Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive 8

Monsanto
I'm surprised that Monsanto's only mention is as a quote in a response to a hoax. Monsanto is a very controversial and age old organization responsible for all kinds of trouble in the history of human poisoning. This article clearly omits too much to present a NPOV. I've done two research papers on aspertame, (yes I'm aware of original research) but the subject matter is very incomplete. I don't expect total comprehensive material on wikipedia but based on the scope being claimed here, I don't see how this can even come close to being neutral. I wonder just how much influence is possible given the sheer age, size and historic influence of that corporation. 98.175.233.130 (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As you have done research on the subject, please provide us with reliable sources so that we can incorporate information. Without sources, there's really nothing to discuss. Yobol (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and showing both sides
Presenting a balanced perspective in controversial areas is often very difficult, especially since in most of these controversies both sides have very strong opinions. But it is imperative that we follow WP:NPOV. It is not true that all relevant scientists have "debunked" Ramazzini's research, which is what 's edit back in September revised it to suggest. Therefore, I have restored some of the support. I should note that I am well-aware of the weaknesses of the study: I drafted paragraph detailing them ("Reported flaws were numerous and included, but were not limited to, the following: comparing cancer rates of older aspartame-consuming rats to younger control rats; unspecified composition of the "Corticella" diet and method of adding aspartame, leading to possible nutritional deficiencies..."). Nevertheless, Wikipedia's NPOV is very valuable and important and it can't just be dismissed or ignored because it doesn't support one's personal opinions. II | (t - c) 03:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We must, however, follow WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * MEDRS is very clear; we do not use primary studies, not to mention letters to the editors, to dispute secondary reviews. As, to my knowledge, no reviews that meet MEDRS standards have been published that support the Ramzzinni studies, we are left with the fact that those reviews that have been published have found flaws in them. That no reviews have been published that support their findings gives a very big clue as to how much weight their claims have in the medical literature. As you well know, NPOV does not mean we give equal weight or time to both sides of the controversy. Yobol (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I have also now reverted Brangifer's recent edit. Let's be clear here, that there are one or two letters to the editors published in a journal does not make that stance a notable/prominent one. Even putting aside whether this type of info falls under WP:MEDRS, it clearly violates WP:UNDUE to promote the ideas of a handful of people just because they happened to be published in the letters to the editors section of a journal.  If that is all it takes to add a viewpoint to medical articles, then all medical articles would be filled with millions of opinions, which may or may not be notable or prominent.  As always, we should use secondary reviews to guide our content on how prominent/how much weight any particular theory/idea is in the medical community; if it doesn't show up in a secondary review, it probably isn't a prominent one and shouldn't be given weight in our articles. Yobol (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether UNDUE is or is not a problem here (in a controversy article?) is something I won't comment on right now, but the argument that the additions weren't MEDRS is not valid for this type of information. RS governs it, not MEDRS. - Brangifer (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether or not aspartame causes cancer is clearly a matter for MEDRS; I'm baffled as to how you would think that it is not. Using letters to the editors or editorials to suggest that aspartame can cause cancer is precisely what we should not do per MEDRS.  As to if UNDUE could apply in a controversy article - of course!  UNDUE applies especially to controversial topics, where we have to make careful editorial judgments about which viewpoints are notable/prominent enough to include and how much to weight to give to them.  We use secondary sources to provide us with the answers to these questions. If no secondary reviews have been published that suggests they support the Ramazinni studies, it seems clear that these viewpoints have not gained any traction in the medical community, and are therefore not prominent enough to be included in this article, per UNDUE.  Yobol (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I figure UNDUE is the key here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yobol, those scientists, some pretty notable, were not making any independent claims. They were concerned about Ramazzini's claims. If they were making independent claims, then MEDRS would indeed apply, but showing evidence that there is a controversy, as seen in their objections, isn't covered by MEDRS. We're supposed to show that there is a controversy. We certainly do that, but this is a newer instance from a different angle. Fortunately even later sources show their complaints to be unfounded worries, but that shouldn't cause us to leave it out. OTOH, as Dbrodbeck mentions, UNDUE might be a legitimate argument, but that would mean eliminating all objections. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So MEDRS doesn't apply if the author of sources aren't making independent claims, but are talking about the research of others? I don't think that makes much sense at all - and clearly is against the intent of this guideline.  It opens the door to unreliable interpretations of research by the lay press, SPS, etc. under the guise of discussing the research of others and not making independent claims which I doubt very seriously is the intent of guideline.
 * As to showing "that there is a controversy", as noted by WP:UNDUE we only show those controversies that come from viewpoints of a significant minority. I'm sorry, but a letter to the editor and an editorial in a 3rd tier journal doesn't cut it.  If the Ramazzini studies claims are supported by some secondary reviews, I'm all behind including those; but letters to the editors? Come on. Yobol (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In this case it is not a letter to the editor, but an open letter produced by several members of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and published in the journal of that organization but without the organization's name attached (which would have cut this debate short, if present). I do find that the description of the letter is mischaracterized as supporting the findings (a medical claim warranting MEDRS standards); it merely cites the findings and calls for a review (a policy action). The second was an unrelated (except being published in the same issue) commentary by two of the authors of the letter proposing a line of research. I believe that incorporating the first should be possible in the proper context of the letter without violating UNDUE. A proposal for a study pushes further into the realm of UNDUE.Novangelis (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Novangelis, thanks for actually taking a closer look. The letter is not from members of the American College - it's an open letter from 11 notable cancer scientists. The primary concern here is not for "reviews", but rather in secondary evaluations to help us understand how a piece of scientific literature has been received. This is satisfied by the government review, but we shouldn't be silencing notable scientists who don't agree with the government or the Coca-Cola sponsored research panel. This particlar letter was also reported on in Nature or Science (can't remember which). There is also a critique of Coca-Cola's research panel in a cancer journal specifically targeting the implication that increased infections could've caused the tumors in the Ramazzini study. Also, when discussing the Ramazzini study - it can't be that anything above a small paragraph is UNDUE - the fact is that the Ramazzini is the locus of the controversy in the scientific literature at this point, and so of all specific incidents it should receive the most attention in the article. II | (t - c) 07:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Except that there really isn't any true "controversy in the scientific literature," is there? Where are the reviews supporting Ramazzini? Where are the position statements by the American Cancer Society, the AMA, or any other major medical association calling for caution or for research? Where are the toxicologists repeating and confirming the Ramazzini foundation results?  Oh wait, there isn't any of those.  What we explicitly should not do, per WP:UNDUE is blow minor primary studies that have not convinced the scientific community out of proportion to the coverage it's gotten in our reliable secondary sources; to say there is a "controversy in the scientific literature" you would have to show me the secondary reviews and the studies that have repeated the Ramazzini results - until then, all we have is a highly criticized collection of primary studies by one research group, unconfirmed by the wider scientific community. Yobol (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, if 11 scientists signed a letter to the FDA, how many hundreds/thousands didn't and haven't been concerned by the Ramazzini results - by the lack of any peer reviewed literature on the subject? If 11 out of thousands isn't an insignificant minority per WP:UNDUE, how many is? Yobol (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I always try to dig deeper. WP:V demands it. Many, if not all, are members (one is the current editor-in-chief and another is on the editorial board). I didn't check everyone's affiliation because the letter points out that it was their opinions, not those of the organizations with which they are affiliated. I was not pointing out their membership to diminish or enhance their credence, but merely to emphasize the choice of medium. The second editorial was by two of the authors. It being appended to the letter has the problem of being a little WP:SYNTHy because the two authors also signed the letter. A proposal for a study in an editorial is a bit into the undue weight.Novangelis (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In my view, including the letter could be considered original research unless there is a reliable secondary source ascribing some significance to it. Here, as Brangifer said, we don't need to follow MEDRS, but we do need a good source that discusses the letter as having some importance. Until then, I agree with Yobol on complete removal. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Science covered the letter in its news section - see . What we have to keep in mind is that we are in the article focused on the aspartame controversy. WP:UNDUE is discussing how minority positions should be covered in broad articles. The relevant paragraph for discussing minority positions in their own articles is here:"In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader..." Without a note of the support for the Ramazzini study, we are misleading the reader and certainly violating WP:NPOV. II  | (t - c) 19:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly! I have added the Science mention as a backup reference. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer, regarding your edit summary about the order of dates, CSPI sent the letter, and Science reported on it. Only later was it printed in the journal. I don't have the details, but I suspect that the discrepancy between the 13 signatories on the linked version and the 12 reported in Science indicates one additional signer in the interval. (Then again, it could have just been a miscount at the time; I'm trying to avoid leaping to conclusions.)Novangelis (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm satisfied with the above resolution. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What is a backup reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.177.3.198 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a poor term to describe a secondary source that directly establishes that the primary source has had some sort of impact and offers a second hand interpretation so that we do not engage in original research. The publication in an edited journal made the primary source possible although iffy. The news item meant we were clear of the gray zone.Novangelis (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at AN/I
A discussion relevant to events that have occurred here is happening at AN/I. Please look in and comment if you feel the desire. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Aspartame is Dangerous--Originally banned by U.S. FDA
The initial description of aspartame in this website says that aspartame has been thoroughly tested and found harmless (my own paraphrase). This is not true. I have found many authentic and reputable sites that state otherwise; especially being the fact that the US FDA originally banned aspartame in the US. When Donald Rumsfeld took over, he let aspartame come through despite the 92 site effects that were found from aspartame consumption. I have posted two of my research article websites below as a reference. Even China (who I understand is the one who created aspartame, banned its use because of the bad site effects on the brain. There are almost 100 more side effects that I do not care to note here. See research for yourself and watch for it in food products. I purchased a Yoplait Light Fat Free Very cherry yogurt this past weekend not realizing it has aspartame in it. It "tastes" wonderful, but I will never buy it again. See these links: http://www.laleva.org/eng/2006/07/china_to_restrict_aspartame_production.html. and see Janet Starr Hull Creator of the Aspartame Detox Program who has much good information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.93.6 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the article, read Aspartame and also, read WP:MEDRS. this should answer your questions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Environmental health perspectives article
This edit is sourced to a primary source (a scientific study) but there are no secondary sources that establish what weight the study has been given in the scientific community, whether its findings have been duplicated or rejected, etc. I will therefore delete it and ask that the report should not be mentioned until we have adequate sources that discuss it. TFD (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The introduced study is one of the Ramazzini studies, and as we can see, it has a whole section dedicated to their group and research. Yobol (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Article semiprotected for 3 months
For obvious reasons to anyone who's followed the history ...

The article is now semiprotected for 3 months. New editors are welcome to propose changes here for others to implement based on consensus, or to wait until you've accumulated enough new editing time to have passed the autoconfirmed threshold. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not cool. Because some guy removes stuff in one swoop, the content is gone. This will kill Wikipedia. Bottom line is that this is a page about the controversy. Information about all sides of issues are very relevant. Just because someone writes a review article does not mean its settled science. Reviews can be biased. -- Stinky Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinky pete 2011 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 5 March 2011
 * Please read WP:MEDRS reviews trump single studies. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I still don't like it. - Stinky Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinky pete 2011 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is policy is all, if you want ot make a change, try proposing it here first, and it can be discussed. There are many seasoned editors here that can help you along the way.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Negative on that. Wikipedia and Science are not compatible. Science is not dogmatic. Minorities views are acknowledged and not ignored. Sometimes the minority view is right (i have no idea in this case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinky pete 2011 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Negative on what? That is how it works here, as you are new, you should familiarize yourself with how things work here.  Oh and science is exceedingly conservative actually and likes things to be replicated, so this explains why WP:MEDRS prefers secondary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Proposal
Quite some facts are completly missing from both articles about Aspartam and the alleged controvery on Wikipedia.

Please take into consideration, below facts were broadcasted on german national television, ARD at http://www.ard.de/ratgeber/essen-trinken/gift-in-lebensmitteln/-/id=13368/nid=13368/did=1842652/25flqe/index.html

January 1981-- Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.

January 10, 1977-- The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney's office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and "concealing material facts and making false statements" in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA's history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.

Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.

Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.

July 15, 1981-- In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its' proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.

espri7 (talk) 1:18, 19 March 2011 (GMT+1)
 * Certainly if this information is accurate and notable, it would appear in an English source, right (being about the approval of aspartame in the US, and all...) Yobol (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We have discussed this all before. However I think that the article should mention that Rumsfeld is part of this right-wing conspiracy theory.  TFD (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It does seem to be a re-occurring theme. Do we have a reliable secondary source that provides an appropriate context? Yobol (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: If we were to use that documentary as source, it would have to say those things (but it doesn't). While Rumsfeld is mentioned as a major figure in the approval of aspartame, it doesn't cite Rumsfeld saying he will use his political power. Hull's name isn't mentioned, and the interviewed expert doesn't say that the FDA expert opinion was 50/50; It doesn't name those who were against aspartame; the last point is the only thing one could, interpreting the source very permissively, actually use the source for. They're interviewing the president of “Citoyens pour la Santé” (Citizens for Health) - the voiceover is so loud that I can't understand what the expert's original answer is, but its German interpretation is “Einmal im Amt wischte der neue Bevollmächtigte die Arbeit der FDA Wissenschaftler vom Tisch und erklärte, dass Aspartam vollkommen sicher sei.” translation: Once he was in office, this new commissioner brushed aside the FDA scientist's work and declared that aspartame was completely safe. (last part is without voiceover, he originally says “... and then said NutraSweet is safe”). In other words: none of the details that were suggest to include based on this documentation are acutally in it. Yes, the film makes it look like practially all of our food is a poisonous cocktail (I guess that's why ARD felt they had to side it with an interview of an independent toxicologist Interview (German)), but there's no way we can include the proposed wording based on the documentary. --Six words (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a number of references to Rumsfeld and the approval process in Empty pleasures, which is a reliable source. TFD (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

weight gain
Since the caloric contribution of aspartame is negligible, it has been used as a means for weight loss. Although some individual studies have suggested that aspartame contributes to weight gain and obesity as well as increases hunger,[7] comprehensive reviews on this subject have concluded there is little to no data to support the assertion that aspartame adversely affects hunger or obesity.[7][50][52]

The conclusion above is not supported by the references. What am I missing?

Quione (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please be specific, which parts are not supported by which references? Yobol (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The part that says comprehensive reviews...have concluded there is no data to support the assertion that aspartame affects...obesity.    There is nothing in reference 7 or 50 or 52 that deals with obesity. Quione (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, you are mistaken. Ref 7 speaks to obesity in section 6.7.2 on page 688 and section 6.9.2.6 on page 697, ref 50 speaks to obesity on page 24, and ref 52 speaks to obesity starting on page S83. Have you read the sources in questions? Yobol (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not true, they definitely have sections about weight gain/obesity. If I can find some time I'll post a few quotes later. --Six words (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As promised, some quotes from the references used in the article: "In summary, there is no evidence to support an association between consumption of aspartame and the development of obesity. On the contrary, when used in multidisciplinary weight control programs, aspartame may actually aid in long-term control of body weight."

- Magnuson et al. "The National Experts note that there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake."

- efsa-Report "The few studies that indicated an increased motivation to eat following the consumption of aspartame were not replicated by a number of other studies. Further, inpatient investigations of nondieting obese and normal weight individuals have demonstrated incomplete caloric compensation after the covert replacement of sucrose with aspartame."

- Butchko et al. I think the part you're objecting to is a good paraphrase of these sources. --Six words (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Both references 7 and 52 require payments to view them. I did not think you can use references that are not available to the general public. Are you willing to pay the $85 that is required? Quione (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:PAYWALL. Some editors (such as myself) have access to these references through library affiliation.  Most libraries will be able to get copies for you through interlibrary loans if they don't have access to them as well. Yobol (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and general note for the future: before you claim that particular information is "not supported by the references" as you did here, it would be best to actually read the references to see if they actually do or not first; claiming that they "are not supported" seems to imply you already checked the sources, which you seem to have not done. Yobol (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not have a policy that only sources available free on-line are acceptable. TFD (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Freely-accessible sources are preferable, since they allow many other wikipedians to use the source (and to verify). However, it's not compulsory for a source to be freely available online (such a policy would severly limit, and bias, the encyclopædia). I can access pretty much any journal/paper which is behind a paywall, in case Yobol needs a hand... bobrayner (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some sources, such as recent scholarship may only be available through paid subscription. Other sources may only be available through libraries.  Even free on-line sources such as Google books may provide only limited access.  TFD (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think some clarification is necessary: I agree that freely accessible sources for everyone would be nice; however, in no way should we imply that free sources are any more reliable or usable than those requiring subscription (indeed, that is the point of WP:PAYWALL). Yobol (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You State: In summary, there is no evidence to support an association between consumption of aspartame and the development of obesity. On the contrary, when used in multidisciplinary weight control programs, aspartame may actually aid in long-term control of body weight. —Magnuson et al., Critical Reviews in Toxicology (ref #7) The use of the term "may" makes this statement pure speculation.

The National Experts note that there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake. —efsa-Report, (ref #50) You are totally assuming that weight gain and food intake are linked. While it may be true in most cases the fact that aspartame is a neurotoxin could sway results. You should not assume this without proof.

The few studies that indicated an increased motivation to eat following the consumption of aspartame were not replicated by a number of other studies. Further, inpatient investigations of nondieting obese and normal weight individuals have demonstrated incomplete caloric compensation after the covert replacement of sucrose with aspartame. —Butchko et al., Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (ref #52) What are the studies that "indicate and increased motivation to eat"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quione (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the sources if you have specific questions about them. We summarize the conclusion of the peer-reviewed secondary literature, not partake in idle speculation about what you think about them.  The conclusion in our article clearly matches the conclusions of these reviews, and unless you find WP:MEDRS compliant reviews that state otherwise, I think we're done here. Yobol (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Quione, it's not me who states anything and it's not Wikipedians who assume things, those are verbatim quotes from the sources, reprinted here so you can see we're not misstating them - if you need more than that, you'll have to look into the sources for yourself. --Six words (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

European Parliament calls for warning label
From the trade publication Food Navigator. This should probably be integrated in the article on the section about regulatory and political development.

Environment MEPs approve proposal on aspartame pregnancy warning

The European Parliament’s Environment committee is pushing for a warning label on products containing aspartame stating that they may not be suitable for pregnant women – despite opinions from EFSA and the French food safety ANSES that scientific evidence does not warrant a reconsideration of the sweetener’s safety. MaxPont (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be integrated if and when the actual parliament passes such a requirement for a warning label (it appears from that source only a committee is supporting it now and so a warning label isn't actually required now) - with the appropriate caveats about how it is not supported by the scientific literature. Yobol (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems relevant. But it is preferable to wait until stories have received attention in more than one source and are more than a few days old, per WP:NOTNEWS.  It would be helpful to have more complete details.  TFD (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On scientific review. Also, scientific error in "Government action and voluntary withdrawals" section.
I understand this article is highly controversial. I am not sure myself if aspartame could be harmful: no longer term studies exist. I personally assume that it is not harmful. I acknowledge this as taking a risk, nonetheless.

To make a quick comment on the discussions below, research reviews can differ between author and cannot be taken as an absolutely correct answer. However, for sake of NPOV and writing articles with limited expertise on each subject, I think research reviews over individual studies can be a reasonable standard. Keep in mind that sometimes the conclusions of research reviews can be addressed in individual studies, however. Whether this is true or not requires careful examination of the research. It is not true that any given individual study will address the problems. It should also be noted that the research published after a review should be examined, that reviews may not include every study, and that reviews may also have flawed methodology.

On to the "Government action and voluntary withdrawals" section. It is stated that "A significant proportion of volunteers participating in the study are those who have claimed to experience side-effects. The results will therefore have added significance." While it is true that such a study may illuminate possible causes of side effects in those whom are reporting them, "added significance" could suggest that the proportion of the population that suffers side effects is any less significant. Therefore, I propose a change of wording. It should simply say that "Therefore, the results will better allow us to understand possible causes of side effects in those whom are reporting them." Either that, or the evaluative statement should be removed entirely.

If this should be split into two new sections, I would appreciate that correction. Nikurasu (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The source does not say that and therefore I will remove this speculation. Aspartame is the most studied food additive in history and no research which could be replicated has indicated harmful effects.  Nonetheless a section of the public continues to press the case against the product, but that is the nature of irrational belief systems.  TFD (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edit to the article, but you're pushing your luck here, saying "no research which could be replicated has indicated harmful effects" - which is untrue, I.e. the harmful effects to suffers of PKU, to say the least! Also, it's uncivil and belittling to label a section of editors as having irrational belief systems, we are all trying to improve the article (regardless of belief).  КĐ ♥ 14:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * PKU sufferers are unable to metabolize phenylalanine, which is found in meat, dairy and nuts.  They are advised to avoid aspartame in order to limit their overall exposure.  I am not attacking editors merely pointing out the irrationality of the anti-aspartame movement.  TFD (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, there is insofar no evidence indicating injury by aspartame. Again, to the best of my knowledge, longer-term studies have not been performed. It would also be specious to claim that we know what the long term effects may or may not be. I do not expect negative effects given the short term data, but it is possible. Similar things have been true before. Nikurasu (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We cannot and should not predict the future. No one has died from a Ferrari falling out of an airplane and crashing into a house.  But I can't say it won't happen, so because of that, we should put a comment in the Ferrari article that you may die from one falling out of a plane.  There's a logical fallacy there, that's basically the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."  There is NO evidence that aspartame is harmful none.  It is possible, some day, in some clinical trial, we will discover some harm, but after this much testing, the probability is vanishingly small.  Of course, in science, there is no black and white, just conclusions supported by evidence.   Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball..   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant conclusion fallacy on multiple levels. It is plausible that any untested substance could be poisonous. It is unlikely that a Ferrari will fall out of an airplane. Also, again, given an evident differentiation between the short-term and long-term effects of other substances, it would not be reasonable to state short-term research alone as so conclusive about the long-term. The possibility is hardly vanishingly small (though, there is also nothing in particular that makes it likely). If you are thinking I am making an argument for aspartame skepticism, keep in mind, it is also possible that aspartame has long term positive benefits that have not been discovered. That is the original hypothesis, in fact, and the generating drive for the marketing of aspartame: to replace sugar, which is known to be a harmful substance in large enough quantities. There is also nothing crystal-ball-like about my statement. It is a common way in some sciences of stating that something is untested. I already stated my personal doubt that it is harmful. Perhaps that statement was in lieu of a proper articulation of my thoughts. It is, in fact, more doubtful that it is harmful long-term. The short-term studies show no effects. Nikurasu (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually have to add something, however. From what I have seen of the research and the summaries here, it is not harmful. Regardless, I have not read the research in depth to the degree that is necessary to truly gauge the validity of each side of the argument. I am not stating this in support of aspartame skepticism. If anything, the research most apparently leans in the other direction. I have to state the uncertainty of my judgment, nonetheless. Nikurasu (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody gives a crap about what you think or what you conclude or what you believe. Here on Wikipedia, it is what is verifiable.  If you think you're smarter than the researchers out there, and by your comments you assume that you are, then I would suggest that you publish some research in the field, and we will consider including it in this article.  I look forward to reading your peer reviewed publications. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's another red herring (though, given how I wrote, one I pretty much was setting you up for, even if I didn't mean to). There are sources in the research that substantiate what I said. I know that Wikipedia policy only allows writing from references. I was not going to violate that rule. I also firmly believe that Wikipedia content does have some root in the editor's judgments. No editor here has escaped acknowledging this, even if it is implicit for some. I wanted to make sure the judgments were coming from as evenhanded and scientific standpoint as possible. I wanted to reduce the banter and make progress. You are right, though. I should have included the references and spoken more in Wikipedia policy terms. Nikurasu (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you can provide sources that should be included in the article, this conversation will be unproductive. TFD (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will include sources. I don't think that's true, though. My point is that if we are going to make things fit Wikipedia policy, why don't we do so from an unbiased point of view rather than trying to skew Wikipedia policy to fit a certain viewpoint? Is there anything terribly wrong with trying to bring the discussion away from one of that nature? The purpose of many of the rules in the first place is to ensure accuracy. Nikurasu (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We fit the 'viewpoint' of the sources. The stuff is safe.  Unless you can find sources that are of a very high quality, that contradict this, this discussion will continue to be, at best, an academic one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The OP obviously has an opinion. He has yet to provide on reliable source supporting that opinion.  Nor any substantive suggestions for changes.  Given those two points, I vote this thread to be a soapbox, and it's time to move on.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So much for Assume_good_faith. I take more than a day or so in finding the studies I had read, so you assume I am posting based on opinion? Or, is the fact that I said I had not read everything what made you think that? As Dbrodbeck said, when I post the sources (if, from his perspective), this will be an academic discussion rather than a Wikipedia editing one. It's also clearly a way to try to shut me down to say I offered no good suggestions. It's not a huge jump to go from "there may be contradictory research reviews" to "more research reviews should be searched for and added." The top 3 Google results for "aspartame research review" are not enough. Perhaps I have even given myself too little credit. I believe many of the criticisms I offered are valid and actionable. I would also again like to point out that, as far as I know, the research does indicate that aspartame is safe. All research is limited, however. If I were able to get a full text even of the scientific studies cited on this page, it is likely that the limitations would be mentioned. Regardless, I would appreciate no hostile, snide remarks this time, or I won't try to help out at all. I came here only looking to improve the article. Instead, I've gotten obstructionism and negative assumptions about my character, neither of which is condoned in Wikipedia policy. Nikurasu (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources you wish to present? TFD (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do. It requires physically going to the library in some cases, however. I need a week or two. Nikurasu (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You should do your research before you comment. TFD (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You should at least be open to the view that aspartame might be harmful. see,http://ps.columbia.edu/news/diet-soda-deadly same study Government view
 * http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=649733%20Arydberg (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Find me a reliable secondary source, that meets WP:MEDRS and we can talk. (This might sound familiar).  I need not be very open to it any more, the stuff has been tested quite a bit. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit I was tickled when I went to your talkpage, Arydberg, and saw your 3-month topic ban posted "16 February 2011, Wednesday (3 months, 1 day ago)". This study has been brought up before. The kicker is in the second article- "Why the link? "It's unknown at this point," she said." Until you find a reliable secondary source stating that this study is linked to aspartame (as opposed to, I dunno, Yellow Dye #5), that link is OR. -- King Öomie 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is frustrating. All of the reliable evidence, that is, studies done so well that they are published in peer reviewed journals, show no effects.  Basic biochemistry tells us it's two amino acids that have no effect, except for those with a genetic disease that can metabolize those amino acids.  This is just like monosodium glutamate which is a simple salt of an amino acid, which can have no physiological effect after consuming.  If the clinical science says there's no effect AND there is no imaginable pathway for the compounds to have an effect, then the only controversy is an invented one.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 15:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Haven't you heard? Amino acids are CHEMICALS, which humans just plain don't understand. Only NATURAL processes can make them safely. When HUMANS put them together, we use bleach and sterno as bonding agents. -- King Öomie  17:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, why didn't you say that before??? Now I have to cut out my 6 kg daily aspartame habit.  Do you think we can find a reliable source on the internet to support that statement?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Orange, The articles are in response to your statement "There is NO evidence that aspartame is harmful none"    Also where is the peer review  for the article reference #15. I am sorry but this is a controversy with a large number of people claiming to have been harmed by aspartame That you choose to ignore them is your choice but they still do exist. Arydberg (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Large number of people claim that the world is 6000 years old, that MSG is harmful, that vaccines cause autism, and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Your commentary that I ignore these "claims" is correct, because my opinion, nor yours, has any relevance.  Where are the reliable sources?  Where???  And reliable means peer reviewed, repeated, accepted, and repeated again.  So, your personal attack...ignored, as I ignore most things like that.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 08:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable. You ignored my suggestions, claimed I had none, and then collapsed the discussion. On the very page you cited (TALK), it is stated: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others." I understand that you are escalating in order to circumvent discussion. I find your argument just above to be relatively convincing, but this article still needs more sources (especially non-government scientific research reviews). As I said, I will also be going to the library to find some of the sources I had read. You can't consider the discussion closed after a few days. All scientific sources also state limitations. This article does not. I have seen many articles on Wikipedia that do. I understand the need to exclude unreliable sources, but that does not mean you make a case for aspartame safety that exceeds the research. That said, this discussion has become full of forum-like posts. Should it stay collapsed? I was not sure what to do, but I reopened this for now. We should come to a consensus before such action is taken. I understand that you reserve that right if you are an admin. Whether or not you are is not clear to me from your user page. Regardless, I would still ask that you be somewhat more patient, and ask for more explanation if you really do not understand what I am trying to say. That seems to be the case. Nikurasu (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We've been going at this for a week. You have yet to propose anything, bring any citations, or state anything but your opinion, which, as I have said, means nothing on Wikipedia.  I think this thread should be deleted as a soapbox, and we move on.  You've wasted our time.   Orange Marlin  Talk•Contributions 03:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not easy to get up motivation to go to the library for Wikipedia, and you aren't helping. If you don't understand, stop now. It's not my fault that you are wasting your time by not listening to me. Though, maybe we're just having a major misunderstanding (one half of us at this point maybe). At least, read User_talk:Nikurasu for more clarification. Nikurasu (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To add a reply to TFD, I have done the research in the past, but did not keep a record. Perhaps I should have had it on hand or found it again before I commented. Nikurasu (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bring some sources, without a solid source back suggestion, this is a waste of time and space, and should be collapsed . Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am going to have to disagree. The sources are evidently sparse even if I do not provide more, for example. By Wikipedia rules, I should not have to argue for you what I have already said just because you are misrepresenting it. I will not any longer. Please stop. If the incivility continues, I will have to leave. This is far too unpleasant. Perhaps it is a mutual misunderstanding. however. Nikurasu (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing you have said refers to any sources or explains specific changes you want made to the article. I notice that you are a pyschology student, and that may be a good place for you to look for an explanation of the anti-aspartame movement.  TFD (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess I could elaborate a bit more if it is unclear to the other editors what I am suggesting. I suppose without some background in science that should be expected. I appreciate the civil reply. Nikurasu (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I await sources, and, suggestions, oh, and I have quite a fine background in science (and, I make a killer martini), thank you. However, backgrounds are immaterial, we have policies here, and one is that you need sources to back up what you say.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think asking you to re-examine current articles for mentioned research limitations is outside of your scope. I could see why you would want me to point out specific articles, however. I have also agreed that for some of my criticisms it would be helpful to post sources. At least, I would be sharing in the work then. I don't understand the hardline given this.Nikurasu (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don’t you try www.dorway.com here are three articles from dorway http://www.dorway.com/92symptomsfotocopy.html
 * http://www.dorway.com/bresslercomplete.pdfhttp://www.dorway.com/raoreport.pdf Arydberg (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think I remember that these 'articles' from an anti aspartame site were determined not to be reliable sources. Indeed, I am pretty sure we had a very long discussion about that site.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind Arydberg that the dorway website is not a reliable source, not to mention a reliable source for medical claims, as has been discussed numerous times. If anyone wants to make changes, make specific recommendations of wording changes and note which sources are being used as sources for that change. Hand-waving about changes before you do the actual research and have sources to discuss is not what this page is for. Yobol (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one of the problems with the current Post-Modernist anti-science attitude. Claims based on intuition, opinion and anecdote apparently must hold equal weight to reliable sources based on research, double-blinded clinical trials, publication in peer-reviewed journals, and the repetition of the same results.  None show a negative effect, or where they were found, they were discounted for all kinds of things like experimental design.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 08:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Bressler report is a government report. Here it is from a different source  http://www.scribd.com/doc/42960461/Bressler-Report-Aspartam  also once again reference 15 is not a peer reviewed journal I respectfully request you replace or remove it.    Arydberg (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 15 is about the hoax, just like everyone told you 3 months ago. Secondary sources show aspartame to be safe.  Again, this has been explained to you on a number of occasions.  This sort of disruptive editing is just another example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Please stop this behaviour. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not being around until a few weeks ago, I needed to catch up on all the wiki-drama. I didn't realize that Arydberg had been topic banned here for three months.  Not seconds after that expired, he's back, pushing the same old same old.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 03:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He was topic-banned for directly attacking other editors (accusations of industry-sponsored editing), so this isn't strictly a resumption of the behavior that got him topic banned. It was, however, a factor. -- King Öomie  16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You must have missed his comment where he said that I ignored the evidence. I don't particularly care about WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, I just think he's a POV pusher.  That's why he should be topic banned.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Nikurasu (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been hijacked by a pure POV discussion. This should be obfuscated as it had been before I undid it. Nikurasu (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

reference 15
Would someone please respond to my asking why reference 15 is considered a peer reviewed journal. I understand it does not deal with health issues but it could be construed as damaging someone's character and thus should be (I think) be a reliable source. Arydberg (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * MEDRS has the peer-review requirement. WP:RS doesn't. Atlanta Magazine meets WP:RS, but obviously not MEDRS. The article isn't furthering medical claims, though, so there's no problem with this link from a policy perspective. And by the way, I don't know if you've read it, but the article in ref 15 is not a negative portrayal of Betty Martini at all. -- King Öomie  19:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No it is not a negative portrait at all but  the actions taken  like  sending thousands of e-mails or posting to many list serves and web pages  require advanced hacker skills and I find it difficult to believe a person like Martini who had a background in health care would have those skills. I believe it is an example of a third party trying to destroy the creditability of Martini This makes it contentious and as is stated in WP:RS,

“Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is an article in the Atlantic Monthly and easily meets rs for BLP. TFD (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover, that article was balanced and neutral. It did not call her a "raving lunatic" or anything of the sort.  It said that she had a belief, unsupported by real science, and she was dogged in her pursuit of attempting to persuade people that her opinion is more valid that real science.  If we were to write a BLP about Ms Martini, this article would meet all of the standards.  Of course, I also know that the science speaks for itself, and her pushing on a myth, like the vaccine denialists, is amusing and doesn't mean much other than being a cute story about how people go about these conspiracy theories.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your concern is noted, however, the source is fine, oh and the idea that you have to be a 1337 HaX0r to send a lot of email is not germane to this.  This source has been discussed before, and I for one am quite tired of your antics.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Arydberg, we had pretty much the same discussion a few months ago, and things haven't changed since then. Atlanta magazine is still a reliable source. There's no need to ask the same thing twice - if you've forgotten the answer, you can always check the archive (or you can click through the talk page history, starting here). --Six words (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The magazine is not the Atlantic Monthly. It is the Atlanta magazine, a city wide magazine  published by one person consisting mostly of advertisements. The quote is perfectly clear. The problem is that Wikipedia does not follow it’s own rules. Arydberg (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source appears reliable by WP standards, BLP or not. Clearly no consensus that it isn't reliable, and the issue about being peer-reviewed is clearly a red herring. Yobol (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yobol, Arydberg has been doing this for a few months. I think we should consider shunning him.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If his WP:IDHT behavior continues, certainly WP:SHUN or another topic ban may be in order. Yobol (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if i offended someone. I felt it was important that we all discuss the same magazine. There is a world of difference between the Atlantic Monthly and the Atlanta  Magazine. Arydberg (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's very simple really.   The Atlanta Magazine is a peer reviewed journal because we say it is. End of story.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quione (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Without the need for disruptive sarcasm, it is very simple: general claims require a basic standard of editorial review whereas medical claims require a higher standard of sourcing, which includes but is not defined exclusively by peer review.Novangelis (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Allergies?
I've seen copious allegations of "allergies" to aspartame (which I take with a small salt mine, all things considered, especially how easily people confuse psychosomatics with an allergy - or assume that any reaction to a meal was both an allergy and caused by one specific ingredient, like aspartame).

However, if any actual scientific studies have been done on the possibility, they really ought to be linked in here, with a section about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.189.232 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, because we need to show that scientific studies can be replicated. If we have a study for example of people  claiming allergy to aspartame, and 11 out of 20 people fed aspartame report an allergic reaction compared to only 10 out of 20 people fed a placebo, then find the results reversed in the next study, we see the first study as unconfirmed.  TFD (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Cohen research
I came to this article hoping to find information that would support or debunk this science paper written by Jennifer Cohen, a student in New Jersey.

The subject of the paper is of real interest to me and I was hoping Wikipedia might have an article that mentions the paper and explains where it fits in the Aspartame controversy (and, ideally, whether its conclusions are valid or not!)

This page certainly seems the correct place to address it. I hope another Wikipedia editor (one with knowledge of the subject, or a background in chemistry or food science, none of which I have) can add a reference (either to this link http://www.dorway.com/jcohen.html or to some less biased source) and some background on the paper.

Thanks - —SaxTeacher (talk)  21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's bunk. In general, Wikipedia is not a resource for grading student papers. Despite the claims, DKP testing was part of the approval process for aspartame. . The toxicity claims are overblown. The breakdown of aspartame and its impact on flavor are discussed in the main article. Please use the Help desk for questions. This talk page is for article improvement.Novangelis (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dorway is a source that has been discussed here previously and it's been decided that it's not reliable, I think it may even be blacklisted (though I'm not sure). I wouldn't take anything you read there seriously.    N o f o rmation  Talk  04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The correct article for discussing the safety of aspartame is the main article, this article is for discussing the controversies, but they should not be reported here unless they have received coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

edits by
Subj: RE: Why are my additions to WIKI pages being deleted?

Date: 8/7/2011 To:

Dear Sirs:

I have been trying to post the following:

In September 1996, author and columnist, David Lawrence Dewey, grandfather of the hydrogenated oils movement, wrote an extensive article, Aspartame - Sweetness or Death. The article contains research from over 100 studies including documenation that early FDA scientists did not want aspartame approved for human use. Included in the article is the original FDA list of 92 reported side effects from over 10,000 consumers. The article details how aspartame got approved in 1986 when it should never have been approved by the FDA despite objections from early FDA scientists. The article has been continously updated since 1996 with the latest research from researchers all over the world detailing why aspartame should be NOT used by humans.

Aspartame - Sweetness or Death - 16 August 1996

_____________________________________________________

To these two pages on WIKI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#Alleged_conflict_of_interest_prior_to_1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Safety_controversy

However, these (2) users on Wiki:

User:Deli_nk User:CliffC

have sent emails below keep informing me they have deleted my posts.

Why is this occurring?

And there is no way to contact these (2) people above to ask them why they keep deleting my posts !

Attached in the zip folder are the posts as they appear on the pages, then they get deleted by these people above.

In addition, it appears that these people that keep deleting the above additional information to an informative article are being deliberately done, are they working for the manufacturers to remove any content pertaining to any credible article that provides additional information, research studies, etc.  It seems whoever has been editing these two pages on aspartame are PRO aspartame, defending it when there is AMPLE evidence to show it should NOT be consumed by humans !

Thank you,

Jeffry Nielsen RMMP Consulting

Subj:   Wikipedia page User talk:RMMP Consulting has been changed by Deli nk     Date:    8/7/2011 11:30:17 AM Mountain Daylight Time From:   wiki@wikimedia.org Reply-to:   reply@not.possible To: Sent from the Internet (Details) Dear RMMP Consulting,

The Wikipedia page "User talk:RMMP Consulting" has been changed on 7 August 2011 by Deli nk, with the edit summary: last warning

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMMP_Consulting&diff=0&oldid=443536043 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RMMP_Consulting for the current revision.

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deli_nk

Subj:   Wikipedia page User talk:RMMP Consulting has been changed by CliffC Date:   8/7/2011 11:26:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time From:   wiki@wikimedia.org Reply-to:   reply@not.possible To: Sent from the Internet (Details) Dear RMMP Consulting,

The Wikipedia page "User talk:RMMP Consulting" has been changed on 7 August 2011 by CliffC, with the edit summary: Your username

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMMP_Consulting&diff=0&oldid=443534346 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RMMP_Consulting for the current revision.

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CliffC _________________________________________________________________

RMMP Consulting (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral; we should try to avoid skewing them with selective quotes and fringey sources.
 * It looks like you're referring to your own website. Is there a more reliable source? bobrayner (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Your addition was deleted each time it appeared because no disinterested scientific source corroborates it. Many similar additions and changes have been deleted from this and many other Wikipedia articles.  It's nothing personal, just a matter of definition.  Other sites with different definitions would doubtless respond differently.  See WP:Verifiability. Ornithikos (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest w/ two main studies
Two of the studies that are repeatedly relied upon to debunk some of the supposed health risks are footnote 8 ("Aspartame: A Safety Evaluation Based on Current Use Levels, Regulations, and Toxicological and Epidemiological Studies".) and footnote 55 ("Aspartame: Review of Safety".)

If you follow through the links, you'll find that footnote 8's primary funder is the Burdock Group, which is a for-profit company that provides consulting for corporations attempting to navigate the FDA process. See http://www.burdockgroup.com/. Similarly, footnote 55's top four listed funders are variously departments of the Nutrasweet Corporation and Graystone Associates out of Macon, GA, which is headed by one Phil Comer, a former consultant for Nutrasweet. See http://www.linkedin.com/pub/phil-comer/13/809/262.

Which is not to say that the studies are inherently flawed but I think it's important to signpost when there are significant conflicts of interest between the funders/authors and the subject being studied, either in the body of the article or in the footnote itself.

12.198.62.2 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The credibility of academic papers is determined by the publications in which they appear and their acceptance by the academic community. If you can find that these papers have been discredited by the academic community, then we can add that.  Otherwise, it is synthesis to mention this.  TFD (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

reference 8 is too old.
This article suffers from various deficiencies. Among these are the following. 1)  The papers  were all chosen between January and September of 2006.    In the ensuing five years there have been many more publications that should be considered.     2)  In the response to the cases of people who suffered from seizures that ceased after quitting  of aspartame the paper expects their complaints to be  “confirmed by a subsequent challenge”    This is unreasonable. ( page 690) 3) The response ot the 3326 complaints received by the CDC  is dismissed as antidotal and without “complete medical records”  This is also unreasonable  (page 690). 4)  The Weissman study  and the Bressler report are not included. Arydberg (talk) 09:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In response only to your first point, what new sources would you like to be considered? N o f o rmation  Talk  09:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This talk page is not a forum. Trying to repost the same news story about a study which has not been published in the medical literature and which does not mention aspartame as previously discussed is not going to advance the article in any way, shape or form. When you persisted prior to your topic ban, you were reminded of WP:IDHT. Several aspects of WP:Tendentious editing are clearly being met:
 * One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources
 * One who repeats the same argument without convincing people
 * One who assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject
 * Enough.Novangelis (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made no edits.
 * Yes I have been persistent but I am not the only one with this opinion.  Others that support  my side include  Dr. John Olney  Senator Howard Metzenbaum  as well as numerous others that have appeared on this site and have either quit in disgust or been banned.
 * Presumedly we should all be looking for a neutral point of view. The title of this article includes the word  “controversy” I hold an opinion that it should present both sides of the issue.  Am I missing something?
 * This article has 20 references to a paper published by the manufacturer of aspartame.  This has the appearance of impropriety even if it was written with the sponsor's name secret.  The sponsor still had the option of withholding the article.  70.172.214.170 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk page edits are edits. This ongoing effort to challenge the most intensive systematic review in the published medical literature is not productive editing. WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.Novangelis (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I was not aware that Informa (the publisher of Critical Reviews in Toxicology) was a manufacturer of aspartame, much less the manufacturer. A highly respected publisher with an editorial board in place published the article. That makes it a reliable source.Novangelis (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I refer once again to WP:MEDRS. Ref 8 is 4 years old, and clearly falls under the guideline as an acceptable timeline for inclusion in the article. The other complaints by Arydberg seem to be original research by the editor, which is not allowed.  Should they want other information included, they need to find other reliable sources that addresses those concerns.  What we are not here to do is dissect the pros and cons of a 99 page systematic review as Arydberg seems to be doing here. Yobol (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. MEDRS is very clear, as is OR. --Ronz (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok...I think it's time to invoke WP:SHUN. You've wasted enough of our time. Yobol (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest this thread be closed. Innuendo will not impeach a reliable source. Is there consensus?Novangelis (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is. Yobol (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

re: Neurological and psychiatric symptoms section
From the previous article page- "Numerous allegations have been made on the Internet and in consumer magazines purporting neurotoxic effects of aspartame leading to neurological or psychiatric symptoms such as seizures, headaches, and mood changes.

I do not know about mood changes or seizures, but if i just SIP a diet soda, within a couple minutes a massive migrane behind the eyeball headache hits me. IF I eat something low-cal diet food containing this, i get violently ill and spend the next day ill as well.

A friend thought i was BS'ing and mixed me a drink of diet cola and rum. One sip and I had a massive headache. This is not BS.

I have never heard from or been contacted for any study related to NutraSweet/Aspartame. I have talked to other people who have this same sensitivity or allergy to the neutra sweet. So we read labels to make sure we just AVOID it.

I had to complain to a soft drink manufacturer once because I opened a can of regular soda, took one sip and after a minute the migraine headache started. They confirmed that the diet and regular were bottled on the same line. They sent me a free coupon for a 12 pack, and an apology promising to review their cleaning process between production change over. Since that time I have drank their product and had no further issues.

Why am I writing this? Because the previous article page makes it sound like NOBODY has a problem with this stuff when that is BS. I DO. I welcome anyone to contact me about it. This is not an internet smear campaign. This is a fact of life I have to deal with every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.123.59 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not a place for discussing your personal opinion about the topic, but how to improve the article using reliable sources. Your personal testimonial does not qualify, and any further off-topic discussion should be removed. Yobol (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean you don't believe in the n=1 research study????? You skeptic you.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "I know a guy" is not a source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoting a lone Wikipedian as a source in an article is infinitely different than them raising an issue about the problem on a discussion page. Unless you sit at a computer with a bunch of your friends and type on the same keyboard, you only post as 'a guy' or 'a girl' yourself.  The only point of discussing anything here is to get on the same page with other people and form consensuses so that articles may be created, bettered, refined, etc.  If the 'one guy' finds 70 other people have had the same experience, this is a call for research using reliable and credible sources in the official article.  You need to learn to distinguish general discussion from discussion with the purpose of bettering or refining Wikipedia.  If a discussion post can easily be reworded with phrasing that would have eliminated your criticism, don't make one. Squish7 (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A lack of civility is not in any form appropriate in a Wikipedia editing discussion. You also do not have special permission to state your personal opinions. 71.233.149.246 (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A number of people do report this type of reaction, but that when they are entered into studies the effects cannot be replicated. They only react if they know or believe they are consuming aspartame.  Perhaps the article could explain it better.  TFD (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the Food Standards Agency is wrapping up a study based on these types of testimonial results. It might be best to wait for the results before commenting. Yobol (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's like the whole MSG controversy (which, if you just change the names of the chemical, sound very much alike). People complain about effects, yet in a blinded study, the placebo group exhibits the effects at the same rate as the MSG group.  People make their decision on anecdote, yet the cause of someone getting headaches or whatever from drinking a soda could result from the carbonation, colorings, sodium content, etc. etc. etc.  This is why we should make decisions on what we consume and how we treat our health on solid evidence.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Today was the first time I ever tried diet coke, and I have never heard of aspertame before. Yet, I mysteriously got a headache right after I drank it. (And no, I have never gotten a headache after drinking regular coke.) I guess my sub-conscious peered into the future and saw me reading about possible side-effects of aspertame, starting off a headache as a result, eh? Iateyourgranny (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Add your sarcasm to a diet coke for a delicious cocktail.... As I stated above, 'I know a guy' is not a research study. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This subject is about people/s health and laboratory tests have determined that any who professes to be sick from aspartame is faking.   The government knows best what is good for you.   Quione (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's rhetorical to iterate your opinion with the phrasing "research backs me up; you're wrong". A LOT of the critics of aspartame dive into all sorts of issues of mental health; you can disagree with them and their research, but the sheer existence of all these claims warrants major inclusion in the article.  It's the entire reason this article is here; to put forth information on both sides fairly in a neutral way.


 * It's incredible that the words "bipolar", "mania", and "psychosis" are not mentioned once in the entire article. It's an absurd huge hole that should be rectified ASAP, as mental health is very important to people.  If you have evidence of studies that demonstrate effects of aspartame on mental health are purely placebo (psychological; i.e. are debunked via having no medical evidence), then that's something that should be included in the article.  You can't state things like: "there's been controversy on this issue, but it's all been resolved to my knowledge, so there's no need to mention it" and "the people criticizing government on this issue are wrong, because government knows best".


 * Intrinsic logical absurdity aside, these are still just plain hypocritical, because you're trying to criticize someone else for misusing their own subjective opinions. (FYI, one more thing that reveals your bias is the word "faking".  Placebo control is about evaluating someone's unconscious information-filtering processes.  You're spinning the very existence of placebo studies negatively, so it's hard to trust your claims of being fully backed factually.) Squish7 (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Squish, if you've got one or more appropriate sources to offer regarding aspartame relating to "bipolar", "mania" and "psychosis", please supply them. If not, there's nothing to put in this article. &mdash; Scientizzle 14:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In Google, searching for "aspartame" plus the first 2 letters of "bipolar", "psychosis" or "adhd" brings these up as suggestions. Read any article that comes up for "aspartame bipolar" to see what I'm talking about.  Just because I don't have time to research reliable sources and add a section to the article--partly because I'm still learning how to do so--doesn't mean I can't express concerns about the issue, supplementing what's already been voiced. Squish7 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * mcmanweb.com, rense.com and alternativementalhealth.com are not reliable WP:MEDRS sources. As far as I know, there are no WP:MEDRS sources that make the connection you're making and no medical claims can be made without following this important policy.   N o f o rmation  Talk  19:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They're basics are already there, I didn't read the article carefully enough. "Mood changes" and "hallucinations" basically cover bipolar, mania, psychosis, etc.  (I thought this was a suggestion to begin a "Neurological and psychiatric symptoms" section.)  They still should be there, though.  This section seems in stub form, and dodges the facts and truth.  You're right, though, I can't prove its deficiency without tangible evidence.  What bothers me is it could be an impossible task.  What if a million people out there report strong side effects, but official studies have a motive to cover this up?  How can one get at the truth if it lies only in the heart of the masses? Squish7 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personal experience/testimonials is neither a valid source for WP nor a valid criteria upon which to make scientific judgements. WP is about verifiability not WP:TRUTH and science is about removing subjectivity from the equation so that objective measurement is possible.  Confirmation bias and Post hoc ergo propter hoc rule the masses and discussion of alleged conspiracy theories have no place in a rational discussion on these talk pages.  That you think an entire body of scientists "cover up" evidence demonstrates that you don't really understand how the scientific process, nor the scientific community, work.  I don't mean that to be as offensive as it sounds, it's just that that statement did demonstrate a certain level of ignorance.  N o f o rmation  Talk  20:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You barely read a word I said, or at least not carefully. I admitted being wrong and not reading the article carefully enough.  If the neurological section had not been there, I would have been perfectly correct that it should exist; the fact that it's there backs this up.  The article already covers what I initially thought wasn't there; I was going on words that were already there in a slightly different form.  After that I simply said that I thought the section was deficient and could use expansion, just like half of Wikipedia.  Adding information that isn't there is what we do around here.  And at no point did I suggest personal experience should be used for a source.  I began by defending that it was an appropriate sentiment to begin a discussion with.  Someone might have followed with "Ah, yes, a study exists backing this up but I hadn't gotten around to adding it to the article", etc., etc...
 * Lastly, I rhetorically stated the impossibility of being able to factually back my opinion/claim/theory up IF I investigated and found no tangible evidence. I also said motive.  If someone has a motive to do something (cover something up), it follows 100% logically that they may be doing it.  In pure theory, the scientific process should eliminate subjectivity, and it often does.  But it's practically a cliche that a manufacturer--having an extreme motive to prove that their product is useful and safe--will very often conduct biased experiments, using certain experiments to provide evidence.  Another party might run a completely different experiment and show counter-evidence.  So, if the simple majority of the experiments about a certain subject matter are funded by biased parties, the results are extremely suspect to subjectivity.  With aspartame, there's an enormous motive to prove that it's safe.  This gives my opinion serious credibility (though if I can't find verifiable evidence, obviously I can't write anything in the article about it). Squish7 (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You opinion, and mine, are worthless. We use sources, not opinions.  That is how it works around here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm speaking penguin. I've already agreed we're not sources, and never said anything of the kind at all.  Could someone please tell what in the (insert inappropriate language) I'm doing wrong communicating because I just took 15 minutes of my personal time to clarify something and someone responds as if I just posted a picture of a slice of cheesecake.  I honestly want to know where the error lies because this unfathomable to me, yet is the type of thing that seems to keep happening with me.  What I think I have figured out is that people respond too mechanically, so when I give an interesting or complex opinion, they don't bother reading it, they just take a wild guess on the probability that the details if they read them would back up their general feeling from skimming something.  To respond from lightly skimming is just plain rude and inconsiderate of my time and other people's.  If you're not sure what I'm saying, then ask for clarification, or don't respond.  Don't take wild guesses.  I'm open to any tips on how I can better communicate better with others, but honestly, I think some people are just too lazy to actually read what I'm saying.
 * Just for the exercise of asking what I could be doing differently as an editor in discussion, I'll go a bit further and prove what you said I said is wrong. At one point, I said, verbatim, "And at no point did I suggest personal experience should be used for a source".  Not only did I say this here, I'm correcting someone who already misunderstood.  How is it possible to hear someone correct an error and then assume the same error again.  Why would you force a 2nd clarification from me.  I'm open to how to deal with this type of miscommunication, but you can imagine having to go through is like Chinese water torture.  People think I get angry without cause around here, but take a look at this string and tell me if correcting other people multiple times who didn't even bother reading my posts isn't something that's going to drive you insane. Squish7 (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion about motives, not backed by reliable sources, cannot be a part of the article—basic concept. Please stop using this talk page as a forum.Novangelis (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Any website is a reliable source as a testimony to its own existence. It is perfectly reasonable to state that websites on the internet claim that aspartame is harmful. (is it possible to mention that they have no citations? That may be one solution to ensure that they do not appear to be proposed as reliable sources about aspartame safety) It is also relevant in an aspartame controversy article. These websites should not be cited for science. If someone had never even heard of this controversy they may be confused about the existence of this page, however. Mentioning these webpages would also lend even-handed legitimacy to the article in the eyes of readers who are uncertain about it to at extent. (obviously, some would like them cited as actual sources on the safety of aspartame, which can't be done) 71.233.149.246 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Highly inappropriate. You may not try to undermine this editor's confidence in his or her logic as a way to progress a Wikipedia discussion. 71.233.149.246 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Misleading claims of the safety of methanol in aspartame
The page claims that Aspartame contains less methanol than fruit juice, citrus fruits and fermented drinks. However naturally occuring methanol is always (the mentioned ones are) accompanied by ethanol which is an antidote to methanol, as stated on the wiki page. So in my eyes, those claims are wrong and misleading.

Also, even the danger of methanol itself is being downplayed significantly in this article. The wiki article of methanol clearly defines it as highly toxic for humans. Tyronx (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Toxicity is dose dependent - there are trace amounts of arsenic in bottled mineral water, that doesn't mean you'll get arsenic poisoning from drinking it. The article isn't downplaying the danger of methanol poisoning, it is putting things in perspective. That's what we're supposed to do. --Six words (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The first result when googling for "bottled water arsenic" actually redirects to a trustful looking Website that claims 56 million people in the US are consuming water with unsafe levels of arsenic. To include the perspective I can also phrase my argument to something like "The danger of methanol itself, in the concentrations present in most artificially sweetened food products, is being downplayed significantly." - but it doesn't change the fact that there seems to be a clear bias to the safety of aspartame in this article. -Tyronx (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether or not aspartame really is safe is, policy requires that we present mainstream thinking which is that it is safe. Of course readers are free to follow the links to both scientific and anti-Aspartame sites and  decide what they wish to believe.  TFD (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy does not require mainstream thinking. Policy requires citation from reliable sources. 71.233.149.246 (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources and undue weight --Galaxiaad (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Research has shown that in the concentrations that are present in artificially sweetened food products methanol isn't dangerous, which is what I was getting at. So yes, when you're ingesting aspartame, as it is metabolised methanol (and subsequently formaldehyde) is formed, but the concentrations are so low that your body can handle them without any problem. That's not downplaying, that's stating what research tells us. --Six words (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The mere existence of this controversy page is a clear indicator to me that in fact the safety of aspartame is not quite mainstream thinking. If the article already mentions the anti-aspartame sources, shouldn't this controversy also being taken into account for the other parts of the articles? (referring to the paragraph about the safety of methanol in aspartame) - Tyronx (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You have to differentiate between scientific mainstream opinion and public opinion. The existence of this article is due to public opinion. --Six words (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many other articles about non-mainstream thinking, e.g., truthers, birthers, intelligent design, global warming skeptics, etc. While they are legitimate topics, their views do not have parity with mainstream opinion.  TFD (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Scientific mainstream opinion holds that Bigfoot has no zoological or anthropological niche to exist in. The existence of a folk legend of a tall ape with a man-like gait doesn't invalidate that fact. -- King Öomie  13:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I fail to find any citations on this page claiming that the methanol concentrations are low enough for the body to be handled without problem. In fact, the only justification for the safety of methanol is on the grounds that natural products contain even greater amounts of methanol, which is irrelevant due to the antidote (ethanol) contained as well in these products - as I already mentioned in my first comment. The methanol paragraph should incorporate this. - Tyronx (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ingesting aspartame at the 90th percentile of intake would produce 25 times less methanol than would be considered toxic", cited to (currently) footnote#55. That ref looks like a fairly comprehensive review article (secondary/tertiary reference in a reliable-sounding source). DMacks (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Another review article dealing with aspartame toxicity that has a section on methanol: (the full text can be downloaded as pdf document). --Six words (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the article and taking the time to consider my argumentation. Unfortunately the paper does not cover the long term effects of aspartame intake for humans. Let me quote 2 sentences from this article: "According to the MRCA (36, 37), an aspartame intake of 34 mg/kg body weight represents the 99th percentile of projected daily ingestion." and "When ingesting aspartame at 34 mg/kg body weight, blood methanol concentrations were below the limits of detection (0.4 mg/dL).". Now, according to the blood methanol chart in the article, the peak level of methanol for an adult having administered 100 mg/kg aspartame was at 1.1 mg/dL. Crudely assuming linearty between the administered aspartame and methanol level in the blood we could say that 34 mg/kg results in approximately 0.36 mg/dL. The average human adult body has 5 litres of blood. So at 0.36mg/dL this means the body contains 18 mg methanol. However, the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY has derived an oral RfD (reference dose) for methanol of 0.5 mg/kg/day, which is 35 mg/day for an average weight adult (70kg) - not far away from the 18mg methanol in human blood we estimated (and the EPA talks about oral intake, so 100% of that would need to go into the blood). However, those average intake estimates are from 1974. Newer sources suggest average aspartame intake may be as high as 200 mg/day, and even the wiki page for Diet Pepsi states that it contains 124 mg aspartame per 350ml drink. Something seems really wrong about this. - Tyronx (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to expect that the relationship is linear - and even if it was linear, an amount that is half the RfD isn't close to the Rfd (which, by the way, is still considered safe) - that's like saying the distance from London to Cardiff is less than half the distance between London and Edinburgh, therefore London is not far away from Cardiff. 200 mg/day means on average, people dring less than two cans of diet pepsi - for a 70 kg adult that would be 2,85 mg/kg/day. I don't see a problem with that, and it's well below the set ADI of 40 mg/kg/day (EU) and 50 mg/kg/day (US).--Six words (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the number of 2,85 mg/kg/day? -Tyronx (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's basic math: 200mg/day divided by 70kg. Straightforward calculations and conversions are not considered original research.Novangelis (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to point out that to include any medical claims (such as the toxicity of the methanol component of aspartame at the doses used as a sweetener), we would need a reliable source for medical claims such as a peer-reviewed medical review. As far as I know, no such source exists (the only sources that do make the claim about methanol do not meed WP:MEDRS and therefore cannot be included in a discussion about true safety). Yobol (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the EPA oral RfD reliable enough? The article posted by Six words states that approximately 10% of aspartame is converted to methanol. - Tyronx (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Crudely assuming linearity" is original research. Stick to MEDRS.Novangelis (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your link does not mention aspartame and therefore cannot be used. TFD (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see that I lack the evidence to conclude that the methanol levels in APM are unsafe. Thanks for all the provided sources. But so far I still didn't see any evidence that methanol levels in aspartame and the methanol levels in natural products (juice, citrus fruit, fermented products) are compareable. As I mentioned in my first argument, natural products always contain ethanol which is a antidote to methanol. If there is no reliable source proving that these can be compared, I'd like to adjust that paragraph. -Tyronx (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tyronx, do you have an RS to substancitate your proposed alterations? Shot info (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reference wthether there is any ethanol in fruit juices ? Or methanol ? The methanol in fruit is actually formed from pectinin the intestine (just as methanol form aspartame is formed in the intestine). Only when the fruit juice is fermented (yeasted) it may have athenol, unless you can provide a reliable source stating otherwise.Knorrepoes (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a variety of sources behind the review and additional sources can be found with ease. Fresh juices contain detectable methanol, and the methanol concentration can increase as it is liberated from the pectins in canned juices. I'll have to check sources in more detail, but to my recollection, it was direct from another reliable source in older versions.Novangelis (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I linked to a review article comparing the methanol content of aspartame sweetened drinks and fruit juices above: The aspartame story: a model for the clinical testing of a food additive. In this article, five sources are given for the methanol content of fruit juices:, , , , .--Six words (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. The article also states that methanol is no problem whatsoever in normal aspartame consumption.Knorrepoes (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ethanol isn't an "antidote" for methanol itself, it simply reduces the toxic effects of its metabolites. And it doesn't really cure or inhibit or detoxify them either, it merely reduces their concentration by stretching out the time of its metabolism (the total amount of metabolites is about the same, just gives less at a time for longer time). DMacks (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ethanol as a "magic bullet" cure for Methanol poisoning factored into an episode of House, but like most single-dose miraculous cures on that show, it was only loosely anchored in medicine. -- King Öomie 13:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In order to claim that the methanol produced by the breakdown of aspartame is toxic, we need a source that makes that claim. If we want to compare its effects with those of methanol from fruit juice we need a source that makes the comparison.  We cannot provide our own speculation on toxicity, because it would be synthesis.  It seems however that if toxicity were a problem, that we would see diet soda drinkers regularly failing breathalyzer tests.  TFD (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, isn't Methanol toxic in levels far below those that would cause BACs above the legal driving limit? -- King Öomie 13:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Removal of information regarding aspartame's safety
Hi, I would like to propose... Earlier today, I added the following research to the article:
 * However, Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, a retired neurosurgeon and author, describes in an interview how aspartame can damage DNA structure. He says that this, in turn, can cause cancer. "We know that when formaldehyde binds to DNA, it's very difficult to remove it. It will stay there for long periods of time. What that means is if you just drink a single diet cola today, or sweeten something with NutraSweet, you're accumulating damage every day. Eventually, you're going to produce this necessary pattern of DNA damage to initiate the cancer, and once you develop the cancer, the aspartic acid component of aspartame will make the cancer grow very rapidly. You've got a double effect; it's causing the cancer, and it's making the cancer multiply very rapidly."

The user User:Novangelis quickly removed the passage from the article. Novangelis, please explain why you believe the interview was not a reliable source. (Other members of the public, feel free to comment on this issue.)

- Alexbonline1 (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS N o f o rmation  Talk  00:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Policy is straightforward. There is a high standard for sourcing medical claims. Material should be published in sources with a high degree of medical editorial oversight, typically review articles in journals. This came from a source that is nowhere near satisfying requirements.Novangelis (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This "aspartame controversy" article definitely does not explain why some people believe that aspartame is dangerous. Perhaps Template:Neutrality should be added to this article until its problems are resolved. I would have referenced a particular section that needs work, but the entire article lacks supporting evidence for the other side in this debate. - Alexbonline1 (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has numerous comments explaining potential reasons people may believe the chemical is a problem, all cited and linked, including both chatroom-rumors and hoaxes and also the actual facts that it has potentially harmful metabolites, and so on. That's what's needed for a controversy article: supported statements about the various positions. What the article doesn't include is data or studies demonstrating that it is harmful (whereas it does include some demonstrating that it is not). Neutrality does not mean 50/50 with comparable amounts of studies on both sides, or even-handed "maybe but maybe not" stance on the issue. Instead WP:NPOV says we can only say what is supported and we must not omit what is supported if that supported material leads to a certain conclusion or position on which side is more correct. And as others have said, WP:MEDRS is the standard for content that is supportable. DMacks (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you say that. Here's a two examples right from the lead: "with critics alleging that the quality of the initial research supporting its safety was inadequate and flawed and that conflicts of interest marred the approval of aspartame" and "critics like anti-aspartame activist Betty Martini[6] have promoted undocumented claims that numerous health risks (such as multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, methanol toxicity, blindness, spasms, shooting pains, seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects and death[7]) are associated with the consumption of aspartame in normal doses."
 * Now if you mean that the anti-aspartame beliefs are not presented as credible, then we're having two different conversations. WP does not present fringe claims as credible and instead reflects the mainstream scientific consensus on the matter (keep in mind that there is no controversy within the scientific community, the controversy is between scientific evidence and those in the public who refuse to accept it).   N o f o rmation  Talk  00:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there is controversy within the scientific community. see: here and here and here and here.

here here here here here here here Arydberg (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you forgot that we already discussed most of them. Let me remind you of WP:MEDRS, and let me remind you to read what you link to first. If it doesn't say aspartame is to blame for something, then it doesn't support your position.--Six words (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Non-WP:MEDRS advocacy site (health-report.co.uk), 3rd year law school student paper, Daily Fail reporting on (Halldorsson), early conference abstract report of what was eventually  (Fowler), report on as-yet unpublished research,  (Polyák), non-WP:MEDRS advocacy site (dorway.com).
 * The usable sources here--the three PMID cites--discuss associations with aspartame/diet soda intake and preterm delivery (Halldorsson) or obesity (Fowler, Polyák) are not presently cited, however I'd prefer to use reviews for these matters. Reviews that cite Fowler et al include:, , , . No reviews have cited Halldorsson or Polyák yet, as far as I can tell. Halldorsson is somewhat problematic as the authors can only make inferences as to the relative consumption of aspartame or acesulfame-K, but since it's a large prospective clinical trial, I'd be willing to include it. Polyák is a rodent study behind a paywall (my institution has excellent subscriptions, so this is a bit of a red flag for me; the journal is poorly rated, too), so I'd be inclined to leave it out at this point.
 * So, thanks for pointing out a useful source, Arydberg. In the future, though, please stick to WP:MEDRS and leave dorway.com (and the like) at the doorway. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow-up comment: I did not have time yesterday to look in-depth at the reviews I cited in the above comment. Now I'll present some very brief notes on each:
 * - Excellent discussion of pros/cons of artificial sweeteners in beverages. I think the findings can generally be summed up thusly: "Epidemiologic studies of artificial sweetener use in children have generally shown a positive association between artificial sweetener intake (most commonly as diet soda) and weight gain...[however], causality is far from established with regard to artificial sweetener use and weight gain in children." Aspartame-specific comments are limited, but include: "encapsulated aspartame versus placebo in young people found no differences in blood pressure, glucose, or lipid profiles between groups [also, no difference in weight loss]"; children will more completely calorie compensate for aspartame-sweetened snacks but adults don't.
 * - This contains some discussion about the pros/cons of artificially sweetened beverages, but no specific comments on aspartame.
 * - There is some discussion about the pros/cons of diet soda generally, but the only direct discussion of aspartame follows: "...an increase in blood pressure spanning 10 weeks was found when individuals drank [sugar-sweetened beverages] but not aspartame-sweetened beverages..."
 * - not a classical review, but more of an narrative utilizing an animal model. Since it also only discusses saccharin, it doesn't seem like a good candidate for inclusion without running afoul of WP:SYNTH.
 * I think the first three are a shoe-in for the diet soda article (which could use greater attention), but these four reviews may have only limited applications here without tripping over WP:NOR. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So perhaps the last line of the article "comprehensive reviews on this subject have concluded there is little to no data to support the assertion that aspartame adversely affects hunger or obesity.[8][53][55]"    should be changed to include the research of Fowler. Arydberg (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:MEDRS we use scientific reviews. You have been told this many, many times now.  Please stop with the tendentious editing, you have already been topic-banned once, don't force us to go that route again. Yobol (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, read sources carefully before you suggest we change the current wording. Which of the reviews Scientizzle linked to would support changing the last line? And what kind of change would it support?--Six words (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a reference to Fowler's Work why is it excluded? Arydberg (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest to include it? --Six words (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If I suggest an improvement it will be rejected regardless of the source.
 * Your article gives the impression that aspartame is perfectly safe and all the people against it are  cults or activists.    While this may be true  there is a wealth of research that indicates it’s use is unsafe.
 * In ignoring this research  you are promoting a additive that may seriously  damage  the health of many many people.
 * To totally ignore, as you do, a 10 year epidemiological study that indicates use of  aspartame causes an increased chance of stroke or the study of  60,000 pregnant women that indicates aspartame use leads to premature birth  is unforgivable.
 * The bottom line is that you absolutely refuse to publish anything that is negative on the use of aspartame.   This is journalism of the worst kind.
 * Arydberg (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've been told many times before that we go with what reliable secondary sources say - if you want to change that, you'll have to get the community to change these guidelines (which is unlikely to happen). You've asked why a specific source was excluded. I went through that source and found what it said about aspartame wasn't in any way contrary to our article. Yes, keeping your eating habits and only switching to diet soda will usually not be enough to lose weight, and if you eat more because you misjudge the amount of calories you take in you may even gain weight; using aspartame and cutting calories can lead to weight reduction (which is what the source you suggested said about aspartame; not really a safety issue, and not contrary to what our article says). That's why I asked and since you've already moved on to other sources again, I assume that you didn't find anything either. As Scientizzle already explained, when sources say "artificial sweeteners" without specifying which, it would be original research to claim they were talking about aspartame in particular. It's not my fault you either don't read WP:MEDRS or forget about it again and again - non-reliable sources will be dismissed no matter how often you link to them. --Six words (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Arydberg, could you please back away from the WP:DEADHORSE and stop this freaking nonsense? This is wasting everyone's time.  I am really tiring of this, and it seems others are too. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very least, you can cease appealing to consequences or "importance". As far as wikipedia is concerned, "Journalism of the worst kind" is the unreliable kind. The kind you want us to produce, to be "on the safe side". -- King Öomie 21:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Kingoomieliiil, Good to hear from you. The entire driving force behind WP:MEDRS   is to be on the safe side. If you are comfortable with publishing material as fact that is highly questioned by some very reputable researchers that is your decision. I can only hope you are aware of the consequences. see WP:MEDRS “Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.” Arydberg (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Safe side indeed. MEDRS charges us with being EXTREMELY SELECTIVE OF SOURCES. To be on the safe side. As in, "Don't post things from conspiracy sites, even if you think people are at risk without that information". -- King Öomie  14:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Scientizzle, Thanks for the review of my sources. I would like to point out that it  is to be expected that the industry will publish attempts to downplay any article which is critical of aspartame. Thus it is not surprising that reviews can be found that dispute allegations against aspartame. To be swayed by these reviews runs the risk of ignoring potential harm to public health. Once again if you are comfortable in doing this it is your choice. For me, given the choice between  loosing a sweetener vs harming public health I would choose to protect public health. Do you think I am in error here? Here are some more sources that say aspartame causes a: Increased chance of stroke and here and weight gain The point I am trying to make is that the “aspartame controversy” exists in the research literature as well as in the fringe press. I think this should be reported. WP:MEDRS, “Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.” Please be aware of the success the cigarette industry had in promoting the “safety” of smoking for decades before the truth got out. Also could you please tell me how does one go about finding reviews of an article? Arydberg (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For everyone's interest: I replied @ User talk:Arydberg to this message. &mdash; Scientizzle 22:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This level of WP:IDHT may require WP:AE intervention. Thoughts? Yobol (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really. If his topic ban has run out, then just reinstate it, and for a much longer time. Very simple. People who can't learn shouldn't be rewarded by more drama than necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be the place to take this if we wanted a topic ban again, right? Yobol (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This has been soapboxing all along. These posts constitute spamming the talk pages with useless links. Refusing to making suggestions to improve the article when one source actually met WP:MEDRS was the clincher. I'm not sure that AE is the venue for expired topic bans, but WP:ARBPS does give administrators broad discretion with regard to pseudoscience. While I'm not sure about the venue, something needs to be done.Novangelis (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering this warning for a previous violation of the topic ban, it's just a matter of having Future Perfect carry through with the matter. I'll notify them of this thread. There is no point in more disruptive drama, and going through all the procedure again would indeed be very disruptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Formic acid

 * The methanol produced by the metabolism of aspartame is absorbed and quickly converted into formaldehyde and then completely converted to formic acid.[55] The methanol from aspartame is unlikely to be a safety concern for several reasons. The amount of methanol in aspartame is less than that found in fruit juices and citrus fruits, and there are other dietary sources for methanol such as fermented beverages. Therefore, the amount of methanol produced from aspartame is likely to be less than that from natural sources. With regards to formaldehyde, it is rapidly converted in the body, and the amounts of formaldehyde from the metabolism of aspartame is trivial when compared to the amounts produced routinely by the human body and from other foods and drugs.

Methanol's toxicity is due to the formation of formic acid. But the article suggests that while methanol and formaldehyde are toxic, they only exist in the blood for a short period of time before converted to the, one would presume safe, formic acid. DS Belgium (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the number of edits of the article and the talk page, and the fact that this section hasn't changed at all in the last six months (and maybe much longer, can't be bothered to check frankly), it's safe to conclude that neither side cares much about the article representing the facts, instead it's a mere POV propaganda battle. DS Belgium (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggestion to improve the article? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jumping into the talk page and insulting everyone in just the second comment. Very helpful for the collaborative spirit. Yobol (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Struck own needlessly sarcastic comment. Yobol (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You accuse me of WP:No personal attacks for commenting on all editors on both sides of the issue? Nice one, especially on a page replete with denigrating comments, insults, references to policies and threats of bans.  DS Belgium (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

From my reading of that passage, you are inferring something not implied by the text (that formic acid is harmless). The links to methanol, formaldehyde and formic acid within that section certainly make clear how formic acid is known to be toxic...To assert, based on your particular interpretation of seemingly straightforward (IMO) text, that dozens of other editors do not care "much about the article representing the facts" is hardly collegial. You're welcome to improve the prose to make it clearer. Just leveling accusations is, frankly, boorish. &mdash; Scientizzle 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wrote that must have known the facts. It's hard to imagine a good reason for writing With regards to formaldehyde, it is rapidly converted in the body,.. without mentioning that this convertion is what kills people with methanol poisoning. DS Belgium (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well we're in a bit of a quandry if what you say is correct. Firstly, we cannot make a novel conclusion that aspartame is dangerous unless a reliable source specifically says it is.  However, if what you're saying is true, then we certainly should not be saying that it's safe because X, when X is a dangerous aspect of methanol metabolism.  My understanding is that the amount of aspartame consumed by humans does not lead to dangerous levels, but this problem is more one of phrasing than anything.  How about this, can you source the statement that you made regarding the danger of methanol metabolism?  If so, we cannot use it in the article unless it talks about aspartame specifically, but what we can do is change the phrasing of that statement if you can provide a good source that lets us verify the statement.   N o f o rmation  Talk  16:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you're ascribing motivations to others based on...what? Where does this article suggest formic acid is harmless? Since you don't seem interested in altering the text to deal with the perceived issue, I did it. Such an improvement could have been accomplished instead by simply clarifying the text yourself or posting your concern with a collaborative suggestion rather than a caustic rant. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and I expanded the text with a source already being used. Formic acid (and methanol, and formaldehyde) is not a real concern in aspartame consumption. Yobol (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, this article should be about the controversy, not the science, which belongs in the main aspartame article. TFD (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it should be about the controversies surrounding the science; one of the popular complaints is about methanol toxicity. Yobol (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Some more studies on safety
I found some more relevant studies on PubMed, some of which suggest possible genotoxicity and acceleration of atherosclerosis (all rodent studies). Findings range from "not toxic" and "not significantly toxic" to "potentially toxic in long term": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10685017 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18850355 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20689731 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21533907

There's also a study with human participants, which showed no negative effects, but it's quite old (from 1989): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2802896

I'm not sure how reliable these are and if they should be included. Maybe someone more knowledgeable in bio/chem knows better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.75.27 (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is not if the studies, themselves, are reliable, but if they meet the standards for reliable sources for medical claims. These are all primary studies. There are thousands of primary studies. Trying to take the results of these studies and interpret them is not a job for Wikipedia editors; it is considered synthesis, a form of original research. Putting these studies together is a job for experts. The expert synthesis in review articles, published with significant medical editorial oversight, are the secondary sources upon which Wikipedia relies for medical claims.Novangelis (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks, will have to wait 'til the newer studies get reviewed. One question though: which is the review that includes the studies referenced in the article? Especially the ones done by the NutraSweet company themselves, because they are obviously biased (and the way they claim "it is clear that aspartame is safe" - see reference 55 - is very unscientific - you can never prove anything with certainty and should not give promises like that in your paper results.) --86.8.75.27 (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead, second and fourth authors are from the NutraSweet Company. Of the total of 24 authors, most are from a variety of institutions (even if you count dumps like Harvard and Yale). In addition, the journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology has an editorial board. (I won't say that the current list is the list at the time of publication, but from the size, and the understated credentials, the degree of oversight is clear.) Remember that Medline listings are synopses, not the sources themselves. You have to use the sources. The numerous governmental definitions of "safe" have standards. If you read the previous sentence in the abstract instead of isolating the quote from its context (original research), you can see exactly what they are referring to: "The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive." Water is safe, but I would not want to drop a 55 gallon drum on my foot or drink the contents in one sitting.Novangelis (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, if it's a specific government meaning of "safe" they use there, not what we would consider "safe" in everyday speech. Of course water is safe, because it is a vital compound and we would do much worse if we dropped water from our diets :P As for additives, I haven't heard that Indian or Mexican people die younger or develop diseases due to everyday usage of spices and they've used those for centuries - looks like a clear indicator of safety. For a fairly new product, it is not 100% certain, and for example Trans fats from hydrogenated oils have been proven harmful while some years ago I was eating products with trans fats in blissful oblivion, thinking "if something is allowed by government on shop shelves, it must be safe".
 * However, I understand that there are no reliable sources showing harmful effects right now. But the existence of this article hopefully suggests people to think for themselves and do their own research on the issue. Thankfully, alternative products still exist.--86.8.75.27 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yet, by bringing together a certain selection of research reviews you are also performing a form of synthesis. It is also possible that an individual paper is viewed as truly the gold standard within a field; though, if this were true it would require a citation to prove it were so, and would have to be presented as the standard of the field rather than as an absolute (all by Wikipedia policy). An individual study could also be mentioned as a potential new direction for the results. There is no standard by which an individual study is excluded from Wikipedia pages. However, science is about reliability, and Wikipedia standards are in line with this. Research reviews are merely posited to be preferred, as they should be. In particular, to make a stronger claim than my previous one, I'll have you note that the very page you linked to says that "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim". In addition, one of the studies cited by 86.8.75.27 falls exactly along the lines of this. It specifies: "However, the potential risk of the AS in cardiovascular disease and lipoprotein metabolism has not been investigated sufficiently." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21533907) You have misunderstood Wikipedia policy. Contradictory citations should be added into the article in appropriate fashion immediately. 71.233.149.246 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page is for improving articles. What specific change to the article do you advocate?  TFD (talk) 03:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Poor Science
In all honesty what Wikipedia purports to be and what it is are very different. This article has many many references all referring to one article published by the Aspartame Industry. There are many reputable researchers against the use of aspartame and you totally ignore them. I do not know if you are part of the industry or are simpley shills of the industry but what you are doing is aiding and abeting a very dangerous substance with disastrous results. Sorry to be so negative but it is well deserved. Quione (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please fine a reliable source, and, do not call editors corporate shills, or even imply it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm new to wikipedia editing, and afraid of being yelled at for breaking a rule (there seem to be a LOT of them). Why should it not be implied that a corporation or organization may have editors on wikipedia working to protect their image? Have there not been instances of this occurring in the past? 99.120.218.91 (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good question. Take a look at WP:AGF which is a key principle here.  Hope this helps.  Just because there have been incidents of conflicts of interest does not mean that the user above (Quione) should assume that anyone here is a shill.  (The idea that it is a dangerous substance can also be rejected if one look sat the sources).  I would not, for example, assume that he/she is a shill for the sugar industry.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If should be noted that good faith works both ways. You should not be afraid to make an honest mistake; if you do then apologize (if necessary) and move on. Repeatedly making the same mistake after being advised directly or violating a clearly visible policy advisory is the way to get into trouble. Assuming good faith is part of WP:Civility, a guiding principal of discussion. Unfounded accusations run counter to this. If you had a basis to suspect an editor based evidence such as a pattern of edits, there are appropriate venues for discussing concerns (for example, ask on the editors' talk pages or present evidence at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard). Discussions should be guided by WP:Verifiability: using quality sources as a basis for an article. Accusation is not a substitute for sources. Repeatedly trying to impeach other editors and reliable published sources sources by innuendo, is a good way to demonstrate that you do not wish to be part of this encyclopedia project. Lest this thread get too far off-topic, the purpose of these talk pages is discussion of how to improve the article, not general discussion of the topic or policy.Novangelis (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The main rule to remember is neutrality. The article is supposed to represent how the topic is seen in mainstream sources.  While sometimes mainstream views may be wrong, this is not the place to correct them.  TFD (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not use the word "shill" to insult anyone. I'm sorry if I did. I wanted to point out that this article has 2 major faults.

Medical Science is about healing. It is a sacred science that goes to the essence of our relationship to each other. This fact trumps everything. Even peer reviewed journals. You turn this principle upside down by dissmissing many inputs based on a endless varity of wikipedia acronyms. There is a real possibility that this substance may turn out to be harmfull.

You have an obligation to present a neutral point of view. It is one of your five pillars. You betray this basic principle when you refuse to quote from many reputable journals that conflict with your viewpoint. Then you excessively quite ( or source) from industry sponsored research .... an industry that has been severely critized by the government. This is not a neutral point of view.

There is a real posibility that you have advanced a substance which may well have injured the health of millons. Quione (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Even peer reviewed journals" I disagree. Sounds like WP:SOAP, WP:NOTBATTLE, and WP:RGW.
 * Using fear and doubt to win arguments is disruptive. Provide sources please. --Ronz (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not mean to be disruptive. I do mean to point out that this article is severly biased. The EFSA is still studying aspartame and the NIH posted a link saying the chance of a stroke increases by 41% for people who use aspartame. You rejected this link. Your overriding assumption that aspartame causes no harm is not proven. Quione (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The assumption is not that it has been proved that aspartame causes not harm but that it has not been proved that it does. While there will be occassional studies that conflict with consensus views, you need to show that they have been recognized.  Other researchers must be able to replicate the results.  TFD (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Intent is irrelevant: disruptive behavior is disruptive behavior. Rehashing dead arguments is disruptive. The NIH link does not say that stroke risk increaes with aspartame use; a news story (not a reliable source for medical claims) says that one unpublished (not a reliable source) study showed an association, and a NIH site has the newsfeed. Neither spin nor repetition promote sources to reliability. Claiming an article is POV without reliable sources to back the assertion is disruptive. Calling reliable sources "poor science" without supporting sources is disruptive. Unless there is something to be added, this thread should be considered closed.Novangelis (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Close it if you will. This article, better than anything else, illustrates the wisdom of the fifth piller and you ignore it. Poor science is using a controversial medical issue while insisting only one side is right. It is not only misleading people but ignores the human side. You even ignore letters from people attesting to personal harm done by aspartame. This is a habit forming addective substance that can kill. This article is an affront to human decency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quione (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 December 2011‎
 * If aspartame were known to be addictive and lethal then it would appear in toxicology textbooks. The ethical issue however is clear.  It is unethical to promote false information that may cause people to misinterpret symptons of illness and to spread false information about individuals, governments and companies involved in testing, regulating and manufacturing aspartame.  TFD (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)