers who might want their infant food to be sweeter than the competition's to prevent parents from changing to the competition. --Hans Adler (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hans Adler for supplying this. Yes, the claim seems exaggerated and unreliable, and not particularly key to the controversy, so can probably be ignored for the purposes of this article. Greenman (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

who is Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe S.A.S.? are they RS?
Who is Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe S.A.S., and are they a reliable source? They are the owner/registrant of Aspartame Info (reference 20 in the article: ) --stmrlbs | talk 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They manufacture and sell aspartame. Whether they're a RS or not depends on the context. Greenman (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag on Air Force citation
I see Maxpont removed QG's tag with the edit summary:


 * "rm Quackgurus tag, the Air Force is a RS for debates about itself."

The problem is that (1) this isn't "the Air Force" writing, but someone writing an article in an AF rag. (2) The AF is not writing about itself (this isn't the AF article). (3) The author is writing about aspartame, something the AF can hardly be considered an expert on, nor can the author. (4) This is a medical subject, so MEDRS applies. The citation can only be considered an opinion published in an AF publication. I'm not saying it can't be used, but just noting it's nothing official, nor can it be considered medically accurate when it contradicts the evidence. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I would say that a publication by the Air Force is pretty official and that the editors are requested to reflect the views of the organisation. The article is a RS for that this issue was considered notable enough for an article. The article refers to the medical literature in a quite pro-establishment way and adds a few comments that (I believe) reflects the concern in the organisation at that time. MaxPont (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The opinion of the Air Force is not from a researcher. This is a violation of MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be a researcher. Like Killerchihuahua said, the USAF is a RS for the USAF's position, there is no rationale for removing this. --stmrlbs | talk  17:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't USAF though, it's a USAF magazine. Not a research journal, or a USAF policy statement, or ... Verbal   chat  18:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was an excerpt from Navy Physiology. --stmrlbs | talk  18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Flying Safety article is not MEDRS -- cannot be used to describe the preponderance of current medical evidence. This source may be useful in documenting the history of public perception of aspartame, but, if there were medical concerns in 1992 about individual pilot susceptibility to aspartame, then there would be a MEDRS source for this.  The section ought to conclude with the current mainstream view on pilot safety and aspartame.  I think this is that there is no evidence that aspartame causes problems for pilots.


 * A google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aaf.mil+aspartame) turns up a couple of more recent mentions in air force publications -- http://www.507arw.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080711-022.pdf (in On-Final, the magazine of the 507th Air Refueling Wing), and http://www.149fw.ang.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123128686, in the website of the 149th Fighter Wing.  Two different views on aspartame (safe or not-safe). Neither is MEDRS. Neither mentions any pilot safety issues.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It might not be "MEDRS", but it is good for documenting some of the public concern. When it's presented with the double-blind trial, I really don't see the issue. II  | (t - c) 18:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't a WP:MEDRS section conclude with and give weight to "current medical opinion"? And documentation of controversy about this accepted/mainstream opinion go in a WP:Controversy section?  --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit removed the tag but did not explain how this article passes MEDRS. An opinion from an article fails MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the text is pretty NPOV right now. A week ago, I started by introducing this paragraph under the headline "Government action, etc." but that entry was rejected. Maybe it is time to reconsider that. MaxPont (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Because this issue has 2 aspects, it might belong in 2 places. The WP:MEDRS conclusion that the preponderance of medical evidence (the double-blind study) indicates no effect of aspartame on pilot performance.  Then, there is the lingering concern and doubt that lead to the article in Navy Physiology and the excerpt in flight safety.  This is neither WP:MEDRS nor government action.  This goes in the "history of the controversy" section, because so many Air Force pilots read that article, it must have contributed to the public perception of aspartame.  Has anyone seen newspaper clippings referring to that Flying Safety article?  Or seen a Betty Martini letter referring to it? [An article at aspartamesafety.com] mentions some news articles about aspartame and pilots, while [another article] says it is copied from Canadian General Aviation News.  Dorway.com is Google's top "aspartame" hit, and Martini has an impressive collection of newspaper clippings.  --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is not MEDRS and it is irrelevant whether the text is NPOV. When it fails MEDRS it should be removed. I don't see how this is part of a controversy. The public perception of aspartame from a Flying Safety article is not a controversy. It is an opinion. There is nothing in the article that showed any controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is only partly a science or medical article. It is an article about clashing opinions, which should be edited as any other articles about political or other value based conflicts. An opinion in such an important and relevant publication is an RS for these opinions. MaxPont (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An article about opinions is irrelevant. Please show how this is relevant to this page. I don't see how an opinion is related to this controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:MEDRS sections are marked by html comments, to help keep things clear -- here's the history part, here's the current medical opinion part.
 * The Flying Safety article is non-WP:MEDRS. It documents that a trusted publication suggested to pilots that it would be prudent to avoid aspartame.  Flying Safety circulation may have been under 20,000 (1999 Air Force Pilot Inventory), but I think that story was picked up by commercial and general aviation magazines as well as newspapers.  Dr. Blaylock wrote letters to medical journals and newspapers, and may have been the source of the issue.  Anybody got access to an ancient aviation mag archive? Can somebody hunt down some newspaper citations?  Did Blaylock write letters to medical journals about this issue?  I know he wrote to one or more Florida newspapers. --SV Resolution(Talk) 12:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not MEDRS. So what why are we including it in this page. It is irrelevant whether this opinion was picked up by other magazines when it does not show a controversy. This page is looking more like a POV Fork to use articles that fail MEDRS and to synthesis controversy. Please show how Flying Safety is part of the controversy. Where in Flying Safety does it show a controversy and how is the opinion related to the controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Aspartame controversy is not 100% MEDRS. Two sections of it are MEDRS. I agree that the Flying Safety might not belong in ...effects section, or might not be due the weight it is currently given in that section.
 * The most likely home for the Flying Safety reference is the History section, as it documents a trusted publication giving advice on aspartame that may be contrary to the medical opinion current at the time the reference was published. If this ref did influence public opinion, later sources (in other aviation publications, newspapers, etc.) ought to reflect that. I recall that the idea "it is prudent for pilots to avoid aspartame" was in the media, and certainly Betty Martini, the most notable anti-aspartame activist, spread that idea around quite a bit.  The sources may be out there to show the idea developing.  Currently, the article does not make an unsupported statemant about the Flying Safety article causing controversy, so it is not guilty of that type of synthesis. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A trusted publication is giving advise is using it as activism in this page, not cotroversy. The article does not make a statemant that the Flying Safety is about an aspartame controversy. The article does not pass MEDRS and no evidence that there is a controversy from the opinion in article has been given. It is irrelevant for this page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be irrelevant to the WP:MEDRS section it appears in. It may be relevant to an as-yet-to-be-written portion of the History section. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where in Flying Safety does it show a controversy and how is the opinion related to the controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The following would belong in history, not "current medical opinion". A good place to start may be with Betty Martini's list of magazines that have warned pilots away from aspartame. And there is even a ref. to Robert's letter to the Palm Beach Post. Reading them would require using a physical archive.  Does anybody have access to the articles on that list?  Just recently,  I came across something suggesting that some dieting pilots' problems while using aspartame might have been due to low blood sugar, but I can't seem to find that again, and there probably isn't anything substantial to back that up. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where in Flying Safety does it show a controversy and how is the opinion related to the controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anyone answer the question. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The Flying Safety still fails MEDRS and is not about a controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first ref did not mention anything about a controversy and the urban legend ref is also unreliable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The controversy
One of the weaknesses with this article is that it fails to identify the controversy clearly, which is surely its purpose. This article is not about aspartame as such, but around the controversy. Put simply, it's that many people believe aspartame to be harmful, yet it has been approved and is claimed to be safe in most of the world. It's the gap between these two views, the reasons for them, and the differing methods used to justify each, that form the controversy.

The controversy mirrors many others in that people have differing standards and different tolerances to risk. A claim such as "aspartame is harmful" is impossible to debunk. One cannot with complete reliability claim that "aspartame is safe". However, you can debunk specific claims such as "aspartame leads to immediate insulin spikes". People's tolerance to risk plays a role here. Some feel that anecdotal evidence, or personal experience of harm, is enough to warrant caution, even if the mechanism is not (yet, they'd say) understood. They claim that reliable long-term studies have not been done, so it is irresponsible to claim safety when there is so much anecdotal evidence. They use the smoking example, where evidence of harm started to trickle out, but for a long time it was actively suppressed by tobacco companies. Others say that the burden of proof should fall on those claiming harm, rather than safety. They say that it's easy to mistakenly make associations - scientific rigour is needed to discern whether the claims are correct or not.

Much of this is political, social and psychological, not just scientific. These are the areas the article should be covering.

So, specifics about the article? The first sentence "The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of controversy regarding its safety since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974" is a good start and is clear. However, the second sentence, "Some scientific studies, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the sweetener's FDA approval process, have been the focus of vocal activism, conspiracy theories and hoaxes regarding postulated risks of aspartame" goes wrong. The subject shouldn't yet be "scientific studies", but rather setting the context about the differing beliefs and risk tolerances, about where the burden of proof lies, etc, as mentioned above. The controversy, I believe, isn't about scientific study X was subject to a conflict of interest, or claim Y was a hoax. That's the language used to argue the differing viewpoints of the controversy, not the controversy itself. Greenman (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. It is easy to find scientific studies with pro- and anti- aspartame conclusions.  And it is easy to find Betty Martini's letters.  It is more difficult to find the reliable sources to stitch together, without WP:SYNTHESIS why the story of aspartame became controversial and what's keeping the controversy alive today.  Go for it.  The "history" part of the article really needs it. --SV Resolution(Talk) 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no controversy. The first sentence misuses the word controversy to play up a non-existance controvery. There are numerous unreliable sources added to this page to make believe there is a controversy. This page is a massive POV-FORK. If we cleaned up this page it would probably be a stub. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The NZFSA's 2007 statement, in reference to reaction to the Soffritti studies, leads with
 * The New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) is concerned that anecdotal claims made by anti-aspartame campaigners about the sweetener do not seem to be supported by actual evidence. “The claims being made – and widely reported in the media – are doing a great public disservice,”
 * So the NZFSA in 2007 saw the issue "widely reported", "a great public disservice", and important enough to issue an official statement. Other government agencies have been motivated to make similar (if less forcefully-worded) statements.  If Controversy is not the correct word, can you suggest a better one?  --SV Resolution(Talk) 12:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is certainly a controversy. There's also unfortunately some circular reasoning in the inappropriate application of WP:MEDRS, which may be used to indicate that much of the controversy is not based on fact, but not dispute the fact that there is actually a controversy. WP:CONTROVERSY is much more of a guideline, and RS for this aspect would be those that reliably describe the controversy, not those that reliably describe various scientific aspects. These are needed to balance, but not to try and deny that there is a controversy. The very existence of highly popular anti-aspartame sites indicates that there is, whether they're correct or not. Greenman (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The NZFSA's statement doesn't support the existence of a controversy, merely an anti-aspartame campaign. Verbal   chat  14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are saying we cannot call some of this controversy because most of the anti-aspartame activists are not currently engaged in an ongoing debate, strife, or drama with someone on the "other side". So you might classify things as follows? --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Examples of Controversy -- ongoing debate, strife, or drama on the subject:
 * The debate about the way in which aspartame was approved, culminating in Metzenbaum's hearings and the GAO investigation -- there was lots of news coverage and many editorials written at the time, but the drama has mostly faded over time:
 * Examples of poorly-done and perhaps fraudulent studies from Searle
 * Concerns of COI as FDA personnel and even US attorneys kept going to work for Searle, Searle's lawyers and Searle's marketing(?) company.
 * Concerns that Rumsfeld really did "call in markers" to get aspartame approved just as Reagan came into office.
 * The scientific back-and-forth to do with the the various safety studies. Criticism of the Searle studies.  The CDC review and its critics.  Criticism of Olney's studies.  Criticism of "pro-aspartame" reviews.  Criticism of the NCI study.  Criticism of Soffritti's studies.  etc.  This is also covered in the media, but the drama is petering out as hardly anybody is doing such studies any longer.
 * Hawaii's legislative debate on disallowing aspartame or else sending a letter to the FDA
 * California's current proposition 65 examination of aspartame
 * Ajinimoto has taken ASDA to court in the UK for putting aspartame on a list of "nasties".
 * Examples of "not-Controversy" -- it takes two sides to tango, and these one-sided.
 * Betty Martini's continuing stream of open letters to the FDA, the FAA, other government agencies, and English-language publications all over the world.
 * The whole series of books and documenteries such as Excitoxins, Sweet Poison, and Sweet Misery.

For those who feel there is no controversy, perhaps a look in the dictionary might be of some assistance. The word is defined as ''a state of prolonged public dispute or debate usually concerning a matter of opinion. The term originates circa 1384 from Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus - "turned in an opposite direction," from contra - "against" - and vertere - to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against."''. A public anti-aspartame campaign based on differing opinions, whatever the accuracy of those opinions, is of course a controversy. Just because one may feel the evidence is weighted strongly on one side of the debate does not mean a controversy does not exist. As I alluded to above, there's a clash of cultures and methodologies amongst the editors here. Scientific articles deal much more with absolutes, evidence, and so on, and are in that sense easier to write, but in writing articles about social phenomena, additional tools are required. Greenman (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no controvery from MEDRS sources. WP:CONTROVERSY does not say we should ignore MEDRS. This page is definitely a POV FORK. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There does not need to be a MEDRS source that states that there is a controversy, indeed I would imagine that most MEDRS sources would find it in bad taste to employ such a tactless word. If you wish to see a solid RS for the fact that there is controversy surrounding Aspartame you could read the GAO reports. Unomi (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am curious QuackGuru, how do you defend this claim of failed verification? Unomi (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * QuackGuru, have you really misunderstood? Saying something over and over doesn't make it so. :) Whether there is controversy from MEDRS sources or not is ENTIRELY not the point. Greenman (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether there is controversy from MEDRS sources or not is ENTIRELY not the point according to what policy. Where does it say we should ignore MEDRS and reach down into unrelaible sources that violate MEDRS policy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the one called common sense. Perhaps the wikilawyers have a policy somewhere, or can get to work right away, but this is not a medical article, it's about the controversy, which is informed by medical sources. So how would you imagine it even possible to find medical sources for all aspects? Medical journals are not great at social science :) Greenman (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * QG, from WP:Reliable:
 * "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context."
 * The subject is a controversy. The GAO source is in reference that there was enough of a difference in opinion on Aspartame, that the Government called for another evaluation of the approval of Aspartame.  Therefore it is a reliable source.  The rebuttals by a manufacturer of Aspartame are MEDRS either, but they are appropriate for the article, because they show the other side of the argument.--<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  21:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The GAO source does not say there is a controversy. Editors not supposed to come to their own conclusions. This is clear the ref failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Err. I suggest you reread it. On the very first line of the Executive Summary it states quite clearly: 'Since 1974, aspartame, a food additive marketed under the brand name NutraSweet has been the subject of controversy. Concerns have been raised about the quality of the research supporting its safety and the long-term effects that increased consumption could have on the public.' It is pretty hard to miss. In the body of the report the word 'controversy' or 'controversies' figure more than eight (8) times. Unomi (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read this. "In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's (CFSAN) process for approving aspartame, specifically its: (1) review of the scientific issues raised concerning the aspartame studies; and (2) monitoring of current safety concerns." The issue is safety. Per NPOV, I tweaked the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the issue is the controversy surrounding aspartame, this is why the article is 'Aspartame controversy' and not 'Aspartame safety', it is true that the text on Aspartame is incorrect and I tried to take steps to address that but you reverted me for some reason. Considering the amount of sources regarding controversy surrounding aspartame even if *this* article were about safety, to the exclusion of all else, it would only mean that another article would have to be created to address the history and events related to the aspartame controversies. You are more than welcome to start [Aspartame Safety] or whatever you would like it to be called. Unomi (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am reading the refs but it does not explain what is the controversy because there is no real controversy. The issue is safety. QuackGuru (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you are on the wrong article. And edit warring to try to frame the article will not help you, I suggest you stop, immediately. This article documents the history and narrative of all aspects of controversy regarding aspartame, the title should make that clear. Unomi (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the reference to the full report into the article (even though the reference to the summary of the report had a link to the full report - which I guess QuackGuru didn't bother to look at). In the full report, it says in the Purpose section:
 * "Since 1974, aspartame, a food additive marketed under the brand name NutraSweetB, has been the subject of controversy . Concerns have been raised about the quality of the research supporting its safety and the long-term effects that increased consumption could have on the public. As a result of these controversies, Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum requested GAO to investigate the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA'S) approval of aspartame in 1981."
 * There it is, the word "controversy" for those people that don't understand that a 30 year public difference of opinion going up to a government level could be construed as a "controversy". --<span style="color:#AF0AAB;background:#FFFFbb;font-family:Viner Hand ITC; margin-right:0;padding:2px 5px 1px">stmrlbs | talk  23:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

<- Apropos nothing, here is a very old version that ScienceApologist edited. Unomi (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a far better and more informative introduction than the current jumble :) Shall we restore it (the lead that is)? So, from "The artificial sweetener aspartame has been questioned regarding its safety since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974.[1][2][3] Some scientific studies, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the sweetener's FDA approval process, have been the focus of vocal activism, conspiracy theories and hoaxes regarding postulated risks of aspartame.[4][5][unreliable source?]" to "The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of public controversy regarding its safety and the circumstances around its approval.[citation needed] Many studies have recommended further investigation into the possible connection between aspartame and diseases such as brain tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma.[1][2][3] These findings, combined with alleged conflicts of interest in the approval process, have engendered vocal activism regarding the possible risks of aspartame.[4][5] In 1987 the US Government Accountability Office concluded that the food additive approval process had been followed for aspartame.[6] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asserts that the safety of aspartame is 'clear cut' and 'one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved.'[7]". I'd take out the word "many" and replace with "some", but it's better starting with something clear that the current mess. Greenman (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

QG's one-man campaign needs to stop
QG, you're being disingenuous. MEDRS applies ONLY to scientific nitty-gritty, but according to Wikipedia's intent and the NPOV policy, articles must cover all significant POV regarding a subject, including those which aren't discussed in MEDRS. While the mainstream scientific community doesn't dispute the safety of aspartame, and it's pretty much only @#$cases who fall for the conspiracy theories, the now-absurd controversy does exist in the real world, and we document it in the Aspartame controversy article using all relevant sources that discuss that controversy, which obviously will include some fringe sources and non-MEDRS sources. Please stop your disruptive arguments. We've seen this behavior before and it needs to stop.

As to the sources used, they are reliable for this purpose. Even though the controversy itself has been shown to be without legitimate scientific basis, it does exist in fringe circles, and that controversy is widespread and has been commented on by reliable sources which document the existence of the controversy, and set the record straight about its inaccuracy. QG, it's time to stop what amounts to a campaign that destabilizes and vandalizes an article that documents a very real controversy, absurd as that controversy may be.

Since your changes and additions of vc tags undermine the very basis for having this article, you should start an AfD rather than vandalize the article. If it can be shown that there is no controversy in the real world, and that the claimed controversy isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then this article should be deleted. I definitely believe you are totally wrong on that count, and doubt you'd have success with an AfD, but at least you'd be following proper procedure, rather than edit warring, violating 3RR, and generally destabilizing the article. You have been quite disruptive on both this and the Aspartame article and you need to go and do something else for awhile and never come back, unless you are willing to follow NPOV and cease edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree, I think it time to undo the POV-pushing edits by Quackguru now. MaxPont (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Already done. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

General Accounting Office - Food Additive Approval Process Followed for Aspartame
In 1987, at the request of Senator Metzenbaum, the GAO compiled and published GAO/HRD-87-46. The US Government Accountability Office concluded that the food additive approval process had been followed for aspartame. A draft version of the report was made available to the Department of Health & Human Services which agreed that the report accurately and fairly represented the FDA's actions regarding the approval of aspertame.

As part of the 1987 GAO report a questionnaire was sent to 96 researchers in order to obtain opinions on aspartame's safety and current research. Sixty-nine responded, a summary of their responses is given in the following tables. Respondents' Opinions on Aspertame's Safety a Individuals who said they have conducted research on aspertame's safety.

b Individuals who said they have not conducted research on aspertame's safety.

Of the 69 respondents 32 indicated that some action should be taken on aspertame to modify or inform the public. Note that the numbers in the table below do not add up to 32 as respondents could indicate more than one action. Respondents' Opinions on Actions That Should Be Taken To Protect Consumers a Individuals who said they have conducted research on aspertame's safety.

b Individuals who said they have not conducted research on aspertame's safety.

Methanol
The Methanol section is particularly problematic, and a good example why the article is POV. There are uncited statements of fact in favour of the point of view that aspartame is harmless, and also no context. The section needs to explain the allegations otherwise it's floating arbitrarily. "Opponents of aspartame claim that asparame forms methanol which in turn causes..." etc etc. Then the studies (cited) casting doubt on these assertions can be added. To just launch into debunking without any context defeats the purpose. Greenman (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has commented (although I posted this in the midst of the edit war!) so I've gone ahead and made a change. To reiterate, the article is about the aspartame controversy, and the section entitled "Methanol and formaldehyde" launches into an explanation of the metabolism without explaining what it has to do with the controversy. It's controversial mainly due to claims that the formic acid causes metabolic acidosis, which I've added. The section made little sense without this addition. The uncited references that follow that are really problematic though, and do need verifying, if anyone can help with those. Greenman (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since no-one has been able to verify these claims, I'll remove them shortly. Greenman (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela bans Coke Zero, cites "danger to health"
This news item from Reuters should be added to the article: MaxPont (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was wrong. It was not banned because of the Aspartame but som other sweetener. MaxPont (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Retailer in South African removes Aspartame from the shelves
Ref to be included: "Woolies ousts aspartame in own foods" MaxPont (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine
There's another uncited claim in the Aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine section. However, the nitrosation of aspartame or the DKP in the stomach likely does not produce chemicals that cause brain tumors. If no-one can back this one up, I'll remove it as well shortly. Greenman (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline
Just a reminder that we have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy/Timelines#References_for_Ramazzinni_section (UTC)Unomi (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Association with migraine
A made this change:
 * "One small study associated headaches with doses lower than the acceptable daily intake,[Van den Eeden et al. 1994, ] but a complete 2002 review of clinical trials by the NutraSweet company concluded that consumption of aspartame is unrelated to headaches.[Butchko et al. 2002, ] A 2009 independent review did find an association with migraine headache.[Sun-Edelstein & Mauskop 2009, ] "

This change had several problems. First, the 1994 study is indeed small. Come to think of it, it is an old primary study, and as per WP:MEDRS there is no need to be citing primary studies when we have high-quality reviews on the topic. Second, the 2002 review is not a "by the NutraSweet company": it is by two dozen authors, most of whom are not NutraSweet employees. Third, we have no reliable sources saying that the 2009 review is "independent". Fourth, the 2009 review did not report any "association" with migraine headache: on the contrary, it says "Although some studies found that aspartame did not cause more headaches than placebo, other evidence suggests that aspartame may be a headache trigger in people who ingest moderate to high doses (900 to 3000 mg/d) over a prolonged period of time." (The "evidence" in question is the 1994 Van den Eeden study, and Loehler & Glaros 1988, .) This is not a statistical association, nor is it a connection between migraine in general and aspartame.

Given the many problems with this edit, I have it. I suggest that further edits be based more closely on what the sources actually say. I also suggest that the article stop citing primary sources like Van den Eeden et al. 1994, given the wealth of more-recent reviews on the topic. Further reviews that should be consulted include Taylor 2009, Magnuson et al. 2007. Eubulides (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fvasconcellos suggested nice wording, a better solution, in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) , and I it. This change also removes the direct discussion and citation of the old primary study, which isn't needed with the high-quality reviews that we have. Eubulides (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor explanation of controversy and continuing bias
The current article does a poor job of explaining the actual controversy, and is still strongly edited towards defending aspartame and disparaging opposing voices. I have done a number of edits to move this to a NPOV by simply stating the controversy, removing irrelevant material, and requesting citation of a study. These were immediately reverted by BullRangifer without explanation. It would be helpful to discuss any issues on this talk page and work together to clean up this article and move it closer to a NPOV.

There are still edits to be done to move this to a NPOV, some of which I'll outline here for discussion:

The hoax chain letter continually referenced throughout the article is still notable but hardly defines the controversy. For instance it is mentioned in the first paragraph of "History of the aspartame controversy", however before this hoax email circulated consumer groups and scientists were already raising concerns, culminating in a 60 minutes story which would be a far more notable event for raising popular awareness: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5805190307148690830#. If no-one disagrees I propose editing in the 60 minutes story as a pointer to increased popular awareness of the controversy.

Characterization of studies and individuals still biased: The Ramazzini study is "controversial" which is fine (as the EFSA and FDA raised issues with it) but the National Cancer Institute study, which was less comprehensive and arguably more flawed, is not introduced as "controversial". Arthur Hull Hayes is just introduced as "FDA Commissioner" even though in the context of the controversy he is seen as a political appointee, whereas John Olney is a "scientist and anti-GM activist". I would like guidance / discussion from others on how individuals and studies on both sides of the controversy should be introduced.

The "comprehensive review" critical of the Ramazzini study which is referenced in the article was funded by Ajinomoto, a major manufacturer of aspartame, and conducted by Burdock, of Burdock Group (whose core business is in assisting food additive manufacturers in getting additives approved). In the context of the controversy this is highly notable and should be noted within the body of the article wherever it is referenced, not just the footnotes.

Finally, I would also mention that a major factor in the controversy is the stark difference of opinion coming from industry-funded studies (of which 100% support the safety of aspartame), vs independent scientific studies (of which 92% find aspartame could potentially cause adverse effects) - at least these are the figures that were reported (and presumably verified by the BMJ editor) in a British Medical Journal letter in 2005. This aspect of the controversy deserves its own section, but additional references need to be found to demonstrate the differing of scientific opinion. Fxsstm (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It needs to be based on the sources, not conspiracy theories of manufacturer bias, and a letter to the editor is not a RS. BTW, your last revert violated the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, so I'm restoring the status quo until a discussion here has resulted in a consensus to change it. So, keep on presenting your arguments, and by all means propose better wordings with sources, but don't make controversial edits without consensus. This article has had more than its fair share of edit wars and we don't want it locked down again. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I requested in the revert that you discuss what issues you have with the specific edits I made - what did you find controversial? I will restate that the controversy needs to be clearly explained in the first paragraph: that the controversy is around whether aspartame causes various cancers in humans, and has been fueled by the history of its approval, the perceived influence of industry on regulatory bodies, and the contradictory findings by various scientific studies. In making this edit what additional information would satisfy you as an interested editor? I agree that referencing reliable sources for each of those points is essential, and will leave the first paragraph alone until you respond.


 * However as it stands the initial paragraph reflects problems with the article which keep it from being NPOV. The controversy is rooted in valid scientific concern over the safety of aspartame going back to studies undertaken by Searle and the FDA and continuing until this day, but there is considerable effort within the article to characterize the controversy as one merely grounded in conspiracy theories, supported by 'vocal activists', and defined by a fringe hoax email that was sent in the 1990's. To put it in Wikipedian terms, the article currently attempts to portray concerns with aspartame as merely pseudoscience, when in fact there is legitimate scientific disagreement. Considering the history of this article, I will merely add additional information to other sections as proposed above, and wait for a response on editing the introductory paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fxsstm (talk • contribs) 11:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The controversy is also regarding the way that aspartame was approved in the first place. Unomi (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Slightly misleading statement about UK food labelling
We currently say: "In 1997, due to public concerns the UK government introduced a new regulation obliging food makers who use sweeteners to state clearly next to the name of their product the phrase 'with sweeteners'." This is misleading. The BBC article used as a source states that at the time this regulation was widely ignored. I believe that's still the case. I lived in the UK until this summer, and eventually I got used to the fact that "no added sugar" is used as a euphemism for "so incredibly sweet due to artificial sweeteners that you are not going to like it". Initially I sometimes bought such products because I didn't find the tiny ingredients list and there were no other hints about the sweetener, making me think they were natural products that didn't need such a list.

Any ideas how to fix this without giving undue weight to this minor point? Hans Adler 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversial article vs. article about controversy
I see the first as editorializing and introduction of editorial POV, while the last is a statement of fact. Two edits seem to confuse the issue:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&diff=327961656&oldid=327873422
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&curid=6821757&diff=327962955&oldid=327961656

I'm going to restore the previous version and let's see if a consensus forms to change it. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not following the BRD cycle. Seek consensus here on removing the 'controversial' tag. Your edits mean the reference does not make sense.Fxsstm (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by it not making sense. Please explain. You could copy the wording and ref here and we can discuss it. I'll even add a references subsection so the refs will appear. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference speaks to the controversy. I would also ask that you apply the same rules to yourself as you do to others. For instance here on talk you stated "BTW, your last revert violated the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, so I'm restoring the status quo until a discussion here has resulted in a consensus to change it." which is exactly what your current reverts have done. You also assert that it is editorializing (which it is not) and yet you have a |clear history of intense editorializing. Can you please explain the inconsistencies in your behaviour, as I feel your strong POV is not helping the article. Fxsstm (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't editorializing, but accurately describing/paraphrasing sources. That was from the lead of this article at that time and accurately summed up the situation as required by the rules for writing a LEAD. Many edits have occurred since then, and some of that wording has been altered. I think it's best you stay away from commenting about "strong POV". I'm well aware I have one. You also have one, so let's leave it at that and discuss this situation below. - Brangifer (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're really arguing that "subject of debate" is less encyclopedic than "subject of controversy from conspiracy theorists and some scientists"? I appreciate you're quite an active Wikipedean crusading against junk science (which I commend you on), but it does dishearten me that you think these sort of actions are okay. Keep the sentences calm and let the science speak for itself. -- Fxsstm (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Moving on to discussing your proposed edit to remove the 'controversial' tag from that study, I would disagree, as the journal clearly illustrates the controversy around the study in an authoritative journal. What issue do you have with informing readers that scientific studies are considered controversial by scientists working in that area of research? Have you read Soffritti's response? Fxsstm (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read and understood the heading of this section? You don't seem to be getting the point. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts, but I have read and understood. Let's be civil. It's perfectly logical to find controversial reviews within an area of research that is mired in controversy. It's unfortunate that your response here once again avoids discussing my direct questions on this issue. It's also curious that as an active editor of this article for quite some time, you've taken no issue with other studies being introduced as controversial. I presume you are satisfied with labeling any studies which disagree with your own POV as controversial, but not vice versa?


 * Can you see how this is unhelpful to producing a quality, NPOV article? I would also urge you to re-read | your own words on NPOV, for instance "Wikipedia editors should consider it scandalous if a reader, after reading an article here, discovers totally new or unfamiliar significant information on the subject outside of Wikipedia". Your current efforts go against your own words. Providing factual information about a cited source (that it is controversial within its own field and industry-funded) is highly relevant, and Wikipedia should provide more, not less information.


 * Could you please address my initial questions: what issue do you have with stating that a review is controversial within its own field, and have you read | Soffritti's response? I can think of no better example which demonstrates the controversy around this review than that of a leading aspartame researcher publicly attacking the validity of the safety review in an authoritative journal like Environmental Health Perspectives, Can you? -- Fxsstm (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The point of this thread is to note that your introduction of the descripive words "controversial" is editorializing that is designed to poison the well against that source by adding your POV that it's controversial. It may not be so to others. It is your POV that it's controversial. It may well be, but we should follow the sources. If you wrote that it was an article that described the controversy, that would be fine, as that's what it does. I again suggest that you stick to the subject of this thread, rather than commenting on my history as an editor here. If you continue to violate WP:TALK by doing so, I'll have to seek to have you topic banned or worse. Just stick to the topic of this thread and we'll be fine. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please drop your threatening and disruptive behaviour, it does not help the discussion. The industry-funded review is considered controversial within its own field of research, and we have a high quality source for this controversy. A key scientific figure in this area attacked the study's conclusions and questioned its independence in an authoritative journal. You will also note many other Wikipedia articles quite correctly introduce reviews and studies as controversial. You appear not to understand what POV means, or are being disingenuous in applying it in this instance. As this directly relates to our discussion: would you argue that introducing the Ramazzini studies as controversial is also an exercise in poisoning the well? -- Fxsstm (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Confounding two different references together in the same sentence is confusing and original research. QuackGuru (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit confounded two references in the same sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit you refer to is, as you know, a manual revert of the edits you did which violated the BRD cycle. The issue we are discussing is the validity of describing the 2007 safety evaluation as controversial. The additional footnote reference was pre-existing - feel free to suggest editing it if you feel it is confounding two different references together. -- Fxsstm (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

After merely reading this section I expected to agree with Fxsstm. Having read the diffs as well: I don't. This reference (EHPLetter) consists of two letters: 1) Aspartame-funded researchers Magnuson and Williams attack the Soffritti study. 2) Soffritti defends his study's finding that aspartame can cause cancer in rats. (The same set of two letters is currently being referenced in two consecutive footnotes: once for the first letter, and once for the response.)

Arguably we could consider this evidence sufficient to call the Soffritti study "controversial". We can also assume that if Soffritti contradicted the Magnuson/Williams letter, then Soffritti will also disagree with the Magnuson et al. safety review, its findings, and particularly with the weight it gives (or rather does not give) to Soffritti's own results. But IMO that wouldn't be enough to call the entire Magnuson et al. review "controversial", and anyway, it would by improper synthesis for us to draw such conclusions and make them explicit in this way. Hans Adler 07:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts on this, however the diff you are basing your conclusions on is a manual revert of an edit made by QuackGuru - that additional footnote citation was pre-existing. Feel free to suggest editing it out.


 * The debate here is simply whether it is valid to characterise the 2007 safety review as controversial. Is the validity of the safety review and its conclusions disputed / debated by any significant figures in this area, and so considered controversial? Yes. What is the evidence? A written opinion by a leading researcher in an authoritative journal casting doubts around the reviews independence and validity: a recent article (Magnuson et al. 2007), which was a "safety evaluation" sponsored entirely by Ajinomoto, the manufacturer of Aspartame ... Their article...contain[s] numerous erroneous statements".


 * We can certainly modify the source link to point directly to Soffriti's opinion if that clears things up? We don't have to assume, however, that Soffritti disagrees with the safety review as well as the letter, as his response addresses both directly. Nor is the test for whether research is considered controversial based on whether the entirety of a piece of research is considered controversial. If research is disputed / debated / questioned by a leading figure within an authoritative journal, it is by definition controversial. There is no improper synthesis involved. -- Fxsstm (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, Soffritti does refer to the safety review, even putting it in inverted commas. Sorry for missing this at first. So there is a controversy between Soffritti and Magnuson all right, with no improper synthesis involved. However, I do think that this only proves a normal controversy between scientists and does [not] rise to the level of controversy (scandal) where we would normally use the word "controversial". See WP:Words to avoid for a discussion of this word. Hans Adler 15:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, thanks for agreeing (in part). However to address your new concern, Soffritti is explicitly drawing the reader's attention to the safety review's funding and his belief that it lacks credibility. If Soffritti merely disputed the study's conclusions then I might tend to agree with your analysis that it is only a normal controversy (dispute) between two scientists, but by directly raising the issue of funding and quoting the "safety review" he is raising it to the level of controversy (scandal) that you expect. Industry-funded research is considered controversial, and Soffritti is clearly making this point about the safety review in his response. Thanks for your input, it has made me think quite a bit about the usage, but I am left feeling more confident in its appropriateness. -- Fxsstm (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion is about confounding two references in the same sentence. It was fixed with with this edit. After editors stop messing up the text by mixing different sources then we can discuss what the text shopuld say. We can't move forward when editors want to editorial references and confuse the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Added critical missing word in my comment above. Hans Adler 18:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru appears to be taking issue with a separate point. That is not being debated here, so I will make an edit to make the source of 'controversial' explicit by linking directly to the Soffritti response, and also by removing the additional footnote he also takes issue with. -- Fxsstm (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru added two MEDRS tags, and these were (correctly, IMO) reverted. We don't need a WP:MEDRS quality source to say that a review is "controversial". We do, however, need sufficiently strong sources. In this context "controversial" will be read as "scandalous". A scandal clearly consists of more than a bit of mud-slinging between two directly involved individuals. (Basically of the form: "Your study was sloppy, and it wasn't even the first time!" – "You are industry-funded, and yes it's the second time our research is attacked unfairly!") Fxsstm, if you want the word "controversial" to stay in, the minimum you need is proof that this controversy is taken seriously by a priori neutral third parties. Ideally a neutral or authoritative third party calling it a controversy or using similarly strong words. Contrary to the edit summary of your latest comment, the response by Soffritti doesn't "rais[e] it to an appropriate level of controversy". Hans Adler 08:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Hans, I feel the issue was addressed above in my earlier comments. That a leading researcher disputes and disparages a safety review in a leading journal and explicitly references that a "safety review" is industry funded is direct evidence that the study is considered controversial. However I am interested in this newer test you have set for asserting something is controversial. Could you point to an example on Wikipedia which meets this test, and are there any Wikipedia guidelines that specify the minimum proof you mention? -- Fxsstm (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not explained how this letter meets MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Fxsstm, a letter is not RS. A letter is not equal to a review. This is a MEDRS violation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru, you are attempting to mislead editors here. You will note my comment in that edit is actually "Does not reference any study as stated." It made a claim about a nonexistent study, and instead referenced a letter. I made no pronouncements on the validity of a letter as a reliable source. Your behaviour here is not very helpful to the discussion. -- Fxsstm (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fxsstm believes a letter must be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru, you are attempting to mislead editors here. See my comment above.

Fxsstm believes a letter should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru, please don't make false inferences. That sentence falsely claimed to cite a study which purported to claim there was "no controversy". Apart from the fact it did not cite any study (it cited a letter to the editor), to assert that a medical study would even come to such a conclusion is evidence of a failure to understand what the purpose of medical research is. -- Fxsstm (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A letter on this page is no different than a letter on the main page. You can't have it both ways. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit was to remove a sentence which made an unsubstantiated claim. That it referenced a letter was not the issue, the sentence was the issue. Your continued efforts to mislead is really quite disruptive to the conversation at hand. -- Fxsstm (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Another editor beleives a letter is an opinion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru, please don't insist on this MEDRS red herring. Like BLP, the granularity of applicability of MEDRS is per claim, not per article. We have had such discussions before, and to establish that there is a controversy about something we simply don't need sources that pass MEDRS because something being a controversy or not is not a medical fact. (Conversely, medical claims need MEDRS quality sources even if they are made in passing at a non-medical article.) I agree with you that the word "controversial" is not appropriate here. But your approach to getting it removed is plain wrong. Hans Adler 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * MEDRS policy is not a red herring. We should not ignore MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not about "ignoring" MEDRS. This is about applying it where it is applicable and not applying it where it is not applicable. MEDRS until recently was unclear in this respect. I discovered this when I realised that according to a literal reading, medical claims (such as "aspartame causes cancer in rodents") would not have been in the scope of MEDRS if made in the context of List of common misconceptions. See WT:MEDRS for the thread I started when I became aware of this problem. Eubulides then fixed MEDRS.

The sentecne is still original research. Confounding two references together in the same sentence is plain wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is not original research, and we have already discussed and agreed that no improper synthesis is occurring. Hans has stated a higher test for using the word 'controversial is demanded, but I believe the source clearly meets the criteria, and am awaiting evidence of this higher test. Industry-funded scientific research is highly controversial, and the source links the report to this controversy (around industry-funded research and its validity) clearly in the research journal. -- Fxsstm (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you are trying to say here, exactly. Of course it is original research (see following explanation). In any case, WP:Words to avoid makes it clear that we must be careful with the word "controversy", and that it is often used as a synonym for "scandal". The word "controversial" is even worse in that respect, since it functions like "scandalous". In this case it gives the impression that a lot of relevant people object to the safety review. This may be the case; but a single letter by a single expert, whose work had even been discredited by the review, is not sufficient evidence for that.
 * Do you seriously want to argue that (1) industry-funded scientific research is automatically controversial, and (2) therefore we can call an individual industry-funded study controversial? Then I have bad news for you: You haven't given any evidence for (1), and (2) would be improper synthesis. Hans Adler 09:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The source does not meet MEDRS. So I don't see any point to 1 or 2. QuackGuru (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello - no I'm not arguing 1 and 2, they seem to form part of a straw-man argument extracted from my earlier talk comments (I was just providing more context to demonstrate the link to a greater controversy). I am simply stating that if an authoritative journal publishes the opinion of a leading researcher, in which the credibility of a "safety review" (as Soffritti refers to it) is questioned, its industry-funding is emphasised "sponsored entirely by Ajinomoto, the manufacturer of Aspartame", and its truthfulness is called into question "Their article...contain[s] numerous erroneous statements" this is sufficient direct evidence of the safety review being considered controversial within the pages of an authoritative journal. Are there any examples of usage across Wikipedia which pass the much higher test you are setting in this instance? -- Fxsstm (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You appear to be ignoring MEDRS. Please show how the source mmets MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) QG, MEDRS is no more relevant for the claim under discussion than it is for the birth year of Louis Pasteur. It is completely irrelevant because we are not talking about a medical claim at all. Hans Adler 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we can't ignore MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not about ignoring it, it's about applying it where it applies, and not applying it where it doesn't. MEDRS is about medical and health-related claims: "These guidelines supplement the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable sources with specific attention to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related aspects of all articles." The claim under discussion is only tangentially related to that. It can be handled perfectly well by just using WP:RS and WP:OR (and the result is what you want). It makes no sense to require (as MEDRS would do) systematic reviews of medical primary medical research on the question of whether a given safety review is controversial. Hans Adler 15:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a review that meets MEDRS but misusing a letter to undermine the review is a MEDRS violation. QuackGuru (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I made this change. No evidence has been given the reference meets MEDRS. Improper synthesis should be removed. QuackGuru (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

While no one should ignore MEDRS, it is not applicable in this instance. The fact that needs verifying (whether or not it is controversial) is not a medical fact. This has been pointed out to you above, as well as previously elsewhere. Please stop with the tendentious editing. DigitalC (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It is applicable in this instance. A letter is being used to undermine a review. QuackGuru (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not applicable. You will have more success getting the screw into the wall if you drop the hammer and start looking for a screwdriver. Hans Adler 16:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This needs a little WP:ASF and attribution. On the one hand, MEDRS need not be satisfied to show that there is a non-medical controversy over the results of that review (obvious for this article). On the other hand, just dropping the word controversy in those sentences gives the appearance that the controversy is medical, and is thus misleading. Can we get around this by stating review concluded flaws [FULL STOP] criticized by [specify] [FULL STOP]? Just removing the word controversy would suit, as the rebuttal (which could be described better) is right there after the review is introduced. In the lead, much less detail is needed - the statement of the current safety consensus should be simple and direct, leaving space for introducing the highlights of the history of the controversy. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A letter to the editor could, maybe, potentially, at most, be used to source the personal views of a notable individual. It cannot in any way be used as evidence that a review is "controversial". If there is a reliable secondary source, MEDRS or not, that refers to the review as controversial, that would be acceptable. A letter to the editor is not. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, you understate the sources significance in this issue. However I have listened to your requests for a secondary source (and the continued reasoned arguments of Hans and others), and have provided one illustrating the controversy around the review's independence and industry funding, which Soffritti is also directly referencing in Environmental Health Perspectives as the primary source. -- Fxsstm (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, your attempt at misapplying MEDRS, and then removing the debated sentence (a debate that you have been participating in) does not seem to be helpful behaviour to the discussion at hand? -- Fxsstm (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors agreed that the word controversial was inapproriate. I don't understand why you continue to add that word. So I removed it with the other massive changes. QuackGuru (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fxsstm has demonstrated a clear disregard for consensus here and at Aspartame in a transparently single-minded attempt to push an agenda. This sort of behaviour is inappropriate and detrimental to the project.
 * We would do well to consider the advice of 2/0, a respected and long-time editor on Wikipedia, who suggests that the lead is much too detailed. I agree completely, have rewritten, and have been reverted by Fxsstm with little solid reasoning. Consensus is not a vote; it's the weight of argument.
 * On the now-nauseating "controversy" issue, there is no evidence that anyone outside of the small but rather vocal anti-aspartame activists considers the 2007 review to be controversial. The WebMD source actually presents quite the opposite of what Fxsstm is claiming; it emphasises that the writers were not aware of the funding source until after review. I advise Fxsstm to stop the tendentious agenda editing before there are blocks for edit warring. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. When Fxsstm first began, they seemed to feign an air of neutrality and respect for our policies, but as time has gone by, this SPA has shown their real motives, and their twisting of wording is a clear POV push using editorially biased wording. I would support a topic ban or block of User:Fxsstm (and QuackGuru for other reasons). -- Brangifer (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am very interested in Wikipedia articles being written from an NPOV and comprehensive. A number of editors here appear to disrupt discussions by misapplication of Wikipedia rules, and mischaracterisations of editor actions. Addition of valid sourced sentences are removed without discussion or reasoning in edit comments, wholesale reverting of various changes are made and these tendentious activities are then applied to editors such as myself who are interested in moving this article along.

It appears that a number of editing accounts are intent on mischaracterising the science, and the controversy on both these pages including: Verbal, Keepcalmandcarryon, Brangifer, and QuackGuru. An intense effort is made to keep or add emotional wording, such as "activists against food additives" (rather than scientists), remove significant scientific studies which provide unfavourable reports on aspartame's safety (such as the Ramazzini Foundation studies), and remove significant context around favourable scientific studies (such as the safety review conducted and funded by industry). Continued efforts are made to mischaracterise concern over aspartame safety as merely grounded in conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and fueled by activism when it has its basis in scientific research.

These do not appear to be the actions of editors merely intent on ensuring 'conspiracy theorists' don't push pseudoscience and strong POVs. The final result appears to be a poorly-written article which represents the talking points and tone that industry would find favourable. To remove the POV label on this article numerous edits do need to be made to remove the mischaracterisation and communicate the science, both favourable and unfavourable, on aspartame, but entrenched editors appear to be completely satisfied with an unbalanced, inconsistent status quo.

Brangifer has previously threatened to "topic ban me or worse" (how much worse, I wonder?), so this sort of stepped-up aggression is not unexpected. As a new Wikipedia user it is interesting to see experienced editor accounts being used to clearly misapply Wikipedia rules, stifle discussion, and disrupt good-faith edits. There appears to be an agenda here alright, but it's certainly not mine. I feel the science around aspartame safety is still inconclusive, and there are certainly more serious carcinogenic factors in most peoples everyday lives. My only focus is to ensure the science on controversial Wikipedia topics is accurately communicated, and that is strictly NPOV. The Aspartame pages have been a good start in revealing editor motives and learning about the gaming of the system, wikilawyering, and other tactics editors use, so thank you for the introduction and education.

As a new user I'm sure to put a foot wrong here and there on Wikipedia protocol which will be seized upon by experienced editors with a clear agenda. However I can only assume my knowledge of the correct way to go about improving Wikipedia articles will increase over time. The sophisticated attempts to disrupt improvements to this article are impressive, but I will consider what options are available to Wikipedians faced with this sort of scenario. -- Fxsstm (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep calm, consider the arguments before you, get used to dispute resolution. Ensure that language you introduce to articles is neutral and attributed even if the existing isn't. Oh, and collect diffs. Unomi (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Best to avoid such comments, especially when WP:POT applies. These comments only add to the evidence against you in favor of blocking or worse (banning). -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors may be interested in this conversation.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine I am not familar enough with the topic matter and the literature to make indepth comments on this article but I think that much of this dispute is misunderstanding or misrepresenting guidelines such as MEDRS as well as failure to reach a sensible compromise by following wiki guidelines by both sides.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)