Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive 5

Which "multi-national corporations have banned the use of aspartame"
I'm just curious. I know some UK supermarkets decided to stop using it in their own brand products, but what multi-national corporations have banned it? Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#Government_action_and_voluntary_withdrawals Stealthcupcake (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is use of the term "conspiracies" neutral?
Is it neutral to say that an FDA official who approved Aspartame later took a job with a public relations firm that worked for the manufacturer "fuel[led] conspiracy theories"? The wording is taken from a New York Times article. TFD (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This RfC seems to be missing the point brought up by involved editors entirely - if you read that source you will also see: "At the same time, Dr. Soffritti's findings have energized a vociferous group of researchers, health advocates and others who say they are convinced that aspartame is a toxin associated with a variety of health troubles, including headaches, dizziness, blindness and seizures." - and yet in our article opposition to aspartame is largely confined to "Activism and Internet Rumours" which contains "conspiracy" 4 times through its short body of text. We also see that throughout the discussion on this talkpage conspiracy theorist is bandied about repeatedly, seemingly more as a thought terminating cliche than out of the notion that it might foster a positive editing environment. The term "conspiracies" may have a limited role to play in our article but the prominence that it is currently given seems more akin to a rhetorical device than an effort to reflect the body of sources available. Unomi (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Unomi. This RFC is ill-conceived. Rewrite it or abandon it. TickleMeister (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly neutral as used in the article. If editors have other concerns such as the NPOV of the article or of the use in words in the talk page, they need to be clear about that and not use a dispute over this clearly supported wording as a proxy for their dispute on other issues or to edit war in tagging of the article. Yobol (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit warring was initiated by those who sought the tag removed counter to the instructions on the tag itself. Unomi (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The complaint that sparked the claim (i.e. that "conspiracy theory" as used in the article violates NPOV) is clearly specious and therefore tne NPOV tag should be removed, as I expect will happen when this RfC closes with a clear consensus that the sentence and wording is fully supported by the source noted. Yobol (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than repeating your pov, why don't you engage the arguments against it? Unomi (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing to engage. The sentences that use the words "conspiracy theory" are very clearly appropriately sourced. There are no NPOV problems in those sentences.  Yobol (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And you see no weight issues with using the term conspiracy to the exclusion of other descriptors used in the very same source? Please note that the source mentions a number of interested parties including "a vociferous group of researchers, health advocates and others" while our article concentrates exclusively on 'conspiracy'. Unomi (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The word "conspiracy" appears exactly 5 times in the article, 4 of which in description of an internet hoax which fits the definition clearly. To ascribe "weight issues" to one use of the word outside the section on the hoax is, to put it diplomatically, extremely unconvincing. At this point, it appears you're only grasping at straws to try to justify tagging this article and I will not waste my time interacting on this basis.  Yobol (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yobol, as a reading of our article will show you, the section dealing with the hoax is the only section dealing with enumerating the opposition to aspartame, that is precisely the point I have been trying to get across. I see that more of an attempt at removing the strawmen from the article than grasping at straws, ymmv. Unomi (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * *Neutral Some of the theories about aspartame have all the features of a conspiracy theory and are described that way in the mainstream media. TFD (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that at the moment all opposition is painted as conspiracy theory. The source also speaks of opposition from "a vociferous group of researchers, health advocates and others", yet we seem to roll them all up as conspiracy theorists. Unomi (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * *Neutral Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and the New York Times has called it a duck. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * *Neutral I know this isn't a vote, but I'm voting anyway. --mboverload @ 04:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to other editors
I want to address myself to the editors who appear to be tag-team reverting my edits. Now I'm not saying you are a tag team, just that it appears to me to be the case. It's clear that no matter how good my sources are, you can always use (abuse?) the woolly provisions of UNDUE and FRINGE to get it excluded, especially on a consensus basis. You are all blatantly ignoring the recommendations contained in both wp:CONTROVERSY and wp:MEDRS (where it says controversies must be explored and the non-review studies I'm using as sources are usable as long as conclusions are not extrapolated). I simply don't have the support here to get what I consider NPOV edits into an article that is clearly (to me) lacking NPOV and pushing a corporate line. The few other editors supporting me appear to come and go from the Talk page, and do not linger to offer substantial backing, whereas my opposition appear (again, this is merely my impression) to be treating the reversion of every one of my edits like a job.

So, here's what I'm going to ask you, a choice:


 * 1) Do you want to work collegially with me (so far none of you have), and allow the pages on aspartame to reflect the full range of opinions out there, both the majority and the minority opinions, both the corporate and the independent? This would mean allowing in studies that show problems with aspartame, and data sourced from GAO documents that show thousands of reports of side effects, etc.
 * 2) Do you want me to simply go away and create a page on Aspartame at a wikipedia-alternative like SourceWatch.org? If I do this you will have won a Pyrrhic victory, because the information censored here will pop up there, and in a less NPOV tone, I can assure you. TickleMeister (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want people to edit with you then you must adopt a more collegial tone and stop trying to force your point of view and attacking editors that disagree with you, and for valid policy based reasons. Please don't make threats like the above. It is not conducive to the atmosphere you claim you want. You are of course free to edit other websites, if they will have you, and may find their policies more in line with your attitudes. Verbal chat  10:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, well put verbal. We have repeatedly, a bunch of us, made policy based decisions.  There is a need for collegiality here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So no changes from those two then, not surprisingly. The weaknesses of wikipedia are glaringly apparent, with one editor pitted against a billion dollar product. Anyone else? TickleMeister (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you stop casting aspersions about other editors, it's really counterproductive - especially in light of what you wrote above. For the record, I have no family, financial, or professional ties to aspartame, although I do prefer coke zero to other brands. Verbal chat  13:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and while I do not have to say this, I too have no connections to the industry, indeed, I just drink fully sugared pop when given the choice. I would prefer it if TM would stop casting editor's in such a light, it is possible to disagree with someone, based on policy interpretations, without being part of a conspiracy of some sort. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no point in responding in any substantive way to appeals from an editor who blatantly assumes bad faith and attacks anyone who disagrees with him as part of a conspiracy. Please refrain from commenting on other editors and work with them about content.  Yobol (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly may be forgiven for seeing bad faith in an editor whose name is a close anagram of "lobby" and who edits in favor of commercial products and their ingredients in many places on wikipedia. If the cap fits, wear it. TickleMeister (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee, you don't like what someone's username kind of looks like backwards? This is more than a tad absurd. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, his name is an anagram of "looby", not "lobby". Or perhaps "booly".  If you're going to start a conspiracy theory, at least get your anagrams right.    Snotty Wong   spill the beans 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me "actually" your "actually". I said close anagram, capiche? How do you pronounce Ybbol? Get it? TickleMeister (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From my reading, anagrams, or almost anagrams are mentioned nowhere in WP:AGFDbrodbeck (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The aspartame movement article

 * This article is not an invitation to opponents of aspartame to list everything they can that reflects badly on aspartame, but should document the disputes about aspartame taken from 3rd party sources. For example, an article describing the anti-aspartame movement would be acceptable, while books and articles by opponents of aspartame would be primary sources and generally not acceptable.  TFD (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more about published studies that show potential problems with aspartame. Blocking these studies from the article because there is an industry-funded review that glosses over them on the basis of juxtaposing industry-funded studies is just not in the spirit of wikipedia.


 * Your suggestion for an article "describing the anti-aspartame movement" is interesting, but I'm not sure there actually is such a movement. It seems more like a disparate group of activists, scientists, members of the public, people who experience side effects (like me), consumer organisations, and alternative medicine proponents — an oddball collection of people who do not see themselves as part of a coherent movement, I'm sure. TickleMeister (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to an article about Betty Martini, who is an anti-aspartame activist. Using sources like this the article can explain who opposes aspartame and what their reasons are.  We can repeat the criticisms of opponents of aspartame, so long as we properly attribute them, using reliable third party sources and explaining the industry response.  TFD (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you are suggesting an expansion of the "hoax" section into a separate article. It may be a good idea, although I'd rather see the hoax stuff greatly reduced, because there are few RS sources for it, and highlighting it only serves corporate interests (hoaxsters make all criticism and doubt of aspartame look bad). TickleMeister (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. I am suggesting that the article use reliable sources to discuss the controversy by relating what the sceptics say, rather than conducting original research by finding articles that may reflect poorly on aspartame.  See the United States raw milk debate for an article that is also about a dispute where individuals challenge established scientific orthodoxy.  TFD (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Every single study that shows a negative finding on the drug aspartame is grist to the sceptics mill, and they cite them all (see for example the list compiled by professor Walton). We cannot look at the issue through the eyes of one or another sceptic; we need to take a broader view. The "established orthodoxy" you like to refer to is largely industry-funded. The vast majority of regulatory agencies have accepted the company-sponsored research without ever having done independent confirmatory studies. What kind of orthodoxy is that? In addition, since the article is about safety issues as well as the controversy, there should be no problem with editors scouring medical sources for problematic reports about the drug (especially when the few existing review studies are company-sponsored, or rely on company-sponsored research). TickleMeister (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We cannot do that because it would be original research. We have to accept the that the opinion in peer-reviewed is reliable, per WP:NPOV.  If you disagree with these policies, then you should work to change them.  Otherwise the article must be written according to policies and guidelines.  TFD (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said TFD, agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, it is not original research to insert text about aspartame's safety issues, sourced from peer reviewed studies. MEDRS specifically allows for this, and what is more, wikipedia is full of examples of it. We certainly are NOT directed by MEDRS to rely only on reviews, especially when the reviews are in themselves controversial. TickleMeister (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ticklemeister (great name, btw), I hate aspartame, I'm convinced it's going to give me cancer so I never eat/drink it. Plus, it tastes terrible.  So, I'll volunteer to be "on your side".  Post a couple links to some of the studies (preferably peer-reviewed) which show the adverse affects of aspartame, and I'll take a look at them.    Snotty Wong   talk 23:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Every single study I've cited is peer-reviewed. You can see my edit of the article, containing all the studies and data the other editors are trying to censor here. TickleMeister (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to get through the whole thing and compare it to the current article, but my general impression is that most (not all) of the additional material in your version of the article is not problematic, and I don't see many reasons that the information itself shouldn't be included in this article. However, in many cases the way the information is presented and/or worded has NPOV problems that need to be taken care of.  Does everyone else share that opinion, or is the general opinion here that the information and/or sources in TickleMeister's version of the article are unsatisfactory in some way?  I think if we could reword some of your information to get rid of NPOV problems and present it in a way which does not give it undue weight, then I don't see any problem with including most of the additions in your version of the article.  I'll finish comparing the two articles tomorrow, wait for comments from other editors, and then perhaps start with some examples of rewording.    Snotty Wong   express 05:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the concept you need to come to terms with, TickleMeister, is that despite what you and I might think, the general consensus of most of the world is that aspartame is not harmful in normal doses. Whether that's a fact or if the aspartame manufacturers have pulled the wool over our eyes is not for us to decide, or else we'll start slipping into the world of original research.  If there are scientific studies out there which raise the possibility of harmful side effects, then they should be presented here along with the industry's reaction to them.  But, overall, the fact that the FDA and nearly every other similar body in other industrialized nations accepts the evidence that aspartame is not harmful is what requires this article to basically be a description of the "conspiracy theories" with a reaction by the mainstream community.  Anything other than that will violate NPOV, unless you can provide sources which show that there is a large movement of scientists and people in the industry who believe that aspartame is harmful (and I mean "large" in comparison to the quantity of people who believe it's harmless).  So, if you're looking to turn this article into a diatribe on how aspartame is going to kill you and the aspartame manufacturers are actually shape-shifting lizards who aim to poison you with mind-control chemicals, then you're out of luck.  However, if you'd like to add some sourced information in a neutral tone and with proper weight, then I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be accommodated.  Personally, I'd rather drink my own urine than a diet soda, but that's just me.    Snotty Wong   squeal 05:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the concept you need to come to terms with, TickleMeister, is that despite what you and I might think, the general consensus of most of the world is that aspartame is not harmful in normal doses. Whether that's a fact or if the aspartame manufacturers have pulled the wool over our eyes is not for us to decide, or else we'll start slipping into the world of original research.  If there are scientific studies out there which raise the possibility of harmful side effects, then they should be presented here along with the industry's reaction to them.  But, overall, the fact that the FDA and nearly every other similar body in other industrialized nations accepts the evidence that aspartame is not harmful is what requires this article to basically be a description of the "conspiracy theories" with a reaction by the mainstream community.  Anything other than that will violate NPOV, unless you can provide sources which show that there is a large movement of scientists and people in the industry who believe that aspartame is harmful (and I mean "large" in comparison to the quantity of people who believe it's harmless).  So, if you're looking to turn this article into a diatribe on how aspartame is going to kill you and the aspartame manufacturers are actually shape-shifting lizards who aim to poison you with mind-control chemicals, then you're out of luck.  However, if you'd like to add some sourced information in a neutral tone and with proper weight, then I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be accommodated.  Personally, I'd rather drink my own urine than a diet soda, but that's just me.    Snotty Wong   squeal 05:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Having stumbled across the issue yesterday, I find it fascinating, and rather unscientific, that there are no data here on what constitutes a safe level of consumption, i.e. 1 gramm, or 333 mg per day? Does anyone know? I look at my calcium sachets, which say they contains Aspartame but not how much. All products which contain Aspartame (or other synthetic substances for that matter) ought to list the amount - NOT GOOD ENOUGH! I am certainly taking the calcium sachets back to the pharmacy with my request that their supplier provides the amount on the packets or their chain should cease stocking it. 121.209.49.185 (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The GAO report was published 23 years ago and does not provide up-to-date science. Here is a link to it.  It is out of date.  TFD (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Full protection
I've applied full protection to the article for three days, as a result to the edit-warring over the use of a tag. Really, words fail me. I don't like full protection, I much prefer to block editors for edit warring. Hint, hint. Use these three days to resolve your differences. I really do not want to return here in three days time. TFOWR 09:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Unomi (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you could also have added that POV tags are not supposed to be removed once added without adequate discussion on the Talk page. TickleMeister (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that pretty much goes without saying, the pov template states that outright. Unomi (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes thanks for the tag. One step closer to establishing a neutral article.Jmpunit (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutrality means, "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The reliable sources indicate that there is no evidence that Aspartame is unsafe and that there are conspiracy theories about Aspartame.  It seems that some editors believe that the reliable sources themselves are biased.  But there is nothing we can do about that and this article is not the forum to correct the perceived bias in reliable sources.  TFD (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Hey it's biased"?
As can be seen above there is much discussion as to weather this article is seen as biased or not. Many editors have given specific examples to back up their claims while others have shot down edits due to being overly rigid without providing adequate evidence to support their stance. Here are some of the repeated concerns addressed by editors regarding this article's neutrality:

The term "Conspiracy" is a pejorative term used to discredit opponents. "Controversy" would be a more neutral term. If "the FDA approval process of aspartame was tainted" is considered a conspiracy theory then this would make Senator Metzenbaum and his office conspiracy theorists. Since the 60 Minutes report also expressed concerns regarding the conflict of interest the reporters on the show and the CBS Broadcasting Inc. which owns the program are also conspiracy theorists. These are extreme accusations to make.

The "Activism and Internet rumors" section is in violation of the undue weight policy. The "hoax" letter should only be mentioned at most since this article is about the Aspartame Controversy not the controversy surrounding opposition to use of Aspartame. This should be removed.

"The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." is perhaps the most blatantly bias statement in the article. Not only are each of the sources used to support this statement dealing with the insignificant "hoax" letter (undue weight) but the statement itself is vague. It needs to be removed or modified to specifics and placed in the appropriate place.

I am reinstating the tag until this dispute is resolved. There is more but this is a good (repeated) start. I remind conformists the following from "NPOV dispute":

In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

All editors acting in good faith will honor this.Jmpunit (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NPOV: "Don't misrepresent the relative prominence of opposing views. In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.
 * Some editors believe that the aspartame sceptics theories should be given parity but we cannot do that because they have no acceptance in the scientific community. If you think I am wrong, please provide an article or book in the academic press that contradicts my understanding.
 * Also, note that the RfC seems to show that editors find the article to be neutral."
 * TFD (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed that RFC seems pretty clear, and, the New York Times calls it a conspiracy theory. That is not pejorative, that is a description.   We would need an actual source that said it was bad for you, a good secondary WP:MEDRS source, not some list at some other wiki, for example.  I am simply trying to follow policy, I am not trying to suppress anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drodbeck (talk • contribs)
 * TFD, please note that the comparison of David Irving to the hundreds of published scientific studies that find problems with aspartame is wildly inappropriate. TickleMeister (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As was pointed out at the start, the RfC was malformed vis a vis the current dispute. The New York times also uses more neutral descriptors, and it is being misused in this context. un☯m</b><b style="color:#222">i</b></i> 13:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then file another RfC. TFD (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We would not have to file more RfCs if the one in question had been modified when we pointed out that it was malformed. TickleMeister (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems is that this article deals with one view; that aspartame is completely safe. There is more than just one person who disagrees with this. Tweleve of the sixty-seven scientists that filled out the questionnaire regarding aspartame's saftey as the GAO report states had serious concerns regarding its saftey and twenty-six had some concerns leaving only twenty-nine who believed that it was safe. This means that thirty-eight of the sixty-seven scientists had some doubts regarding aspartame's saftey making those who believed aspartame was completely safe the MINORITY. Instead of quoting the rules and taking down the tag please address our concerns and SUPPORT your claims.Jmpunit (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Jmpunit, you are now using one source in the USA to show that scientists have concerns (i.e., opinions, not bare facts), and hence that one paragraph out of one section is showing that aspartame is not save, and hence that the whole article is POV towards 'save'. I think that that is a misinterpretation, and a grave exaggeration of the value of one reference.  If there are 100 studies having as a result that something is save, and 10 say it is not, then the general tone of the article should be, that it is generally considered save, but that there are still some who have concerns.  It is baseless to say then that the article, based on the minority of views, is POV towards save.  NPOV means, that the article reflects the status, not that it gives undue weight to one side.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "safe", not "save". Apart from that, please note that 92% of independent studies identified one or more problems with its safety. . So your "10%" example is inapplicable here. TickleMeister (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If you label the GAO quote as opinion then its use in this article is debatable. Reading the above you will see that I and others have given multiple examples of how this article is slanted. The fact that we continually bring this up proves that there is a dispute of neutraility hence the tag.Jmpunit (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All I meant was, that the example was based on one specific reference here (note: I have no opinion, I should do the study then). But I do see that there was an earlier RfC (which was deemed faulty?), which agreed that it now is deemed safe.  Please, when stating that an article does not adhere to the general view, do present a full list, and weigh them together (and identify what are mere opinions, and what are bare facts).  And note therein, that if there are 100 studies from the 90s that say 'it is bad', and there are 20 studies from after 2000 which actually overrule the older studies, and say 'it is not bad' .. then the current status POV here can be, that it is actually not bad, even when there are still concerns.
 * TickleMeister, true, if the previous would have been stated in a proper way, or would have been repaired, you would not have had the need for a new RfC (well, you never know anyway) .. but it was not repaired, and apparently you (and others) still disagree, so the only solution will be to file a new RfC, is it not? There is no need to keep pointing the finger back at a wrong RfC.  If you think that the outcome was wrong by design, then please, do file a new RfC.
 * No, Jmpunit, the fact that it is continually brought here is not a proof that it is a fact that it is not neutral. I have hardly ever, if ever, seen an RfC which had 100% consensus on one POV, there are always people who disagree (disagreement is the reason why RfC's are being held in the first place ...).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You have missed my point entirely Beetstra. I said that the tag is in place because the neutrality of the article is DISPUTED not that it has been proven to be bias (though I and several others have given a substantial amount of examples to prove that it is). If you do not think the tag is appropriate then by all means start addressing our large lists of concerns.Jmpunit (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is the large list of concerns? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have reread the intro of this section. I'll have a second look.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The list of concerns is scattered all over the place as they get archived at high speed, or "answered" with wikilawyering and sarcastic comments that miss the point. Good luck finding them :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenman (talk • contribs)
 * please assume good faith, accusing people of wikilawyering is certainly not WP:AGF. They are archived because the page is auto archived. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus of the scientific community is that there is no evidence that aspartame is unsafe. There are also people who believe that there has been a conspiracy over the years between scientists, the manufacturers and the governments of the world to silence the aspartame sceptics.  The media refers to these views as conspiracy theories.  That is what reliable sources say and that should be reflected in the article.  TFD (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, you seem to be basing 'The media refers to these views as conspiracy theories' largely on one quote from the NY Times that you took out of context, ignoring completely that this same article starts with: "a vociferous group of researchers, health advocates and others who say they are convinced that aspartame is a toxin associated with a variety of health troubles". This kind of selective quoting is pretty poor form. Yes, obviously the 'hoax email' received a lot of attention, but using the response to that segment of the opposition to aspartame to represent all opposition seems to be misleading. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#695">u</b><b style="color:#594">n</b><b style="color:#494">☯</b><b style="color:#394">m</b><b style="color:#294">i</b></i> 21:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT article does not say, " researchers, health advocates and others" are conspiracy theorists and neither does this article. I suggest you take time and read this article because none of your complaints seem to relate to how the article is actually written.  In what way is the quote taken out of context?  How would you phrase it?  TFD (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, perhaps the wider issue is that we simply don't have coverage of other 'players' who stand opposed to aspartame, I can agree that the section in question does a fair job in covering those specific "Internet Rumours" I have tightened the section title accordingly and we should probably seek to expand our coverage of the opposition. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#515">u</b><b style="color:#414">n</b><b style="color:#314">☯</b><b style="color:#214">m</b><b style="color:#114">i</b></i> 22:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of word "Fringe" on this page
Please do not refer to the numerous peer reviewed published studies that note problems with aspartame as "fringe". These studies in no way conform to the wikipedia definition of fringe theories. The vast bulk of studies that find aspartame is harmless are funded by the manufacturers, so have much less credibility. The shame of this article is that the industry-funded studies and the industry-funded review of the independent studies are presented as the Truth, even to the extent that the independent studies are excluded from mention. This article really is messed up, one of the worst on wikipedia. TickleMeister (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is calling this research fringe. What is fringe is the misinterpretation of these studies.  TFD (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Then by your own definition it is fringe to think that all of the scientific community believes aspartame is not unsafe based on all studies. Jmpunit (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:FRINGE. Aspartame being unsafe fits that bill.  It is approved everywhere pretty much and has been shown to not be dangerous.  The vast majority of scientists and review articles show this.  If you have a problem with it, you could take it to the Fringe theory noticeboard, perhaps tell everyone there that the article is misusing the term, indeed, see what opinions you get there, they are pretty expert at this.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What scientists believe is irrelevant - science is not about belief. TFD (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Then it's not scientific to believe that some scientists are fringe theorists for their interpretations of studies. When there are studies with conflicting data those are facts; facts that should be presented in the article (such as this study) as opposed to rumors (beliefs) and urban legends (Internet section). Jmpunit (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No one has claimed that scientists who publish within the academic world are fringe. What is fringe is using these studies to argue that aspartame is unsafe.  It is also fringe to promote Olney's hypothesis that aspartame was responsible for an increase in brain tumors when subsequent research has discredited it.  TFD (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * All published studies that show problems with aspartame are fair game in this article. They were tabulated and enumerated by Prof Walton. I'll quote a paragraph from the Sourcewatch article:

Hope this explains it a bit better. TickleMeister (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to argue anything if you read the studies; they speak for themselves (unless they're suppressed). Jmpunit (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The reports cited are old and one would have to find sources to show the degree of acceptance they have received in the scientific community and whether they were successfully replicated. The claims made against aspartame come done to an allegation that the industry has influenced regulatory agencies and scientists in order to falsely conclude that there is no evidence that aspartame is unsafe.  But WP Policy requires us to treat any theory that challenges the scientific consensus as fringe.  See WP:Righting Great Wrongs:
 * You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability. So, if you want to spread the word about a theory that has been unfairly neglected and suppressed by the scholarly community, on Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first.
 * TFD (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't assume what I think. The claims made against aspartame come from studies not just allegations. Jmpunit (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the sources cited meet WP:MEDRS standards, and this issue about "industry funding" has already been raised here at this RfC and thoroughly rejected by the community. This is getting to be clear WP:IDHT and is getting to be disruptive. Yobol (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that most people are still missing the point. This article is about the controversy. So the Guardian (a WP:RS, no?) raising the point that most industry-funded studies conclude that aspartame is safe, and most independent ones have concerns, is not relevant to an article about the controversy? Reporting a statement by a British MP is not important? Widely-disseminated statements such as these fuel the controversy. The belief that industry-funding results in biased results is a core part of the controversy. No amount of misapplied WP:MEDRS, where WP:RS is more appropriate, will change the fact that the controversy is alive and well. WP should be about neutrally covering the controversy, contextualising it, not trying to imply it's all about a hoax email from years ago and the controversy has gone away now :) Greenman (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article is already cited in the aspartame controversy article. It would very, very helpful if people commenting actually read the article so they would be up to date on what they are talking about. Yobol (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your insults do not help your cause. I was speaking of the chromosome article in my previous statement that was taken out of context. This article does appear on the page stating that Walton "alleges". This word needs to be changed as it implies that his conclusion is somehow wrong. If this article is already on the page what are you complaining about? Jmpunit (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If Jmpunit is replying to me, I have not been replying to you in this section. If you check the timestamps, I was replying to TickleMeister's original post when you added a reply without indenting. Here's a tip: when editing on talk pages, it is customary to indent your replies with placement of one more ":" in front of the reply as the person above your comment so that people can follow the commentary.  Never using colons to indent leads to errors in which people aren't sure who you are replying to.  As to your comment about "alleges," Walton has never published his "study" in a peer-reviewed fashion so while it is notable enough to include (as it has been mentioned by the NYTimes and Guardian), it does not meet our basic guidelines for an actual study to be reliable so it should be qualified. Yobol (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's some friendly advice: When trying to prove your point it is better to leave personal attacks out of your comments as they tend to make other editors defensive. You can attract more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Since this is an article about controversy and not a medical article it does not need to be qualified as the section dealing with the hoax letter is not. Also the word "alleges" casts doubt in the reader as to the credibility of Walton's conclusions. It is not the job of this page to persuade one's opinion but rather to present facts from both sides in an even manner so that the reader can make up their own mind. Jmpunit (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I didn't attack anyone. 2) The "study" done by Walton isn't peer-reviewed and therefore qualification is necessary when describing its results no matter what section or which article it is discussed in.  You are more than welcome to try to get consensus to change it, though I find your arguments unconvincing. Yobol (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Continually repeating policy is not engaging in argument. Who are you quoting when you say "study"? I have not called it this. The article is already qualified on this page as should be the section dealing with the hoax letter since it is also not peer-reviewed. Where in the two sources does it say that Walton "alleges"? Jmpunit (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag
Instead of just placing the tag, would people please explain what is "POV" about this article so we can address it? I think it's clear from the RfC above that calling the use of the word "conspiracy" was a spurious one, so what's left? Yobol (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There are definite "POV" issues with this article as discussed above. Please see sections "POV Dispute", "The neutrality of this article", and "Bias" on this page for details. The tag should not be removed until you make your case. Jmpunit (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPOV: we do not give equal weight to rational and crackpot ideas. TFD (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This Talk page and its history is replete with examples of published studies that raise questions about the chemical, but have been excluded from the article on UNDUE grounds. That means we have a POV problem.We also have well known people raising the problem of the industry study bias in notable reliable sources, like webmd, that have also been excluded. More bias and POV editing. The tag should remain. TickleMeister (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence that aspartame is unsafe. Therefore this article must reflect that fact and treat dissenting views are fringe.  TFD (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly TFD. The odd primary source is one thing.  However, the evidence from secondary sources which meet WP:MEDRS are pretty clear here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All specific concerns to my mind has been addressed in the threads above. If you have any specific concerns, please bring them here.  Please note "hey it's biased" is not a specific concern. Please point to specific wording and your reocmmendation for changing so that we can discuss. Yobol (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the concerns was raised above, the presentation of all those raising concerns as 'conspiracy theorists' is problematic and does not appear to be a neutral descriptor of people like those constituting the PBOI, the expert panel advising then FDA Commissioner Hayes, Morando Soffritti, John Olney, Russell Blaylock and other researchers whose primary research has been discussed. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#915">u</b><b style="color:#814">n</b><b style="color:#714">☯</b><b style="color:#614">m</b><b style="color:#514">i</b></i> 12:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does not present those raising concerns about the safety of aspartame as conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The irony in this discussion is that this is an article about the controversy surrounding aspartame, and yet details of the controversy, such as the allegation that the industry-funded consensus studies are not reliable, as described here, are suppressed by a small group of editors here. In other words, these editors are not allowing the full controversy to be described, which is a flagrant violation of WP:MEDRS. TickleMeister (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

To the editors removing the POV tag, again and again: you are going against the stipulations of the use of this tag. There is no consensus on the content of the page, and several editors have flagged POV issues. TickleMeister (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There will always be people with funny views on many subjects: the moon landing was faked, Obama was not born in the US, 911 was an inside job, etc.  While you are welcome to promote these theories, this is not the place.  TFD (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show where on this talk page (archives included) anyone continuously brings up that the moon landing was faked and 9/11 was an inside job other than you. Jmpunit (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Chromosome aberrations
A 2010 study found that aspartame induced dose dependent chromosome aberrations "at all concentrations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TickleMeister (talk • contribs) 01:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read the study and believe it to be reliable for inclusion in the article.Jmpunit (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is about the aspartame controversy - the correct article for studies of aspartame is the aspartame article. TFD (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I partially agree with TFD; it can be included in both articles.Jmpunit (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not part of the controversy until people start discussing it and their discussion is reported in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Both the FDA approval of aspartame and it's saftey make up much of the controversy. If there is a study regarding it's saftey it is addressing the controversy and is therefore appropriate in this article.Jmpunit (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not up to us to create controversy, merely to report it. Are the defenders and opponents of asparame using this report in the aspartame controversy?  If so please provide a reliable secondary source explaining how it has entered the controversy.  If it has not entered the controversy then it is irrelevant to this article.  TFD (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, adding it now is a pretty clear case of Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of this study in the article would not create controversy as controversy already exists (this is why the article is labeled "aspartame controversy"). Since there are numerous primary sources on the page I do not see why this one would be any exception. As I explained above the safety of aspartame is a part of this controversy and since this study is addressing this it is acceptable for the article. Jmpunit (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is using this report as part of the aspartame controversy? Please provide a source.  TFD (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Or rather: Does this source contribute to the on going debate/controversy of whether aspartame is safe for human consumption? If it does then it is fit for this article.Jmpunit (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The controversy is over whether or not aspartame causes adverse health effects. Any published science that indicates that it may indeed be harmful is grist to the mill of the controversy, and can be reported here. We don't need metacommentary on the science before we make mention of the published papers. Wikipedia medical articles are full of direct reference to published papers, not only to review papers. As long as we do not extrapolate on the published results, it is within the guidelines of WP:MEDRS. TickleMeister (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Also note that there are more than a few published papers used as primary sources on this page. If by your reasoning TFD we should only include secondary sources used by "defenders and opponents" (which is subjective as most editors on this page would fall into one of these catagories) then most of these primary sources and at least one of the sections (consumption) would need to be deleted from the page.Jmpunit (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is not about the controversy on the talk page but the controversy as documented by reliable sources. So far there are no sources that this paper has entered into the controversy.  Incidentally, I noticed the tag has been replaced despite the fact that no reasonable objections have been made about the neutrality of the article.  I will therefore remove it.  I set up an RfC about neutrality and will set up another one if required.  TFD (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You set up a malformed RfC that suited you. As usual, other editors' opinions of the RfC were ignored. As for "the controversy as documented by reliable sources", where is mention of the controversy as documented by WedMD on the page? Until it's on the page, you cannot claim NPOV. TickleMeister (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The RfC said, "Is it neutral to say that an FDA official who approved Aspartame later took a job with a public relations firm that worked for the manufacturer "fuel[led] conspiracy theories"? The wording is taken from a New York Times article." Certainly that is the most neutral way of phrasing your objection.  Could you please briefly state your reasons for tagging the article as POV.  TFD (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * TFC, please ANSWER THE QUESTION I asked you above. I'll repeat it: where is mention of the controversy as documented by WedMD on the page?  TickleMeister (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC).

So, you refuse to anwer the question. Now you have your answer as to why the tag is appropriate. TickleMeister (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD you are not justified in taking down the tag until you ADDRESS the following concerns:

The term "Conspiracy" is a pejorative term used to discredit opponents. "Controversy" would be a more neutral term. If "the FDA approval process of aspartame was tainted" is considered a conspiracy theory then this would make Senator Metzenbaum and his office conspiracy theorists. Since the 60 Minutes report also expressed concerns regarding the conflict of interest the reporters on the show and the CBS Broadcasting Inc. which owns the program are also conspiracy theorists. These are extreme accusations to make.

The "Activism and Internet rumors" section is in violation of the undue weight policy. The "hoax" letter should only be mentioned at most since this article is about the Aspartame Controversy not the controversy surrounding opposition to use of Aspartame. This should be removed.

"The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." is perhaps the most blatantly bias statement in the article. Not only are each of the sources used to support this statement dealing with the insignificant "hoax" letter (undue weight) but the statement itself is vague. It needs to be removed or modified to specifics and placed in the appropriate place.

I remind you that the tag CANNOT be removed until this dispute is resolved. And what's not reliable about this source?Jmpunit (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This source, while relevant in subject to this article, is not currently fit for inclusion, because no one (except editors here) is using it as a basis for argument about aspartame. This article IS NOT intended to stump one way or another on the subject, but to report the current state of the "controversy". Adding a study no one is talking about is purely advocacy and has no place in the article. Dbrodbeck was correct to call WP:SYNTH on it, as there's no way you can add it to the article without drawing a conclusion not reached in other sources. -- King Öomie  14:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. The article does not call the theory that the approval process was tainted a "conspiracy theory".
 * 2. The Aspartame controversy section is short and is relevant because that is the main source of the controversy about aspartame.
 * 3. The consensus of the scientific community is that there is no evidence that aspartame is harmful.
 * 4. The tags may be removed unless legitimate issues are raised.
 * TFD (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A superficial response will not be sufficient in dismissing these concerns. Please justify the following:

1. Dictionary.com defines Conspiracy as "an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot." This hoax letter (which is given an enormous amount of weight in this article) was written by ONE woman.

2. A hoax letter is not the main source of this controversy. As I said numerous times the controversy centers around the FDA approval and safety concerns. The controversy was in full steam years before this letter was published. Also, how many other hoaxes were there besides this letter? The beginning of the article uses the term "hoaxes". Please refer to them here or it will need to be changed.

3. Even if there was a scientific consensus that aspartame is safe (the scientists in the GAO report excluded). The statement, "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." needs to say WHO has examined these claims and WHO has dismissed them. The following is taken from wiki:Manual of Style, unsupported attributions section, "Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed."

Again the three sources that are used here are misleading as they are dealing with the hoax letter and not the whole scope of the controversy as the quote deceptively implies. This MUST be changed.

Also the word "alleged" needs to be removed from this article. The following is from WP:ALLEDGED

Expressions of doubt ... supposed, purported, alleged, accused, so-called ...

Words such as supposed and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.

4. You do not get to decide which concerns of this article are valid or not (especially when you refuse to thoroughly respond to the above questions). ALL questions must be thoroughly addressed. For all concerns that remain unanswered CONSENSUS WILL BE ASSUMED. DO NOT remove the tag again until the dispute is RESOLVED.Jmpunit (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1., 2. Reliable sources indicate that there are conspiracy theories about aspartame, which this article should mention and not hide.
 * 3. The scientific consensus is not that aspartame is safe (which would not be a scientific conclusion) but that there is no evidence that it is unsafe.
 * 4. The objections you present are irrational and unscientific.  In Wikipedia we do not compromise between reason and superstition.  In a lot of articles people want to argue fringe theories.
 * TFD (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Your shallow one liners do not answer the specific concerns. Here is a summary of them:

1. If you are going to use the term "conspiracy theory" you need state who is claiming this and who is directly involved in it (by definition two or more people).

2. The hoax letter is given too much weight in this article. What are the other "hoaxes" aside from the letter?

3. "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." This sentence must state who has dismissed the claims and the sources must verify this. The term "alleged" must be changed to a more neutral term.

4. I will agree that there is no compromise here. Part of having a rational discussion is addressing specifics of the dialogue and not repeating general statements to avoid questions. I will continue to post these questions as much as needed. If you refuse to address them then revisions will be made.Jmpunit (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The "controversy" exists becomes there are a number of fringe theorists and conspiracy theorists who do not understand the scientific method. Their time would be better spent fighting against real threats posed by the food production system.  The leading aspartame sceptic, Betty Martini, recently wrote this, "There was a time when I tried to keep every post on aspartame simply tied to unrefutable medical data, and tried to stay away from information on such things as Bilderbergers or Illuminati and such.  It upsets a lot of people.  However, as you know, we've known for a long time this is true, but now the New World Order is out all over the world and its no secret."  I do not see how this type of view deserves equal weight with scientific opinion.  TFD (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD has done a nice job pointing out the fringe aspect here. As for the fourth point, there are three references there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No the controversy exists because of aspartame's questionable approval by the FDA in the U.S. and because of the safety concerns expressed by scientists who are very familiar with the scientific method. To imply that people who think aspartame has safety issues are fringe and/or conspiracy theorists is outrageous. Scientists would not continue to come out with studies on the effects of aspartame if they did not have some concerns as to its safety. If you don't think Betty Martini should be given equal weight as scientific opinion then you should have no problems with reducing her mention in this article in favor of the chromosome studies. Also please note that you have not answered any of the above questions. Jmpunit (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'controversy' predates Betty Martini and it largely has nothing to do with her as far as I can see. Olney didn't one day check his inbox and started railing against NWO brain control drugs or whatever, neither did Blaylock, the Ramazinni foundation or any of the scientists who continue to study the chemical. You are presenting a strawman to the reader and here on the talkpage. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#991">u</b><b style="color:#890">n</b><b style="color:#790">☯</b><b style="color:#690">m</b><b style="color:#590">i</b></i> 16:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Carrying out studies into the safety of aspartame is not controversial, the controversy involves the interpretation given to these studies by fringe theorists. Olney accepts the scientific consensus that there is no evidence that aspartame is unsafe.  TFD (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The controversy predates interpretation of the studies. The studies were done because of the controversy (safety concerns). Jmpunit (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should Olney have made such a statement I think it would be important to have it in the article. You also seem to be expressing a misunderstanding of the burden of evidence regarding safety, it is the duty of manufacturers to show that they are safe. The approval was against the recommendations of the PBOI, researchers such as Olney and even the specialist panel from which Hayes was supposed to seek guidance, if you consider them to be 'fringe theorists' then so be it. Anyway, I propose that we expand coverage of the opposition to aspartame so that it is not limited to the Betty Martini letter, I trust that you are supportive of such an addition to our article? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#955">u</b><b style="color:#854">n</b><b style="color:#754">☯</b><b style="color:#654">m</b><b style="color:#554">i</b></i> 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes unomi I agree that we should expand the opposition in the article to give a more balanced viewpoint.Jmpunit (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He says in the abstract to his 1996 article, "Although our analysis does not establish definitive proof of a casual link between aspartame and the recent increase in incidence and shift in malignancy of brain tumors that occurred in the United States several years after aspartame was introduced, it does indicate the need for a reassessment of the carcinogenic potential of this agent which is currently being ingested widely throughout many parts of the world." The studies have been done and his hypothesis rejected.  The manufacturers have met the requirements of regulatory agencies and aspartame has been approved for human consumption.  In science one can never prove anything.  Fringe theorists rely on this to cast doubt on official explanations of everything from global warming to the harmfulness of cigarettes.  TFD (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

His hypothesis was rejected by some but scientists still continue to study aspartame as they share the same concerns that he had. Jmpunit (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Science is the exercise of disproving, when doing safety testing the presumption is generally that its is not safe and then you go about disproving that hypothesis with soundly designed and implemented experiments. The problems with the 3 (three) brain tumor experiments submitted to the FDA were grave enough to warrant the PBOI and the specialist panel to warn against the presumption of safety and recommend further study. Regardless, it is our job to present the information surrounding the article as best we can, do you agree that our article seems to offer fairly superficial coverage of the opposition? <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#658">u</b><b style="color:#557">n</b><b style="color:#457">☯</b><b style="color:#357">m</b><b style="color:#257">i</b></i> 20:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing you can disprove is the hypothesis that something is safe. For example, a child may be born in ten years time with an aspartame allergy.  No possible test conducted today could find that someone could have such an allergy unless someone had that allergy today.  If only one person in the world has that allergy you would have to test 3 billion people in order to be 50% sure that you have identified that.  TFD (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, perhaps you should take contact with the FDA then and tell them that they are doing it wrong. Any food additive intended to have a technical effect in food and any color additive for use in foods, drugs, cosmetics, or medical devices that are in contact with the body for a significant period of time is deemed unsafe unless it either conforms to the terms of a regulation prescribing its use or to an exemption for investigational use. This is a silly discussion, all anyone can ever operate with are approximations. The larger the test population, the higher confidence of the findings. Can you tell me the population sizes involved in those 3 experiments? By the way, I am taking your silence on the matter of our coverage on the opposition as consent to my position, please do speak up if I should be mistaken. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#969">u</b><b style="color:#868">n</b><b style="color:#768">☯</b><b style="color:#668">m</b><b style="color:#568">i</b></i> 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They are not doing it wrong, you are reading it wrong. All new products are deemed unsafe unless they are regulated in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 170-199.  Following a petition, the Commissioner may add a new product.  "Safe or safety means that there is a reasonable certainty in the minds of competent scientists that the substance is not harmful under the intended conditions of use. It is impossible in the present state of scientific knowledge to establish with complete certainty the absolute harmlessness of the use of any substance. Safety may be determined by scientific procedures or by general recognition of safety." (170.3)
 * One cannot prove that a substance is safe, that unfortunately is how science operates. I am not averse expanding coverage of the opposition to aspartame, but insist that we rely on secondary sources and not engage in original research.
 * TFD (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I will agree that we should not engage in original research but primary sources can be used as they already are in this article. The policy permits this. Jmpunit (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then remove it. Please do not see errors in this article as carte blanche to use it to promote theories that have been rejected by the scientific community.  TFD (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove what? Some unscrupulous actions have caused this page to be locked. Please tell me, what theories have I been promoting? Jmpunit (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus to add or remove something from a fully-protected page you can request it with . I'm surprised you describe the protection request as "unscrupulous": you appeared quite grateful when I last protected the page. Is there a particular aspect to the request that you feel was inappropriate? <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 09:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I believe that it was unscrupulous for kingoomieiii to delete the tag without discussion or justification and immediately request for protection knowing that the page would be protected without the POV tag (it was less than 30 minutes between his removal of the tag and the lock). As can be seen above I and others have raised numerous detailed concerns which continue to be ignored and labeled invalid. I do think it has been unjust for others to remove the tag without truly addressing our concerns even though the tag itself says that it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved; which clearly it is not. Jmpunit (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * When admins protect the page they do so knowing that they will invariably protect it at The Wrong Version. Last time it was protected with the tag in place, this time with the tag not in place. In the grand scheme of things what matters is resolving the dispute, not edit warring over a tag. Why did the RfC that was running last time I was here not resolve the dispute? What phrasing would be acceptable for another RfC? I strongly recommend you all take advantage of the current full protection to address the dispute. Protection is a great way to lock down an article forever: I don't intend to allow this article to be fully-protected forever while you all dick about edit warring over tags instead of engaging in dispute resolution. <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 11:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ticklemeister: Any primary studies that propose to show a safety problem with aspartame fails WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE as we have multiple secondary studies which establishes its safety. This has been explained to TickleMeister several times, and he has yet to show any understanding of these guidelines or policies.Yobol (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

RFPP can take anywhere from 30 seconds to an hour or more to lock a page, but I guess you can chalk the lock up to me being in on the coverup. Oh, look, my Ajinomoto check has arrived. I removed the tag because apparently, some folks here think it's valid until their concerns are not only address and dismissed, but accepted. My bad, I guess. -- King Öomie 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Being sarcastic on this talk page is not helpful. When making any edits (including removing a tag) it is important to discuss them.  Because you think they are justified does not mean that you don't have to explain why.  Please discuss any future edits. Jmpunit (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That comment was in response to you calling my actions "unscrupulous", and frankly, I find your latest response rather funny. You, who've spent so much time here demanding to you know why you CAN'T do X thing, telling me I have to justify everything I do. Burden of Proof isn't always on the other side of the fence.  -- King Öomie  17:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the tag before you took it down you would find that it says that it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. You have been a mostly uninvolved editor on this talk page (at least lately), took down the tag without discussing why, and have made sarcastic/rude remarks with the few posts that you have made. If you want to continue to argue with me I suggest you see MY talk page since this argument has nothing to do with the article which some editors do care about. Jmpunit (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Safety section
When the page becomes unprotected, I propose a significant overhaul of the Safety section as most of it is in violation of WP:MEDRS. Most of the studies are primary (are we seriously citing an anecdotal report from 1992 about flight safety?) and need to be removed. I will be compiling and going through a list of reviews and basically doing a complete overhaul of the section. I suggest we limit the vast majority of the sources to reviews published in high quality journals in the past 10 years. Obvious exceptions to the limitation to primary studies are notable ones like those from Ramazinni that have had extensive publications done about them (and it should probably have its own sub-section). Any other suggestions? Yobol (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good idea to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a page that falls under the Medicine project in wikipedia, which concerns neutral information on medical conditions. It is a socio-political page on a controversy, and includes aspects of medicine, research, economics, and politics. Applying only MEDRS, —which BTW explicitly states that 1) primary studies can be used if the results are not extrapolated and are accurately reported and that 2) in a controversy situation, ALL sides must be faithfully reported, not only the majority view (as in the current article)— as a measuring tool by which data is excluded is therefore clearly wrong. I suggest you carefully review the far more balanced page I have created at SourceWatch for ideas on how to improve this page. TickleMeister (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The safety section specifically is a discussion specifically of the medical aspect of the controversy and therefore is to follow WP:MEDRS. Most every other comment you made is in contravention to MEDRS and UNDUE, as usual. Yobol (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The safety section should reflect published literature, not the results of an industry-funded and industry-stacked review. And from MEDRS we have "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers" as well as "...edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge."


 * I also suggest the "Safety" section be retitled to "Conflicting studies" in line with the theme of controversy. TickleMeister (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The safety section should summarize the published literature as found in peer-reviewed secondary articles, as per MEDRS. Selectively quoting from a guideline while ignoring the rest is utterly unconvincing.  If there is a controversy in the scientific literature, it will be found in the published reviews.  We do not ignore reviews or articles based on funding, especially if there is no reliable source which states they are untrustworthy. Yobol (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS specifically names WebMD as a RS, and WebMD carries an article that publishes the views of a well known public figure§ who calls into question the independence and reliability of the review panel, on whose review study contents this entire article has been slanted. You appear utterly deaf to this happenstance. § Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) TickleMeister (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Peer-reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD and UpToDate can be useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the literature directly." One man's opinion does not "peer-reviewed medical information" make in the absence of actual literature to back that opinion up.  Again, your assertions about industry funding has been through an RfC already and failed to gather consensus.  Please stop bringing up topics that have already been settled. Yobol (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is a CONTROVERSY article and the words of Jacobson are most applicable to this controversy. This is not a medical article. You seem to be irretrievably confused on this issue. As the article stands, the views of Jacobson, from the RS, have been excluded by editors using specious arguments. This must not abide. And the flawed industry-funded review that dismisses all concerns about aspartame must not be used as a weapon by editors, who seem intent on acting as apologists for the industry, to sanitize the article and make it appear that there are no real safety concerns. TickleMeister (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As you once again appear to be repeating yourself without any acknowledgment of our guidelines and policies as I have outlined above (and for countless times before both here and on the main aspartame article), I see no point in repeating myself to people who can't hear and look forward to hearing the suggestions of those who can. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep stating that primary sources are not allowed. Where does it say this in the policy? Jmpunit (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * scroll down to 'Basic Advice' in WP:MEDRS. It does not say to not use primary sources, but it says to respect secondary sources.  You know, reviews, that sort of thing, over primary studies.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's for medical articles.
 * When the secondary source is clearly compromised, as it is in this case, then that rule does not apply.
 * Do not neglect MEDRS's directive to make readers aware of all sides of the issue. PLEASE point me to the place in the article where we make readers aware of the reservations and criticisms of the industry-funded review? TickleMeister (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is for medical articles. The safety section should rely on that it seems to me.  If we are talking about the safety of it WP:MEDRS should apply.  MEDRS criticisms is that what you would like to include or just opinions?   I feel we have been through this a lot.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS or not WP:MEDRS .. whatever, WP:PRIMARY is where you want to be, part of our core policies: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.". Hence:
 * NO, it is for ALL articles, not only for medical articles
 * No, that rule applies, even if a secondary source is compromised.
 * Yes, all sides of an issue should be there, if there is appropriate, suitable sourcing for it.
 * And if we are talking medical articles, or controversies, I would plainly NOT use primary sources. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dirk, you are ignoring the fact that the use of primary sources is, with provisos, allowable per protocol, and that we are directed to expose all aspects of controversies, per protocol. Both these directives are ignored in the current article. The article should contain the findings of studies that raise serious doubts about aspartame, especially when the only review study that has dismissed these doubts is paid for and manned by industry and industry operatives, as claimed in a RS (WedMD). TickleMeister (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the most appropriate guideline for the article is WP:Fringe. There are several similar articles, e.g., Creation Science, Intelligent design, Macrobiotic diet, Alternative medicine, etc.  The closest topic is the Water fluoridation controversy:  both involve a new product, opposition based on some scientific scepticism but mostly scepticism from alternative medicine practitioners, people organizing against it, the development of conspiracy theories, political controversy.  And yes, MEDRS applies but - we cannot provide parity between scientific opinion and fringe theories.  TFD (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Given the clear consensus in the literature that aspartame is safe, WP:FRINGE would appear to definitely apply. Yobol (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, fringe theories are opinions. There have been studies done that show there are problems with the sweetener. Just because some people selectively dismiss these as faulty does not mean this is true. You might claim consensus in the scientific community but you can not ignore the significant minority. The studies themselves can not be labeled as fringe and should therefore be given more weight in this article. Again if it can not be shown in the policy that primary sources are not allowed they are allowed though with care. I also propose that changes should be made to this article: The language needs to become more neutral. There needs to be given more weight to the opposition of aspartame. The sources must verify the claims made by the preceding statements. The section headings need to become more neutral as to more accurately define what the section is about. If you need specifics please see above as I have posted them numerous times. Jmpunit (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fringe theories are merely opinions that are rejected by informed sources. Any attempt to give them parity with scientific consensus is contrary to neutrality.  How does this differ from the other theories I mentioned, e. g., the fluoride controversy, which by the way has considerable overlap with the aspartame critics?  TFD (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You should look at the Safety section of Water Flouridation and note how the studies raising doubts are FULLY aired, unlike what happens in this article. You could learn a thing or two. TickleMeister (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention that section, as virtually every source (save 2) are secondary reviews and none of the two primary sources are used to undermine the conclusion that flouridation is safe, as you have consistently advocated doing in this article. Someone should take their own advice about learning...Yobol (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The key difference between the Flouride and Aspartame controversies is that Flouride is a simple element, not an (originally) patented, immensely profitable (currently about $1Billion annually) product, so that secondary review studies of Flouride, not funded by industry, are infinitely more reliable, giving, as they do, due weight to health concerns rather than merely summarily dismissing every single one of them, as has happened in the industry-funded reviews of aspartame safety, which you seem to regard, naively, as superbly reliable. TickleMeister (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That you think we should ignore our policies and guidelines because you don't like the funding of studies speaks volumes. Yobol (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I reject your characterisation of my position as one that urges the flouting of policy. We seem to have little left to say to each other, and I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from making comments like this in future, because this is just a hair's breadth from a personal attack. TickleMeister (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are as free to reject any criticism as I am free to make comments that are clearly not personal attacks. I do agree that there is little left to say, as clearly you have gained nothing from multiple editors trying to guide you to the proper way to edit here over multiple weeks. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to entertain questions not related to this article as you continue to refuse to respond to SPECIFIC CONCERNS that I have posted. If you have a desire to discuss the safety of fluoride I suggest that you go to that talk page and inquire there. As I have already stated, the studies that find problems with aspartame are not opinions and are not fringe, therefore those who read these studies and do not find fault with them are not fringe theorists. Jmpunit (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a reliable source from scientific journals that show that any of these studies presents any challenge to the consensus among scientists that there is no evidence that aspartame is unsafe. TFD (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Are these authors fringe theorists? [] [] Jmpunit (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Can you please provide a reliable source from scientific journals that show that any of these studies presents any challenge to the consensus among scientists that there is no evidence that aspartame is unsafe.  TFD (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus is that the majority of scientific evidence supports that aspartame is not unsafe and there is as the first article points out "a wealth of evidence" that conflicts with this then yes that is a challenge to the consensus. Furthermore if the studies are not fringe theories and one looks at this wealth of evidence and comes to the conclusion that aspartame has safety concerns then they are not fringe theorists. Another good point from the first article is that "although 100% of industry funded (either whole or in part) studies conclude that aspartame is safe, 92% of independently funded studies have found that aspartame has the potential for adverse effects." Give me one good reason why these specifics should not be in the article. Jmpunit (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We do not ourselves determine what the scientific consensus is but must use reliable sources. The fact that someone wrote an essay outside the academic process criticizing the consensus or that your personal reading of individual reports may lead you to question it is irrelevant.  If you want to change scientific consensus you are at the wrong website.  BTW, can you please provide a reliable source from scientific journals that show that any of these studies presents any challenge to the consensus among scientists that there is no evidence that aspartame is unsafe.  TFD (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You are just conveniently ignoring the relevance of this article. As you know the BMJ is one of the most respected medical journals in the world; it would not publish an article making such claims if it was not supported by facts. You have yet to give a good reason why this should not be on the page. Jmpunit (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are speaking about Walton's "study", it has never been published anywhere in a peer-reviewed fashion, much less BMJ. Otherwise, what "article" from the BMJ are you referring to? Yobol (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Walton though I am still asking where does it say in the two sources that he "alleges"? If you read above you will see that I'm referring to this artice Jmpunit (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't tell what you are referring to because you refuse to indent like everyone else on talk pages. That "article" is a letter to the editor, not actual research, and is referring to Walton's research.  You should know that if you actually read the letter. Yobol (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you read the above I would not have to continually repeat myself. If you read the article correctly you will see that there more references to this article than just Walton. If you read the question I would have gotten a response by now. Don't touch my postings on this page as it's vandalism. Jmpunit (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to deliberately make your comments difficult to read, so be it, though you shouldn't wonder why people don't know what you're talking about (and no, it is not vandalism). So did you, or did you not, realize that the BMJ "article" you were referring to is actually a letter to the editor and that the comments about industry funding were referring to were cited to Walton in that letter, when, I assume, you read the BMJ citation you have posted twice now? Yobol (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What I want is none of your concern so let it be; officious behavior is disruptive. If you look at the references section it only lists Walton for two of the five sources. Even if there are letters disagreeing with this it should still be posted as the BMJ is a reliable source. Jmpunit (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I thought. Yobol (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we see eye to eye on this one especially since you so passionately defend the use of another BMJ letter in this article. To disagree with the use of this one would contradict your actions. Jmpunit (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If we didn't already have two other sources (Guardian, NYTimes) describing it, I would be in favor of including it as a source describing its contents (being careful to cite it as the opinion of the letter writer, per our usual standards when using letters to the editor as a source), where it is right now in the article. As there are two better sources that already describe it, I do not think it is necessary (and adding further sources would fail WP:Undue).  And no, letters to the editors do not meet MEDRS.  I still find it quite odd you think letters to the editors are peer reviewed articles and you didn't know they were talking about Walton's research, since I'm sure you read it and it's only 4 paragraphs long, and only had 5 sources. Odd indeed. Shrug. Yobol (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What is really odd is that you would prefer to quote from a newspaper than a medical journal. The following is from Medrs:

The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits, and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results.

Also interesting is that you wouldn't mind using one BMJ letter that refers to Walton but refuse to use another BMJ letter that refers to him? Seems very selective to me. Jmpunit (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think the opinion of one MD is more reliable than the NY Times, nothing much else to be said. I refuse to waste any more of my time going around in circles with someone who refuses to listen to what has been told to them and thinks letters to the editors are the same as peer-reviewed journal articles. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that you say you refuse to waste anymore of your time since you say this often, usually citing policy, accusing others of violating wp:idht and ending with a delightful "Cheers". If you think it okay to use the BMJ letter that you refer to below then there is no reason why this one should not be used. Jmpunit (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Section break

 * This is comical! The "consensus amongst scientists" you keep rabbiting on about it a consensus amongst a small group of reviewers hired by industry, some of whom had publicly stated that as far as they were concerned, aspartame was harmless, even before they'd seen the data! The leader of this "scientific" pack, who shall remain unnamed for BLP reasons, is still on their payroll, travelling the world giving talks on why this profitable chemical is harmless. You have been completely co-opted by the spin put out by the people who profit from this business. TickleMeister (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where are the reliable sources that back up your claim that the reviews are not reliable or do not represent scientific consensus due to industry funding? Yobol (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WedMD is mentioned by name in MEDRS as a RS. Here is WedMD's article that brings this questioning of the (bogus) consensus into the open, and makes it suitable content for the wikipedia article (from which it is currently inexcusably excluded). TickleMeister (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * One guy not liking one review in one WebMD article does not make a scientific consensus. Where are the peer reviewed studies showing these reviews are inaccurate or do not represent the scientific consensus? Yobol (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh, are you now trying to use this “study” here? Sorry, but Walton's self-published list of studies isn't even accurate. I actually took the time and tried to find a few of the “independent studies” he cites - the first in the list isn't about aspartame, the second isn't a study but a letter to the editor regarding a peer-reviewed ‘pro-aspartame’ article. The third found that human saliva mixed with aspartame and glucose after six/twelve hours forms more lactic acid but has a higher pH than saliva mixed with glucose only (Is that bad? Is it really relevant for aspartame's safety?). That's what Walton calls “peer-reviewed ANTI-aspartame studies”. I got bored after finding those first three on this list weren't what the list implied they were, so I didn't try and find more but rather tried to find something about the list. In a toxicology textbook (Nutritional Toxicology, ISBN 0415248655, p. 306f,  if anyone wants to check for accuracy) the list is mentioned, and it confirms my first impression. It says [...]Walton neglected to mention that: (1) he had omitted, for no apparent reason, at least 50 published peer-reviewed safety-related aspartame studies; and (2) most of the “non-industry sponsored research” were letters to the editor, single patient case reports, review articles, and book chapters while the vast majority of the industry sponsored studies were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. IOW: this study isn't a study, and even if we ignore the fact that this is a self-published source, both my own ‘fact-checking’ and a secondary source tell us it's not a reliable source. Is that enough reason not to be in the article? btw: It already is in the article, and considering what I just wrote the current wording (“Walton alleges that researchers with ties to industry find no safety problems, while many of those without ties to aspartame find toxicities.”) is quite nice towards him. --Six words (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No one thinks it's "nice" to be accused of having faulty allegations. Show me where it says that he "alleges" in the two sources? Also if you read above you will see that we were not discussing Walton rather an article in the BMJ. Jmpunit (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's nice. I also gave a source saying that Walton's list is inaccurate (one that does count as reliable source). Now it's your turn to provide a source of equal quality. Or you could just look up some of the “studies” Walton cites. Or we could stop this fruitless discussion - I don't think you'll accept that the list isn't a reliable source, no matter how many arguments I provide against this list.--Six words (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's nice for you to be accused of having faulty allegations then good for you. All I have to prove is that the words "Walton alleges" are not in the article and should not be used in this page. Prove me wrong if you disagree. Jmpunit (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have proven that his allegations are faulty (and given you a source). Please remind me: which is the policy that says our wording has to stick verbatim to the source? --Six words (talk) 03:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

All you have proven is that a textbook says that Walton left out some studies and other "studies" were not actual studies. It doesn't change the fact that there are still studies out there that have shown adverse effects from consumption of aspartame. Also the letter that I have been referring to which uses Walton as a reference would seem to disagree with this as it was published a few years after the textbook in the BMJ which is a reliable source. Jmpunit (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As for using exact words in a source; this is not the problem. The problem is using words that promote doubt which are not used in the sources. Even if you find one source that disagrees with this it does not mean it is "proof" as reliable sources continue to use the supposedly "faulty" source in reference. Jmpunit (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to know, we should probably add something from that textbook to that section (when this is unprotected). Was considering adding the BMJ letter to the editor that described it as having no scientific content as well. Yobol (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think letters to the editor can be considered reliable sources. That is not to say I disagree with this particular letter, but I think generally we should try to get rid of non-RS sources rather than trying to counterbalance them with other non-RS sources. In “controversy” articles, the fringe side traditionally gets a bit more leeway regarding the quality of its sources, so I'm OK with the current wording here while I would oppose the same wording in the main article.--Six words (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Letters to the editor have generally been considered RS for the opinion of the writer of that letter, I believe (though obviously not MEDRS for citing medical facts). Of course, a textbook is a much better source and would be preferable.  Will see if I have access to an ebook copy of that. Yobol (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's Walton's list of non-industry funded studies. It's not exactly a glowing endorsement of a harmless chemical by anyone's standards. TickleMeister (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If one wants to promote fringe views on the internet, then there are many websites where one may do that. If one wants fringe views to be properly explained on Wikipedia, then that is also fine.  But if one wants to distort the views of scientists in order to promote a fringe theory on Wikipedia then that fails.  TickleMeister's link is not a reliable source and therefore is a waste of time.  Please read WP:RS.  TFD (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are completely wrong. Walton's review is mentioned in The Guardian, which is most definitely a RS, and so his review is absolutely submissible data for this article on the controversy. I'm surprised I have to point out basic policy to you. TickleMeister (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in the BMJ which is a reliable source. Jmpunit (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Back to basics
This article has become a battleground where one group of editors is fighting to exclude data from one side of the controversy, which this group regards as "fringe" and "wrong" (i.e. repugnant), from the article. This position betrays a basic misunderstanding of wikipedia's tenets. So let's go back to basics.

I quote from WP:CONTROVERSY: "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy."

This snippet of commonsense is being ignored by editors seeking to exclude one side of the debate from the page.

Each and every claim by the opposition to aspartame should be aired, including all the studies that find a problem with it, since these studies are named in multiple websites and in the Walton review. It does not matter, for purposes of an article on a controversy, that this review was not published itself in a peer reviewed journal. It is cited in multiple RSes, so it (and the studies it cites) are appropriate on the page.

CONTROVERSY also warns about the use of weasel words like "alleges", which is used inappropriately in the article.TickleMeister (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fringe again

 * My main concern is that we do present fringe theories as science. Promoting false information is a disservice to readers.  TFD (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delineating all sides of a controversy does not and should not consist of the promotion of false information. As WP:CONTROVERSY says, we should document fairly what each side has to say, however repugnant it is to us personally. This subject is, most definitely, a controversy. The industry has funded numerous studies, all of which exonerate the chemical from any blame whatsoever, and yet many independent studies find problems. In the end, all studies, for and against, were summarised by a panel consisting of (as some claim) industry stooges, and it so aspartame gets a big tick. ✅ Regulatory bodies all over the world take their cue from this industry-funded review, and fall in line. None of us here really knows whether aspartame is harmless or not. Many drugs have been found to be extremely harmlful, years after getting FDA approval on the basis of studies (usually funded by Big Pharma). It's our job, as editors, to lay the whole ugly controversy in front of readers, warts and all. It's not our job to suppress one side of the debate, decide who is right, label everything one side said as wrong, "alleged" and disproved. This article has lost the spirit of what an encyclopedia is. The article lobbies for the current consensus position (consensus as achieved by careful industry manipulation, some would say). We must not simply become an arm of the manufacturers. In years to come, the sceptics and critics may be proven right. If they are, this article should not look hopelessly biased in retrospect, as it would in its current format. TickleMeister (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And, once again, this editor ignores WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE.Yobol (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * MEDRS is in complete agreement with CONTROVERSY, and if you actually read it you'll see that it directs us to describe all sides of a controversy properly. UNDUE must not be abused as a weapon to suppress one side of a debate, as you continually do. TickleMeister (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:Controversy: "Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy."  In this case the one side of the "controversy" must be treated as fringe, because it represents the views of a small group outside the scientific community.  TFD (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's be careful here. The reality is that we have a bunch of positive/neutral studies done by industry, and on the other hand a bunch of studies done by a wide range of independent scientists, some of which raise problems with aspartame at different doses. Then we have controversial reviews that come down on the side of the exonerating studies. That's the exact situation we're dealing with here. We do not have the vast bulk of science and scientists exonerating aspartame, and only a few crazy mavericks claiming harm. It's not like the global warming debate, where 97%+ of climatologists support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and only a few eccentrics in that field don't. That would truly be a "fringe" position. In our controversy here, there are quite large encampments on each side. Many of the studies showing harm come from top researchers at top institutions, and they were only glossed over in the industy-funded review as being inapplicable because of an industry-funded study that found an opposite result (often because the test animals were given only one large dose of aspartame rather than the sort of exposure humans have, which is small, frequent doses over a long period), or because the review panel found a technicality on which to dismiss the findings. So to say that only a small group outside the scientific community has doubts about aspartame is wrong. In fact, aspartame is currently under investigation in the UK by regulatory authorities. We need to be fair here. We need to better describe the controversy that we are doing. TickleMeister (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It clearly states at the website of the National Toxicology Program of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services: "Although FDA determined in 1981 that aspartame was safe for use in foods, that agency has continued to review complaints alleging adverse reactions to products containing aspartame. FDA has not determined any consistent pattern of symptoms that can be attributed to the use of aspartame...." All other regulatory agencies and science textbooks say the same thing.  That is the consensus view that we must report.  TFD (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not be obtuse. The purpose of reporting a controversy on wikipedia is not to state which side is winning and then suppress the other side's views. Can you understand that? As for the FDA, another fact that is suppressed off the page is the fact that by 1998, aspartame products were the cause of 80% of complaints to the FDA about food additives. There were so many complaints that the FDA had to install a new computerised complaints monitoring system. TickleMeister (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good Lord, are you really bringing up FDA complaint business again? It was discussed here less than two months ago and rejected. Is it your goal to just bring up the same points over and over again in some vain attempt to just wear everyone out? And this is what, the 3rd time in 2 months you've brought up your unique interpreation on WP:controversy, which BTW even if your interpretation is correct (and it has been amply shown your interpretation has been rejected before in the subsequent links), it is an essay and does not take precedence over guidelines and policies like WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE? #1 here #2 here


 * Seriously, when are you going to stop with the WP:IDHT? Bringing up the same topics over and over again isn't going to convince anyone, it's just being disruptive and it needs to stop. Yobol (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We all know that you consider any mention of the other side of the debate as UNDUE. You've said that numerous times. We get it. However I, and several other editors, reject your view. Telling me to shut up repeatedly will not advance this debate, so once again, please stop repeating your views endlessly. The fact is that the heavy level of complaints to the FDA over aspartame (which occurred before the hoax email was disseminated) is mentioned in RSes. It is therefore completely justifiably put forward for inclusion in the article. TickleMeister (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

False belief

 * The fact that hundreds of people falsely believe that aspartame is poisoning them is interesting. But we need a source that explains why this is and the dynamics of the anti-aspartame movement.  TFD (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong in every way here. Where do I begin? It's thousands of people, not "hundreds". It's not "falsely believe" — that is purely your presumptive conclusion (e.g. it gives me headaches in a predictable way, and it's under renewed investigation in the UK for exactly this reason). I should add that your presumptive conclusions are most inappropriate for a supposedly fair-minded wikipedia editor. So no, we don't need sources that explain the mass hysteria you seem to think has afflicted people. This an article on a controversy, not a page where you can exercise your disdain for other human beings who report genuine symptoms. TickleMeister (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never said "any mention of the other side of the debate as UNDUE" and I have never personally attacked you, please review WP:NPA so you don't falsely accuse me yet again. You may follow standard dispute resolution procedures such as opening an RfC or contacting one of our  noticeboards for a 3rd opinion if you feel policies are not being followed, but please stop disrupting this talk page with repetitive points and complaints. We have already discussed the FDA figures and the consensus is to not include them.Yobol (talk) 05:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You have used the undue weight argument again and again and again to block content you don't like from the article. Anyone can see that. This is not a false accusation. Your new tack appears to be that you are seeking to call my arguments "disruptive" and claim that consensus, established some time ago when I was the only editor attempting to insert balance and was opposed by a group of like-minded editors (who had this page on their watchlists because of disruptive editing by real kooks and conspiracy theorists), is immutable and never changes. Consensus changes. If you feel my arguments are disruptive, please take it to a noticeboard and do not use the claim to attempt to bully me. Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you keep bringing up topics/suggestions that violate WP:UNDUE, I will keep noting that they violate it. As you will note, 3 other editors besides me agreed that your suggestions about the FDA figures violated WP:UNDUE as well in the first discussion, which just might indicate you need to listen to the consensus of editors.  All high quality reviews and scientific/government agencies support aspartame safety, so yes, small primary studies and 20 year old government reports that list possible symptoms violate WP:UNDUE.  I will likewise call disruptive editing as I see it, and it is not "bullying" it is asking you to change your behavior to conform to our policies on behavior. Yobol (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hypochondriacs

 * Ticklemeister, in science anecdotal evidence and case studies are insufficient to prove causal connection. Only controlled studies can do that.  Wikipedia accepts science as mainstream and relegates alternative science to fringe.  You may not find that to be fair, but that is policy and must be followed until it is changed.
 * You should also understand that since there is no connection established between aspartame and ill effects that the most likely cause is that people with real illnesses are wrongly attributing them to aspartame and some people be hypochondriacs. A person with complaints may find it more acceptable to blame aspartame rather than consider serious conditions that they might have.  But we do these people no service by discouraging them from obtaining medical treatment.
 * TFD (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an exaggeration to call studies that find problems with aspartame "alternative science". These studies base their conclusions on the same methods used by other "mainstream" science. Why would these dissidents be published in reliable sources if they were promoting "fringe theories"? Since they are in mainstream publications this means that they have a significant minority. I find it more than interesting that thousands of people are attributing illnesses to aspartame. To dissmiss them as hypochandriacs and in denial of serious conditions is ignoring their concerns. I also don't see why these complaints shouldn't be in the article since it would seem that this is related to the controversy and that these people would represent at least some of this significant minority that is being ignored in this article. Jmpunit (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide a scientific study that concludes aspartame is unsafe. TFD (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsafe

 * Could you please provide a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal or a book published by the academic press that calls aspartame unsafe. TFD (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already given you a source in the BMJ which speaks of numerous studies which show concern regarding aspartame. Since it's published in one of the world's most respected medical journals it is worthy of this article.  Please provide a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal that states that "the validity of these claims (that aspartame can cause numerous health problems) have been examined and dismissed". Jmpunit (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Calling for studies that label aspartame outright as "unsafe" is a straw man argument. We have numerous peer reviewed studies linking aspartame to headaches, for example. Does that mean it's "unsafe"? Well yes, for some people (like me) who respond with headaches, it is unsafe, if you want to use that term. You are now replying to our points with non sequiturs like this that are not helping to improve the page. TickleMeister (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We know that there are people who believe that aspartame causes headaches just as we know that there are people who believe that they have been abducted by aliens. What we lack is a scientific opinion that connects aspartame and headaches.  And a letter to the editor is not a reliable source.  TFD (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? There are numerous excellent studies that make the connection. TickleMeister (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide a scientific opinion that connects aspartame and headaches. TFD (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Astonishing that you are editing this article in ignorance of this! TickleMeister (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of old references and non-peer reviewed articles that don't meet MEDRS. Please clean up your mess. QuackGuru (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This shows that there is not a universal acceptance in the scientific community of Magnuson's review (see citation 11). There is no reason for this not to be in the article. Also can you please provide a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal that states that "the validity of these claims (that aspartame can cause numerous health problems) have been examined and dismissed" since it says this on the page? Jmpunit (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MEDRS: Under "Use up-to-date evidence": * Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.
 * For example, see citation 11. It is dated. QuackGuru (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is from 2008 which is newer than the Magnuson review. Jmpunit (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quackguru, this is not an article about a medical condition, but rather an article about a controversy in the field of medicine. MEDRS is very clear about this, stating "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." So we are not looking for recent, new research about a medical condition here, which is what the up-to-date evidence in MEDRS relates to. TickleMeister (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." But MEDRS is clear that the references should be up-to-date. MEDRS does not say for controversy it is okay to cherry pick references for controversial medical information. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The first exhibit, "Aspartame ingestion and headaches" (1993) studied 32 subjects and found that 33% reported headaches using aspartame, while 24% reported headaches using placebos. (I.e., 11 people had headaches using aspartame, while 7 people had headaches using the placebo.)  It reported, "This experiment provides evidence that, among individuals with self-reported headaches after ingestion of aspartame, a subset of this group report more headaches when tested under controlled conditions."  The study was later included in a review in 2002 that concluded from examining that report and others, "it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use".  It seems odd that a massive movement could be driven by a study of 32 people 17 years ago that showed 11 who used aspartame got headaches while 7 who took placebos also got headaches.  Any idea what the statistical probability of aspartame causing headaches based on that report would be?  TFD (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't dodge my question. Also the 2002 review you cite was done by NutraSweet's Harriett Butchko where it says on the bottom that if there are any questions to contact her at harriett.h.butchko@nutrasweet.com. Do you have any other independent studies or reviews rejecting the above that might not be marred by conflict of interest? Jmpunit (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Then do not give me a list of 12 reports when the first one is obviously out of date, inconclusive, and been rejected by subsequent study. Please respect that no one has time to sift through 12 reports searching for one that may be relevant.  The report I cited btw was published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology  If you want to believe that the science is corrupt, you are welcome to your beliefs but we must follow scientific consensus.  TFD (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, you are completely missing the point here. You are arguing the science, inserting yourself into the controversy, taking sides, coming to conclusions. THAT IS NOT OUR ROLE AS EDITORS! We're not here to make judegments about who is right and who is wrong. If you want to write polemic against "hypochondriacs", please go elsewhere. We are supposed to produce and article that accurately reflects the arguments of both sides of the controversy. Please re-read the previous sentence. And again. There are too many editors here who seem to think the Talk page is a place to decide the rights and wrongs of the controversy, which is a complete waste of our time, and moreover perverts the aim of wikipedia. If you have any cogent reasons why the arguments against aspartame should be kept off the page, state them, but please stop being part of the argument/controversy itself. TickleMeister (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not give you any list (except for the one where I stated my concerns regarding the slanted point of view in the article which you still refuse to address). Again you give a strawman argument.  I did not say that the science is corrupt.  I am simply asking for another source to back up the rejection of the studies that are not lead by NutraSweet or another corporation that is directly involved with aspartame.  Surely if there is consensus on this it should be easy to find.  Also you are still dodging my question of providing a peer reviewed academic source that says "the validity of these claims have been examined and dismissed".  And please tell me why this  should not be in the article? Jmpunit (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Letters to the editor are not peer-reviewed, the review I that you reject was. Please read the article peer review to gain an appreciation of what is involved in the process.  Anyone can write a letter and even get it published but writing a peer-reviewed article means subjecting your work to the scrutiny of others and means that it is checked for consistency and accuracy.  TFD (talk)

Are you telling me that if you wrote a letter to the BMJ it would be published and not dismissed as outrageous? Jmpunit (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If my research had come under attack in the BMJ then I would expect they would allow me the right to reply. In fact I am sure that they would allow most laymen to reply to articles that were  critical of them.  That does not mean that the BMJ has submitted my response to a panel of experts to review it or that it matches the requirements to be published as an article.  TFD (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the fact that you must have an article critical of you in the journal in order to get a reply published proves that not just "anyone" can have a letter published in a prestigious medical journal. Therefore one must be considered credible enough to have a review critical of their work published in the journal and thus credible enough to be published in the medical journal. Jmpunit (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This may be helpful. http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/readers/responding-to-articles/rapid-response-guidelines  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
 * This too might help. http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7380/63.extract Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, "Please submit letters to the editor as Rapid responses to articles published on bmj.com.... This is the only way to submit a letter to BMJ: all letters that appear in the print BMJ and on bmj.com have arrived initially as Rapid responses."  TFD (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Soffritti response that I refer to above and below is found on www.ehp03.niehs.nih.gov.  Where it states: "All papers submitted to EHP are evaluated by a group of consulting editors to determine whether the topic is within the scope of the journal and to evaluate adherence to word limits and journal format...The overall acceptance rate of papers submitted to the journal in 2009 was 22%." Jmpunit (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Morando Soffritti's response to Magnuson
Also I am still asking for you to give me a reason why this should not be in the article. Jmpunit (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The letter to the editor should be excluded because it fails RS and even if it did not would be a primary source. Ticklemeister, I am not taking sides in a controversy, but the problem is that if we have the consensus of science on one side and sceptics who believe aspartame is poison, 9/11 was an inside job, the government is covering up UFOs etc. then we do not give both sides parity.  In fact science and irrational belief are totally opposed to each other.  TFD (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no, no. Morando Soffritti's published rejection of the criticisms levelled at the ERF studies by Bernadene Magnuson (a reviewer paid by the aspartame industry, who exonerated the chemical in a controversial 2007 review, and who now travels the world on Ajinomoto's and/or Coca-Cola's dime, touting aspartame's benefits), is absolutely appropriate on this page. It goes to the very heart of the controversy. There could be no more suitable content for this page than his response.TickleMeister (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Coca-Cola Oceania has financed the trip to New Zealand of Canadian aspartame expert Dr Bernadene Magnuson, who will speak at Nutrition Foundation seminars this week on the "myths" surrounding aspartame."" Case in point. TickleMeister (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The information in the article is fine, but the letter is a primary source and can only be used to support a secondary source. It is not evidence that there is a lack of consensus in the scientific community - that can only be established by a peer-reviewed article that says there is no consensus.  If there were no consensus then it would be easy to find.
 * While I understand that people like yourself hold views about aspartame that are outside the scientific consensus, I cannot understand why you would challenge what the scientific consensus is. How can you argue that the science is tainted and then argue that it supports your view?
 * TFD (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Writing of ufos and 9/11 is not relevant to this talk page nor is what invloved editors believe. What is relevant is that a "review" dismissing the health hazards of aspartame was lead by a researcher who has significant ties to a company that has great interests in the sweetener.  Since "the safety evaluation" that makes implications of Soffritti's findings is discussed in the article it would only make sense that his response to their conclusions SHOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED.  It is ridiculous to imply that a counterargument regarding the dismissal of the Soffriti studies made outside of the two parties would have more merit than that coming from Soffriti himself.Jmpunit (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For the umpteenth time, we do not use letters to the editors to rebut secondary studies. Yobol (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it would be helpful if you gained an understanding of how scientific research operates, and how scientific knowledge should be reflected in this article. The findings of isolated studies are ignored unless they become accepted in the literature.  As the review shows, this study has not been accepted.   The fact that the authors had their letter to the editor published is irrelevant.  A review of the literature is of course the type of reliable secondary source that should be used to support the opinions of scientists.  It does not matter who wrote it or why, but that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal.  These journals send submissions to other experts who review them for their accuracy and they do not knowingly publish misleading reviews.
 * If you believe that there is a conspiracy between the governments of the world, the chemical industry and the scientists to mislead the public then that is fine but that POV would be considered fringe for this article. It is exactly the same with UFOs, 911 etc.  They believe that there is a conspiracy between the governments of the world and the scientists to mislead the public.
 * TFD (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, writing of ufos, 9/11, and world government conspiracies is not relevant to this article. The beliefs that you accuse me of having are also not relevant to this article as the accusation itself is not. As you said above the BMJ would publish you if you were responding to an article critical of them. This is to give both sides a voice so that the reader can decide for themselves. The same is true for this page: Since a review that implies that Soffriti's findings are invalid are stated on this page it is ESSENTIAL to give his reply a voice so that the reader can decide for themselves who to believe. To not allow this in the article would not allow the reader to make a fair judgment based on BOTH points of view. The article does not have to say "Soffriti has PROVEN that Magnuson's review is faulty based on X,Y,and Z." but rather "Soffriti REPLIED to Magnuson's review STATING it is faulty based on X,Y, and Z." There is no reason why the latter would not be fit for this article. Jmpunit (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When it comes to medical topics there are rarely two sides, and there is only one here. The letter would be appropriate to Soffriti's WP:BLP, but certainly does not belong here.  And the "controversy" described in this article is about fringe theorists vs. science, with a few cherry-picked, isolated and rejected papers fuelling a huge internet following of based on misunderstanding of science.  TFD (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The controversy is about the FDA approval process of aspartame and the issues regarding its safety. There are published studies on both sides of the gauge of "no known health effects" and "known health effects" which is proof that there are two sides here.  Of the Ramazzini studies there are some scientists that support them and some that reject them.  I have yet to see an overwhelming consensus that aspartame is not unsafe as you speak of in the sources.  Please give a source that shows this other than the two that were funded by corporations involved with the sweetener (11 and 75).  An INDEPENDENT source would rule out conflict of interest. Jmpunit (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, you are arguing that we need to hear only one side of the issue, in an article about a two-sided controversy. This is a direct contravention of policy. Please desist. If you and Yobol continue with this tack, it must go to RfC. TickleMeister (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggested further dispute resolution two sections up including RfC, and welcome outside input as your multiple proposals' violation of policies like WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS is clear (as the results from the last couple of RfCs have made clear). Yobol (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please give a source stating that there is a consensus in the scientific community that aspartame is not unsafe other than the two that were funded by corporations involved with the sweetener (11 and 75). There should be an abundance of independent sources stating this if this is in fact the consensus. Jmpunit (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Other than the FDA? Let's see, there's the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food, the UK's Food Standards Agency, the French Food Safety Agency and Germany's Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, just to name a few. And letters to the editor still aren't RS. If there was a letter to the Guardian regarding aspartame we wouldn't consider it a reliable source, because it's not fact checked; nor are letters to the BMJ. --Six words (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't forget Canada, I am Canadian and we have a bit of a national inferiority complex.... http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/addit/sweeten-edulcor/aspartame-eng.php Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Every comprehensive review (peer reviewed and expert panel) has documented aspartame's safety, and it's been approved for use in over 100 countries worldwide. No peer-reviewed scientific source has been presented to showed the reviews led by Magnuson and Butchko have been tainted in any way; letters to the editor are not peer reviewed. The RfC here shows we shouldn't even call them industry funded in our article, much less disregard their results.  Again, bringing up topics over and over again despite consensus to the contrary is disruptive and needs to stop. Yobol (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * From Sweeteners and sugar alternatives in food technology published by Wiley-Blackwell (2006), p. 94: "Aspartame is probably the most rigorously tested food ingredient to date....  a number of reports linking aspartame to adverse safety effects appeared.  These allegations which were based on a series of anecdotal reports and poorly controlled studies, gained publicity via the Internet and popular press.  Scientifically controlled peer reviewed studies have consistently failed to produce evidence of a causal effect between aspartame consumption and adverse health effects."  If you want to believe that the government, the scientists and the drug industry are engaged in a conspiracy that is fine, but please do not pretend that the scientific consensus (i.e., what they want you to believe) is anything other than what it is.  TFD (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So, all I see on this Talk page is smoke and mirrors, obfuscation and sophistry, and no honest or fair-minded attempt to improve the article to wikipedia standards of NPOV. TickleMeister (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots more misunderstanding of policy above.
 * 1) National food safety authorities depend on review studies when deciding if a food or drug is safe or not. They do not conduct their own studies. In the past, the FDA has approved drugs, based on industry studies, which later turned out to be flawed. This has even resulted in the death of people. And of course, let's not forget that the UK food authority has aspartame under investigation because of all the consumer complaints. So please, do not raise the acceptance by governments as a sign of aspartame's safety!
 * 2) Letters published in a RS (in this case a MEDRS) are completely reliable as a source for the opinions of the author, in this case a scientist who has studied aspartame. If you contest this, we'll take it to RS/N and I can guarantee you, you'll lose.
 * 3) The reliability of the industry-funded studies and reviews has been openly questioned in both The Guardian and WebMD, both perfectly reliable sources, as well as elsewhere. Yet this fact is not contained in the article. This censorship and POV editing should not be allowed.
 * Soffritti's letter is a rs in responding to a review of HIS work and is therefore appropriate for this article. Jmpunit (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The report of the European Commission was very informative in citing specific studies that have looked into the health effects of aspartame. Here were some of the conclusions made by these studies:

Lajtha et al., 1994 noted some changes in neurotransmitter levels in rodents who were given aspartame orally.

Reilly and Lajtha 1995 found that reductions in glutamic acid levels in both brain regions and of aspartate in the hippocampus were noted when rats were given aspartame through drinking water.

Walton et al., 1993 Concluded that aspartame (30 mg/kg bw/day for 7 days) increased the frequency and severity of adverse experiences in individuals who were already depressed.

Trefz et al., 1994 found that headaches were among the mild adverse symptoms reported by subjects that were given aspartame (15 or 45 mg/kg bw/day)

The results of a questionnaire-based study (Lipton et al., 1989) and two double-blind out-patient investigations (Koehler and Glaros, 1988; Van Den Eeden et al., 1994) employing daily doses of up to 30 mg/kg bw/day indicated a potential association between aspartame intakes and headache. Schiffman et al., 1987 is this reports sole source for dismissing evidence that aspartame might cause headaches though this study has been criticized for using tightly controlled experimental conditions which did not mimic normal life (Edmeads, 1988)

Wurtman 1985 indicated that the administration of aspartame, due to an increase in phenylalanine absorption in the brain, could affect the synthesis of catecholamines or serotonin and cause seizures. He based his findings on three examples of heavy consumers of ”diet” drinks and on experimental studies on animals demonstrating that the consumption of aspartame reduced the threshold of sensitivity to chemically induced seizures (Maher et al., 1987; Guiso et al.,1988; Pinto et al., 1988).

Camfield et al. (1992) demonstrated that aspartame could increase the duration of certain types of epileptic seizure in children.
 * All of these studies are referred to in the report which is dated 4 December 2002 This source would be more effective in a counterargument stating that there are safety issues with aspartame than to support the argument that the evidence has found no health issues with the sweetener. Jmpunit (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, so independent reviews by government scientists that say aspartame is safe can't be used as evidence that aspartame is safe, and somehow reviews that say aspartame is safe is "more effective" in saying the exact opposite. I don't know about you all, but this POV pushing is getting absurd.  WP:DFTT is starting to look like good advice right about now... Yobol (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What it can be used to say is that based on studies before 2003 there is a disagreement in the scientific literature regarding aspartame's safety. If it is used to support the statement "aspartame is safe" (which they would not say according to TFD) its use would be weak at best considering the many studies it speaks of conflicts with this. Jmpunit (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You do realize that their conclusion was: The Committee concluded that on the basis of its review of all the data in animals and humans available to date, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a need to revise the outcome of the earlier risk assessment or the ADI previously established for aspartame. It's a review of all the data available, so of course they'll be assessing those studies reporting negative effects. We already knew those existed, but what is important is what the EU committee concluded. You asked for independent reviews saying aspartame is safe (at or under ADI-levels - nothing is safe at any concentration, even drinking too much water can kill you), I gave you independent reviews.--Six words (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes of course this was their conclusion, however the studies aren't unanimous as the article implies. As a matter of fact the report of the committee spends more time reviewing studies that found one or more problems with aspartame than reviewing studies that show it is not unsafe.  Also as I pointed out earlier their conclusion that aspartame is not related to headaches is based on ONE study that they admit has been criticized.  When reading the whole report one gets a better idea of the situation than when just reading the conclusion. Jmpunit (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * They spend more time discussing studies with negative outcome because this is what might change their view of aspartame as being safe. I don't know how you reach the strange conclusion that I would present a source that I didn't read through - I was merely pointing out that you can't use a review that basically states “previous assesment (= safe for consumption) confirmed” to say the opposite. --Six words (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Once AGAIN, this is all beside the point, the point being that the article is not fully representing arguments from both sides of the aisle. Getting ourselves enmeshed in the minutiae is unnecessary. We are not here to argue the cases for and against. We are here to edit an article on a controversy to a higher standard than that in which it currently exists. It is completely futile to start hand-waving about how one side has won, governments are happy with the safety issues, reviews all are positive. That can be reported in the article, not argued here as a reason to exclude one side of the controversy. TickleMeister (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things: Six words, I was not implying that you did not read what you sent me. What I meant was if the article states "The European Commission came to the conclusion in 2002 that aspartame is not unsafe." it is not as accurate as saying "The European Commission came to the conclusion in 2002 that aspartame is not unsafe after reviewing the following studies...(then going into detail of what the studies were and why they were rejected).  I'm actually grateful that you sent me what you did as it is important to read as much available information on this matter to better assess the situation.  This brings me to my second point: The more information this article covers the better it is for the reader to assess the situation surrounding the controversy.  For example if there is a review that finds fault with certain studies and the researcher involved in those studies replies to this review BOTH the review and the reply should be found in this article to have a more complete understanding of the situation.  I would agree that the little issues are not as important as the big picture; looking to the big picture will get more accomplished. Jmpunit (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Ticklemeister:
 * 1) "...food safety authorities depend on review studies..." Absolutely true.  Those are the same studies that we must rely on because they describe scientific consensus.
 * 2) "...letters...are...reliable as a source for the opinions of the author..." Right again.  But the only article where they may be used would be a WP:BLP about the author.  They are not reliable sources for science.
 * 3) "...The Guardian and WebMD, both... reliable sources." Hatrick!  But they are not as reliable as academic sources, and where there are differences we must go with the latter.

TFD (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Irrelevant in a conspiracy article, 2) wrong and 3) wrong. This is pointless. TickleMeister (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the anti-aspartame movement are conspiracy theorists? TFD (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass. I'm not wasting time with you or Yobol any longer. I'm simply amazed that Wikipedia allows this sort of tendentious obstructionism. TickleMeister (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)