Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

In

In the article, a "daily allowance" of aspartame is mentioned. However, I have been unable to find a reference citing what the "daily allowance" of aspartame is. Can someone make that clearer? My apologies if this the wrong place for this request; I don't usually visit discussion pages. Adambondy 06:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

According to government studies on aspartame cited in this article, the average person that consumes aspartame consumes roughly 2-10+ mg/kg of aspartame per day. The FDA's maximum daily allowance is currently 50 mg/kg/day; many other countries have 40 mg/kg/day.

On an unrelated note, I am also nominating this article to be reviewed by the Rational Skepticism WikiProject. This article is too huge to be tackled by one or two people.131.243.227.190 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rise in Brain Tumor Rates

The claim that brain tumor rates are rising is part of the controversy, and many dispute it. This claim should be sourced to original data that can be intrepreted to support a rise, such as something at the CDC or the NIH web site.

Hello. In the scientific community, there is a claim that aspartame may be one cause of brain tumors. Scientific papers on both sides of the issue were cited. I do not think it would not be appropriate to cite original data on brain tumor rates because it doesn't even begin to clarify the issue. What is looked at in the scientific literature is only certain types of brain tumors in certain population groups and the conversion of one type of brain tumor to another. Plus there is discussion of various animal studies and in vitro studies. Unfortunately, articles on both sides of the issue often cited "rising overall brain tumor rates" in relation to aspartame when the scientific issue is much more complex than that. The scientific studies cited in the article related to aspartame and brain tumors go into great detail about the issue. Twoggle 04:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A number of the studies cited which are supposed to indicate scientists' concern over a possible link between aspartame and brain cancer actually conclude that a link does not exist and that there is no need for any revision of the safety guidelines for aspartame. Furthermore, note 4, which is supposed to cite alleged conflicts of interest, does relate to such an allegation, but the transcript actually indicates that, according to a government inquiry into the matter, no misconduct occurred.

Also, a number of the citations on this article are of poorly regarded or discredited studies, or of websites written by persons without a background in chemistry or biology, who seem to be merely repeating statistics from other sources, which they do not cite. Lack of expertise does not necessarily make them wrong, of course; only data can disprove a theory. However, since many don't have solid sources and present anecdotes as bona fide evidence, if we cannot make a judgment based upon their expertise, what basis do we have upon which to judge their claims?

Moreover, I think that there is no real "debate" among scientists about articles on the scale that this article implies, as all major reviews of the literature, including the ones recently done by both the FDA and its European counterpart specifically in response to the Italian study, indicate that aspartame is safe even in doses higher than the amount a high-level consumer might be expected to intake in a day (the ADI is ~40 mg/kg/day in many countries - less than the amount that was administered to test subjects in most studies claiming toxicity, but more than twice the 21 mg/kg/day cited by the European SCF as the upper limit of consumption expected, which is the equivalent of roughly a twelve-pack of Diet Coke [131 mg/can] every single day for a 75 kg man). The SCF study in particular is comprehensive and impressive in its rebuttal of aspartame toxicity claims, as well as the Italian rat study, and can be found [here].

Furthermore, claiming that there is a major controversy because a few persons make claims contrary to the mainstream consensus is misleading, especially when many of them are not knowledgeable in the field in which they are making claims. However, even expertise is not, in and of itself, enough to accept one's claims if they are not supported by the data. For example, Peter Duesberg, discoverer of the oncogene and Ph.D. of molecular biology at Berkeley, claims that AIDS is caused by recreational drug use and not HIV. However, nobody would say that there is any significant "controversy" regarding the cause of AIDS, because virtually all other scientists disagree with him, and his theories have been disproved by a great many scientific studies, including large studies by the CDC aimed specifically at answering his questions.

Finally, the article's style itself is far too verbose and reads in places more like conspiracy theory than like an encyclopedia entry.

I propose either deleting this article entirely, or truncating or otherwise drastically shortening it to a manageable size, and removing dubious citations or amending the text to more accurately reflect their contents.131.243.227.190 00:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a deletion or truncation of the article to be inappropriate. The issue is complex as it involves the discussion of several metabolites and claimed adverse effects. The article is barely the minimum length to discuss it intelligently (whether one agrees or disagrees with the content).

The existing article is really very simple --

a) Opening paragraph

b) Discussion of reported effects (necessary for any intelligent discussion of possible effects)

c) Discussion of each of the more most researched aspartame metabolites

d) Discussion of aspartame and cancer research

e) Resources, references and links.

There have been numerous scientists that have spoken out and published on both sides of the issue with a tiny sampling of research on each side being cited. There are also governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations that have published opinions on this issue. If a reader wants to trust the opinion of a government agency, links are provided. The same is true for non-governmental organizations and scientific research abstracts (on both sides of the issue).

Specifically to the issues you raised --

1) If there is a study cited which are supposed to indicate scientists' concern over a possible link between aspartame and brain cancer and that study does not indicate the scientists' concerns, please mention specifically which one. I doubt anyone would want a misrepresented citation!

2) Citation #4 does related to alleged conflict of interest. It is a GAO report. The reports related to several HHS government officials involved in the aspartame approval process taking jobs in companies/organizations with links to the aspartame industry during or after the approval process. It is true that the GAO did not find that these official broke any existing governmental post-employment rules (misconduct/wrongdoing). However, as the stated on Wikipedia (Conflict of Interest), "Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing."

3) You mention that some citations are of "discredited" studies. It is true that scientists on each side of the issue probably thinks that the other side's studies are discredited. Some web pages are cited in order to link to published, peer-reviewed studies that are not available anywhere else online. If these studies could be *permanently* housed on Wikipedia, we could point locally instead. Some citations link to governmental agencies and some to non-governmental agencies.

4) The SCF review wasn't mentioned because a more recent review was done by the EFSA (which replaced the SCF) and that review is mentioned and linked to in the article. FDA findings were linked to as well. I think that details of the SCF findings could be discussed, presenting both sides of the issue including any possible conflicts of interest on the Committee, but that would just make the article longer. The SCF review does not rebut the Italian studies on aspartame and brain cancer as those studies came after the SCF review was published.

I suggest we may be able to find common ground by you directing me and others to the study on aspartame and brain cancer that was miscited (as described above). At least we can fix that to start.

Twoggle 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On second look, the study that I had been referring to for point (1) is in agreement with the text. My apologies.

For (2), I think that it should be noted in the text that the government inquiry did not find that any wrongdoing took place.

As far as (3) goes, I can agree that both sides' studies deserve representation. However, I think that some distinction should be made between doctors and scientists in the field who believe aspartame is unsafe, such as Olney and Soffritti, and non-scientists, such as doctors in alternative medicine and activists. This is not to discredit their opinions as false, of course, but to describe Betty Martini, who was given an honorary D.Hum. in part for her activism against aspartame and is not a doctor of philosophy or medicine, as "Dr. Betty Martini, founder of Mission Possible World Health International" is misleading. This has no bearing on the validity of her points, but it'd be more correct to describe her as something like an anti-aspartame and health activist.

(4) I meant the more recent EFSA study with regards to the Italian study. Again, apologies.

One more point: After reviewing the data in the Italian study, which is one of the more convincing ones to date on the anti-aspartame side, I think that a section should be added discussing the current acceptable daily intake in the US and most European countries, and the aspartame content and average daily intake of individuals. In order to maintain even the lowest level tested in the Italian study, a 75-kg person would have to drink nearly twelve cans of diet soda every single day for life (excluding childhood, when this would obviously be lower due to lower body weight). This would also tie in to the concerns a number of researchers have raised with regards to the safety of aspartame for children, and is especially important considering that all of the components of aspartame occur naturally and are present in very many foods; i.e., the question of the safety of aspartame is a question of dosage, not exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.243.227.190 (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

For Item #2, I believe that if we're going to discuss the GAO findings in more detail, then it belongs more in its own summarized section (perhaps below the scientific discussions). If we do that, I think your idea is excellent as long as we're clear that the GAO addressed whether they broke existing governmental rules and did not judge whether there was a "conflict of interest" (See Wikipedia definition of Conflict of Interest). What do you think?

In Item #3 above, you raise concern about a letter cited and quoted by one person at a Non-Governmental Organization (Mission Possible World Health International). However, out of the 77 references:

56 are from published scientific research

3 are statement from scientists who have published articles on the aspartame issue

8 are from news articles

5 are from government agencies

3 are from non-governmental organizations

1 is from an aspartame manufacturer

1 reference is no longer an existing organization (was a statement from a scientist)

Three (3) of the government references come from press offices. I believe that 3 non-governmental organization references is an appropriate balance (especially with 1 manufacturer reference). One reader might think that information from the FDA or EFSA is biased nonsense and another might think that information from Mission Possible World Health International is biased nonsense. Fortunately, very few citations in the article are coming from governmental or NGO statements. Are you proposing that we get rid of all non-scientific references (e.g., NGO's, government agency statements, news articles)? The reason I ask this is that you seem to imply that only doctors and scientists in the field are the ones we should be citing. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what your standards are.

We could include a section on how pro-aspartame scientists feel that the dosage seen in certain animal experiences is so high that humans would not have to worry about aspartame at a typically lower dose. But then we would have to balance it with information about published differences in toxicity of the discussed components when humans are compared to rats/mice along with a manufacturer study showing children ingesting as much as 75 mg/kg/day of aspartame. That would be the other side of the issue.

We could also raise the claimed "naturally occurring components" of aspartame, but again, there are two sides to the issue as raised by scientists. The other side would point to research which shows drastically different effects on the blood measurements of these components when absorbed from food as opposed to from aspartame. Also, it might not make sense to claim that *all* components of aspartame are found naturally in foods unless there is research showing that the DKP and beta-aspartame are found naturally in other foods.

I think it could be useful to discuss both of these issues you raised, but it would make the article a little longer. What do you think? Do you think that a 'matter of fact', scientific discussion of both those issues is warranted?

Twoggle 05:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the majority of citations. A couple citations that I do feel are somewhat misleading or could use additional support are:

"They think that even a moderate spike in blood plasma phenylalanine levels from typical ingestion may have adverse consequences in long-term use. They are especially concerned that the phenylalanine can be concentrated in fetal brains to a potentially neurotoxic level.(28),(29) "

(28) is a government proceeding transcript, but hosted on an anti-aspartame site. The text cites a number of studies in the literature as demonstrating X or Y. This does demonstrate that at least this scientist believes what is cited in the text, but he is just giving his opinion of some studies, and it's difficult to ascertain how grounded his statements are in the data. If possible, primary sources would be much more convincing. (29) also seems to be anti-aspartame, but is apparently down. If scientists are raising this concern and studying it, it would be much more convincing to cite one of those directly than a collection of one or two persons' opinions of them.

High levels of excitotoxins have been shown in hundreds of animal studies to cause damage to areas of the brain unprotected by the blood-brain barrier and a variety of chronic diseases arising out of this neurotoxicity.(36)(37)

The concept of excitotoxicity is basic to toxicology and this is hardly a dubious statement; it should be an easy matter to pull over any number of citations establishing neurotoxicity from excitotoxins from the excitotoxin article. (36) is not an online resource and (37) is a long-winded anti-aspartame source from which it is difficult to extract the cited meaning. I don't disagree with these being included as citations, but if this statement has been shown in "hundreds of animal studies", then a great many citations which are far more convincing than the ones given should be readily available.

My issue with Betty Martini is labeling her with the grandiose title, which seems to lend her opinion undue weight. Her criticism of the study, or its inclusion, are not what bother me. I simply feel that she should be described as an activist against aspartame and other food additives (who holds an honorary doctorate, if it is felt to be necessary that this be mentioned) because language like "Dr. Betty Martini, founder of Mission Possible World Health International" makes it sound like she's the Surgeon General.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with including these as citations, I simply feel that if the language of the article implies that the statements made are supported by studies, then at least some studies should be cited. I feel ill-at-ease with saying that scientists believe X and giving the opinion of one person as proof.

As far as the dosage part goes, I feel that yes, absolutely, a section on dosage should be included. After all, the components of aspartame all occur naturally. As far as diketopiperazines go: according to the article on diketopiperazines, they are formed simply as the lactam of two amino acids - which means they are almost certainly present in most foods, and especially food that has been fermented, pickled, smoked, grilled, etc. All of the studies cited have involved significantly high dosages, with the possible exception of the Soffritti study (in which the dose is still pretty high).

By far, the most plausible questions raised by the majority of the cited research is at what dosage aspartame produces high enough blood plasma levels of its constituent products to elicit a toxic response, what this toxic response is, and whether the acceptable daily intake is sufficiently below this level. It seems that the large gap between the dosage used in almost all studies and the daily intake of the average consumer should be noted in the article, especially since many studies declaring aspartame safe refer to this gap (particularly the EFSA, etc) the most plausible and imminent danger is to people for which the toxic dose could be significantly lower, such as persons with hypersensitivity to phenlyalanine or aspartate (mood disorders or phenylketonurics), or children, who would only need to drink 3 or 4 cans of diet soda a day to reach 20 mg/kg/day.Jonroybal 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be critical of only anti-aspartame citations.

Reference 28 is testimony of scientists knowledgable in the field of study specific to the text in the article. You mention that as one of your criteria. The text is very clear that some scientists "especially concerned that the phenylalanine can be concentrated in fetal brains to a potentially neurotoxic level." This reference proves that some scientists have that concern (whether some agree with it or not). I did move the link as best I could to a neutral site per your suggestion. I replaced the other dead reference (#29) with a published paper. Other references could be added if needed.

I replaced the dead reference (#36) with a link to a review by one of the scientists involved in the discovery of excitotoxins and who has researched excitotoxins from the 1960s until recently. Reference #37 is a review written by a scientist who has published on the excitotoxins issue. The fact that it is from an anti-aspartame source is irrelevent since many of the references on the other side are from known "pro-aspartame sources." It's almost impossible to create citations without citing articles written by pro- or anti-aspartame sources or those who have taken money from one side or the other. If we are concerned with citing scientists who have not studied aspartame or its metabolites or citing pieces that are long-winded, then we should definately remove the EFSA citations.

The quoted text from Betty Martini relates soley to the Conflict of Interest issues of the EFSA review. One does not need a Ph.D. (honorary or otherwise) to discuss Conflict of Interest issues. If we are going to characterize each person commenting, then we can describe one person as an "activist," another as a "person accepting money from the aspartame industry," another as a "non-expert, government beaurocrat," etc. In order to satitisfy your concern about the Ph.D., all that really has to be done is to move the text to a neutral site and note in brackets after the Ph.D. that it was an honorary degree. That way, we're not going down the path of denigrating those who run NGO's on the issue, those who accept payments from the manufacturer, those who work in the government, etc.

I agree that giving one person as proof is not ideal. Numerous citations can be added on either side of the issue.

I have yet to see a published article showing that the particular diketopiperazine in aspartame occurs naturally. As mentioned on Wikipedia, some diketopiperazines are carcinogenic. That have been the debate about this particular diketopiperazine.

I agree that some of the animal studies have used dosages higher than would be used by humans (Soffriti studies being one exception). The 10 to 50 times higher toxicity of the components of aspartame in humans (as compared to rats/mice) would be the other side of the issue.

I also agree that there are some scientists who believe there is a gap between the dosage of aspartame that causes toxicity and the dosage ingested by humans. And there are some scientists on the other side who believe there is no gap for reasons discussed in the paragraph above and certain human studies.

Twoggle 01:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Reference 28 is testimony of scientists knowledgable [sic] in the field of study specific to the text in the article. You mention that as one of your criteria. The text is very clear that some scientists "especially concerned that the phenylalanine can be concentrated in fetal brains to a potentially neurotoxic level."

I am aware of the contents of the citation. My point was that I'd be much more convinced by the research they are citing than by their opinions alone, especially if the transcript is hosted on an obviously biased site. See below.

"I replaced the dead reference (#36) with a link to a review by one of the scientists involved in the discovery of excitotoxins and who has researched excitotoxins from the 1960s until recently. Reference #37 is a review written by a scientist who has published on the excitotoxins issue. The fact that it is from an anti-aspartame source is irrelevent since many of the references on the other side are from known "pro-aspartame sources." It's almost impossible to create citations without citing articles written by pro- or anti-aspartame sources or those who have taken money from one side or the other. If we are concerned with citing scientists who have not studied aspartame or its metabolites or citing pieces that are long-winded, then we should definately remove the EFSA citations."

I don't think you understand what I am getting at. I don't care who wrote the article or what its contents are, so long as they are accurately cited. My concern is that items hosted on biased pages could be misquoted, taken out of context or otherwise manipulated. If a cited piece is actually a government document, I'd prefer a more direct way of getting at it. As for my concern over long-winded articles, I don't think you understand me there, either. My concern with the cited article is not the net length of it but the fact that it is a very long, "raw" text document from which it is exceedingly difficult and time-consuming to verify the cited facts. The EFSA study, while long, clearly directs the reader to its summarized findings and conclusions. It is easy for the reader to quickly locate these and verify the cited facts.

"The quoted text from Betty Martini relates soley [sic] to the Conflict of Interest issues of the EFSA review. One does not need a Ph.D. (honorary or otherwise) to discuss Conflict of Interest issues. If we are going to characterize each person commenting, then we can describe one person as an "activist," another as a "person accepting money from the aspartame industry," another as a "non-expert, government beaurocrat [sic]," etc. In order to satitisfy [sic] your concern about the Ph.D., all that really has to be done is to move the text to a neutral site and note in brackets after the Ph.D. that it was an honorary degree. That way, we're not going down the path of denigrating those who run NGO's on the issue, those who accept payments from the manufacturer, those who work in the government, etc."

As far as Betty Martini goes, I'd much prefer to simply describe her as Betty Martini and leave it at that. I agree, characterizations are superfluous to her point. Also, her honorary degree is not a Ph.D., it is a D.Hum.

"I have yet to see a published article showing that the particular diketopiperazine in aspartame occurs naturally. As mentioned on Wikipedia, some diketopiperazines are carcinogenic. That have been the debate about this particular diketopiperazine."

Problems with the Asp-Phe diketopiperazine(DKP)-carcinogenicity link assertion include:

1. The Wikipedia article asserting the general link is a stub with no citations;

2. DKPs degrade at pH extremes (the stomach is pH ~2);

3. DKPs from aspartame remain at under 1 ppm in blood plasma even at very high doses and are quickly excreted;

4. A great many DKPs occur naturally in foods (although, :::::::as you noted, I haven't found any specifically citing cyclic(Asp-Phe).

Unless research exists specifically damning cyclic(Asp-Phe) as carcinogenic, the above points should be noted to counter the assertion that cyclic(Asp-Phe) could be carcinogenic by pointing out that it is at least as likely, if we are basing our judgment upon its chemical classification alone, that it is not.

"I agree that some of the animal studies have used dosages higher than would be used by humans (Soffriti studies being one exception). The 10 to 50 times higher toxicity of the components of aspartame in humans (as compared to rats/mice) would be the other side of the issue.

"I also agree that there are some scientists who believe there is a gap between the dosage of aspartame that causes toxicity and the dosage ingested by humans. And there are some scientists on the other side who believe there is no gap for reasons discussed in the paragraph above and certain human studies."

Do you have a source for the 10-50x toxicity figure, or for that matter, of the assertion that the doses used in animal studies thus far may correlate to human consumption (with the possible exception of Soffritti)? Furthermore, are these studies comparing the same toxic responses? Multiple toxic dose-response curves exist for almost any given substance, and it would hardly be fair to claim that people are "10 to 50 times" more sensitive to a chemical because they experience headache or dizziness at x mg/kg while rats take 10x or 50x mg/kg to develop, say, severe seizures or vomiting.

The sources cited from the text (which claims humans are 5-6 times more susceptible), are:

45, which shows no abstract;

46 which is one figure from an uncited study and difficult to assess due to this fact;

47, which is cited in the text as arguing for a 5-6 fold increase in susceptibiligy of humans to excitotoxins but makes no such claim in its abstract and is not available in full online;

48, which is cited in the text as stating a particular concern for aspartate excitotoxicity in young children but in fact states only that "it is reasonable to postulate the greatest involvement of [NMDA receptors, of which glutamate is a substrate] in developmental psychoneuropathology", and does not specifically mention aspartate or "concern" in the abstract, and furthermore is not available online;

36, which is cited in the text as showing "the potential long-term neurodegenerative effects of small-to-moderate spikes on plasma excitotoxin levels", which I assume refers to chronic ingestion of BOAA, which, according to the article, activates non-NMDA receptors (whereas NMDA receptors are cited in the same abstract as being the cause for concern regarding excitotoxins), and is not available online;

49 and 50, which are cited in the text as expressing concerns over "the potential dangers of combining formaldehyde exposure from aspartame with excitotoxins given that chronic methanol exposure increases excitoxin levels in susceptible areas of the brain", but only state that 2 g/kg methanol ingestion causes increased aspartate concentration in the brain (49), and that blocking TBOA-sensitive glutamate transporters results in increased sensitivity to glutamate neurotoxicity (50). (50) also notes, interestingly, that preparations of up to 1 mM Glu concentration were not neurotoxic in their study. Neither study mentions aspartame or concerns about it;

51, which not only cites an anti-aspartame Yahoo! group as being scientific (the abstract posted would be much better off cited directly), but also appears to be a citation of one of your own postings based upon the e-mail address of the poster (twoggletheturtle@...), and furthermore relates to formaldehyde and free radicals and contains no mention of either excitotoxins or aspartame, except the assertion that the author of the post makes that "excitotoxins can also cause free radical formation".

The author of this section seems to be giving his or her own interpretation of the data cited rather than repeating the concerns of others cited. Furthermore, almost all of the links from this section point to Olney studies. Have other scientists independently corroborated his assertions regarding glutamate and aspartame toxicity and excitotoxins? This would be very helpful in establishing the existence of a scientific controversy, and not merely a Peter Duesberg.131.243.227.190 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that any suggestion you make has to apply to both the pro- and anti-aspartame text and reference, of course. All of the studies you criticized, all of the citations you criticized, all of the persons you have criticized are in the anti-aspartame portions of the Aspartame Controversy document. It would be very easy for a person to criticize the pro-aspartame studies, scientists, citations, etc. I think the editors worked very hard to present both sides of the controversy even through I and others disagree with some of the expert statements on both sides of the issue.

Yes, there are sources for toxicity differences of the breakdown products and these sources related to acute effects in rodents and humans (as well as non-human primates in some cases). I mispoke, but the differences are 5-50 depending upon the chemical being discussed. And yes, of course, the effects looked at are the same. But that does not mean that it is a perfect anti-aspartame argument without any holes just like differences in doses in animal experiments does not mean that it is safe for humans at a lower dose (pro-aspartame argument). If we had all of the answers or the arguments on one side or the other didn't have holes in it, then there would be no controversy.

Whether a citation shows an abstract or not is really not relevent. Citing a scientific paper simply means that there is evidence within the paper to back up the claim. In a very large percentage of citations, the evidence cannot be found within the abstract itself, but within the paper. That is why I always tried to link to a full paper when it is available freely online (which is fairly rare). I believe others have done the same. I have never seen any published criticism of a paper based on the citations of that paper not being backed up in the Summary/Abstract.

Reference 45 has no relevence to the differences in toxicity between humans and rodents. It was cited to show an example of excitotoxicity in non-human primates. The Aspartic Acid section has a bit of history related to excitotoxicy and it is therefore expected that Dr. Olney is cited as he helped discover that field.

Reference 46 is a chart created by a scientist funded by the manufacturer of aspartame and MSG from a book on the subject. This reference is based on multiple studies conducted by this person and other scientists. The chart was also presented as evidence in a FASEB review of MSG and, I believe, published in another more recent paper. The chart is an excellent visual and I would agree that it would be nice to move it to a neutral site and reference where it came from. I know that book references are probably fine since SCF and others have used them extensively.

It is true that one could go back and forth endlessly on the excitotoxicity issue. Some scientists will bring up other studies related to excitotoxins and non-human primates claiming no effects. Then some scientists will counter with arguments that these same studies claimed to find no effects on rodents (which we now know is not true). And then there will be more claims and counterclaims. That is why limiting it to a few claims on each side seemed to be a way to provide detailed information but not get bogged down with pages on each issue.

Reference 47 is cited related to the difference in effect of excitotoxins on humans, rodents and non-human primates. Because many people do not have access to the full, published paper (as is true for most scientific citations), reference 46 provided the chart (that was freely available from the above-mentioned book and/or submittal to the government/FASEB review of MSG).

Reference 48 does discuss potential effects of excitotoxins on infants and young children, but one has to read the whole article. The citations are created like any citation for a scientific publication -- the evidence is in the text of the article. There was a time when editors were working to revise the sections of the article that I was taking pictures of the relevent text and uploading it to Wikipedia temporarily just to show the relevent portions. I would be happy to see if I have any of those images still available.

Reference 36 is about excitotoxins in foods and it has large sections on glutamate, aspartate, cysteine, and shorter sections on BMAA, BOAA, and Domoate. While the article was written by Dr. Olney (again), there is Reference #39 which demonstrates that Dr. Olney is not alone as a member of the Society of Neuroscience in his concern ... and that there are others on the other side of the issue.

Reference 49 was a short-term study and was cited specifically as it relates to methanol exposure increasing excitotoxin levels in the brain. Yes, a large amount was used, but that is necessary I think to see effects quickly and especially in rodents which are ~10 times less acutely sensitive to methanol-->formaldehyde than humans. But keep in mind, the pro-aspartame side of the argument was also presented so that persons could see why some believe it is not a concern. Reference 50 was cited to show that excitotoxins are a significant concern as it relates to susceptible areas of the brain. These references were not specifically about aspartame, but were about excitotoxins which was the subject at hand. Since everyone agrees that part of aspartame breaks down into an excitotoxin, the research on excitotoxins is relevent (even if there are disagreements as to whether there will be an effect in humans). It would be great to take the time to list more references for each and every statement, but that has to be done on both sides of the issue.

Reference 51 could be replaced by numerous references, but it is impossible to give just one or two references that include every aspect of potential synergestic effects. One must understand a bit about the issue. But reference 49 showing an increase in excitotoxins from methanol exposure is enough for those familiar with research on excitotoxins and the retina (for example) to see that there is a *potential* synergistic effect.

Again, all of these references were balanced with references on the pro-aspartame side.

As far as Olney being cited, I see numerous citations of other authors in that section (in fact the overwhelming majority of citations are not Olney). A couple of his citations relate to the history of excitotoxicity as it related to aspartame research, so it is expected he would be cited. Reference #39 shows that Olney is not the only concerned scientist. Other references could be listed, but being the leader in the field, he has done most of the key research (as it relates to the aspartame controversy). The same could be said for aspartame metabolism studies and Stegink or aspartame and methanol studies and Tephly on the pro-aspartame side.

The DKP issue is already discussed in the article as it relates to aspartame and cancer. Citations 53 and 54 (the articles themselves) present evidence of concern as it relates to mutagenic potential and cancer from this particular DKP and citations 55 and 56 present evidence that it should not be a concern. My point about this DKP is that I have not seen evidence that it occurs naturally (although perhaps it does -- anyone know of a paper that presents this evidence).

How about we focus just on one pro-aspartame citation and one anti-aspartame citation you have problems with. Discussing too many issues at once may not be productive???

Twoggle 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"I feel that any suggestion you make has to apply to both the pro- and anti-aspartame text and reference, of course. All of the studies you criticized, all of the citations you criticized, all of the persons you have criticized are in the anti-aspartame portions of the Aspartame Controversy document. It would be very easy for a person to criticize the pro-aspartame studies, scientists, citations, etc. I think the editors worked very hard to present both sides of the controversy even through I and others disagree with some of the expert statements on both sides of the issue."

If there are any pro-aspartame citations of sources that are misrepresented or otherwise manipulated in the text in the same way that I have shown the anti-aspartame citations of sources I have thus far discussed to be, by all means, point them out. I wouldn't want misrepresentation on either side.

"Yes, there are sources for toxicity differences of the breakdown products and these sources related to acute effects in rodents and humans (as well as non-human primates in some cases). I mispoke [sic], but the differences are 5-50 depending upon the chemical being discussed. And yes, of course, the effects looked at are the same. But that does not mean that it is a perfect anti-aspartame argument without any holes just like differences in doses in animal experiments does not mean that it is safe for humans at a lower dose (pro-aspartame argument). If we had all of the answers or the arguments on one side or the other didn't have holes in it, then there would be no controversy."

Cite your sources; I've cited mine. I'm particularly interested in studies of aspartame or its breakdown products, not unrelated or possibly related excitotoxins. Toxicology is extremely substance-specific and to imply toxicity of aspartame by association with other toxic compounds in the same general compound class would be like equating poppy seeds with heroin because they both contain opioids, or, if you want to be more conservative, like comparing pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) with methamphetamine.

"Whether a citation shows an abstract or not is really not relevent [sic]. Citing a scientific paper simply means that there is evidence within the paper to back up the claim. In a very large percentage of citations, the evidence cannot be found within the abstract itself, but within the paper. That is why I always tried to link to a full paper when it is available freely online (which is fairly rare). I believe others have done the same. I have never seen any published criticism of a paper based on the citations of that paper not being backed up in the Summary/Abstract."

Relevance is contextual by necessity. I'm not trying to discredit the study because I can't see the abstract. My point is that I can't verify the text easily with online sources. For all I know (without actually digging up twenty-year-old journal issues), an offline source could say that unicorns feed on leprechauns. It'd take at least a full day of dedicated library research to verify the cited articles that are offline, and without that, I've got to take the author's word that they contain the text that the author says they do, and based upon the representation of citation content in the text I've seen thus far, I'm not inclined to do so. At least some online sources should exist if the research backing up these claims is anywhere near as ubiquitous as the text seems to imply. In particular, if a study is corroborated by future research, then other articles should point to and build off of the offline source; again, however, primary sources are always preferred as they reduce the potential for the introduction of bias.

"Reference 45 has no relevence [sic] to the differences in toxicity between humans and rodents. It was cited to show an example of excitotoxicity in non-human primates. The Aspartic Acid section has a bit of history related to excitotoxicy [sic] and it is therefore expected that Dr. Olney is cited as he helped discover that field."

But it is implied by its contrast with the starting sentence of the paragraph ("Some scientists think that humans and other primates are not as susceptible to excitotoxins as rodents and therefore there is little concern with aspartic acid from aspartame. [...] Other scientists think that primates are susceptible to excitotoxic damage[45]") that it is to be taken as arguing for human susceptibility versus rodents by association with primates. If there's no comparison, then what you are doing is stating the obvious; of course primates are susceptible to neurotoxins, if by "susceptible", you mean they have an effect at all. It makes no sense to say that some scientists believe primates are less susceptible than rodents and then say "However, others say that primates are susceptible" because these are the same statement. The first researchers were already saying that primates were susceptible in the first place. I didn't mention John Olney in this section, but will take that comment to apply to my general complaint about too many citations from him.

"Reference 46 is a chart created by a scientist funded by the manufacturer of aspartame and MSG from a book on the subject. This reference is based on multiple studies conducted by this person and other scientists. The chart was also presented as evidence in a FASEB review of MSG and, I believe, published in another more recent paper. The chart is an excellent visual and I would agree that it would be nice to move it to a neutral site and reference where it came from. I know that book references are probably fine since SCF and others have used them extensively.

If it is based on "multiple studies", cite them. Cite the FASEB study too. A single graph without context is almost meaningless. What were the study parameters? Were there any confounding factors? How confident can we be in these data, statistically speaking? I can't answer these questions from a single graph. Book references may be fine for a large task force like SCF that has access to all the world literature on the subject, but for Wikipedians such as myself, online references are preferred since, again, it would take at least a full day of library research to verify the text from print-only resources. Moreover, you seem to imply that a good deal of support for this graph should exist online. Besides, I couldn't verify the book in a library even if I wanted to, since I still don't even know what book it is from or who the author is or which data the graph is based upon.

It is true that one could go back and forth endlessly on the excitotoxicity issue. Some scientists will bring up other studies related to excitotoxins and non-human primates claiming no effects. Then some scientists will counter with arguments that these same studies claimed to find no effects on rodents (which we now know is not true). And then there will be more claims and counterclaims. That is why limiting it to a few claims on each side seemed to be a way to provide detailed information but not get bogged down with pages on each issue.

I'm not sure that what this is referring to, but perhaps I'm just missing it.

Reference 47 is cited related to the difference in effect of excitotoxins on humans, rodents and non-human primates. Because many people do not have access to the full, published paper (as is true for most scientific citations), reference 46 provided the chart (that was freely available from the above-mentioned book and/or submittal to the government/FASEB review of MSG).

If you refer to the person(s) arguing for the text cited in (47) as "they", you surely must have at other sources besides this single Olney review paper, especially in light of your argument in support of (46) and the number of excitotoxins that have been studied.

Reference 48 does discuss potential effects of excitotoxins on infants and young children, but one has to read the whole article. The citations are created like any citation for a scientific publication -- the evidence is in the text of the article. There was a time when editors were working to revise the sections of the article that I was taking pictures of the relevent text and uploading it to Wikipedia temporarily just to show the relevent portions. I would be happy to see if I have any of those images still available.

I'm pretty sure that would be unusable for the article under Wikipedia guidelines per copyright restrictions, but I'd still like to see such images if you have them. If you can't, I'd also accept another source. That seems like the easier route anyway. Surely somebody besides Olney has asserted this.

"Reference 36 is about excitotoxins in foods and it has large sections on glutamate, aspartate, cysteine, and shorter sections on BMAA, BOAA, and Domoate. While the article was written by Dr. Olney (again), there is Reference #39 which demonstrates that Dr. Olney is not alone as a member of the Society of Neuroscience in his concern ... and that there are others on the other side of the issue."

I am aware of this. However, it does not say anything (at least, not in the abstract) regarding concern about "the potential long-term neurodegenerative effects of small-to-moderate spikes on plasma excitotoxin levels", and neither does reference (39). (39) demonstrates, at best, that Olney is not the only one concerned about excitotoxins such as domoic acid and glutamate. Aspartate is not even mentioned in (39) except in the insert, and neither is phenylalanine. Again, applying concerns about some excitotoxins to all excitotoxins is logically invalid.

"Reference 49 was a short-term study and was cited specifically as it relates to methanol exposure increasing excitotoxin levels in the brain. Yes, a large amount was used, but that is necessary I think to see effects quickly and especially in rodents which are ~10 times less acutely sensitive to methanol-->formaldehyde than humans. But keep in mind, the pro-aspartame side of the argument was also presented so that persons could see why some believe it is not a concern. Reference 50 was cited to show that excitotoxins are a significant concern as it relates to susceptible areas of the brain. These references were not specifically about aspartame, but were about excitotoxins which was the subject at hand. Since everyone agrees that part of aspartame breaks down into an excitotoxin, the research on excitotoxins is relevent (even if there are disagreements as to whether there will be an effect in humans). It would be great to take the time to list more references for each and every statement, but that has to be done on both sides of the issue."

If reference (49) "was a short-term study", then by definition it does not document "chronic" exposure in the sense that the text seems to imply (low-dose, long-term exposure; i.e., the kind of exposure that people have to methanol from aspartame). The extremely high 2 g/kg dose was not an issue I raised with (49) originally, but it corroborates this point. The paper's title largely contrasts its method with that of previous researchers, who used even higher doses and shorter study periods. It would be much more accurate to describe this study as documenting "chronic, high-dose, short-term" exposure. Whether you think it is necessary (or for that matter, whether it is necessary) to use dosages that high to research methanol exposure effects in rats is irrelevant. Furthermore, this reinforces my point about needing to discuss relative dosages and dose-response curves/patterns, since it is hardly accurate to equate the effects of methanol administered at 2g/kg with methanol administered at 0.1-0.2 mg/kg (approximate dosage for an adult, from a single can of Coke). Even if you assume high intake and low body weight, AND correct for the "10x" lower sensitivity of rats to methanol, that's still a difference of roughly a hundredfold. That's like saying that drinking 600 ml of distilled water at once could be harmful because drinking 60 L of distilled water at once is very toxic and can kill you. Remember the cardinal rule of toxicology: ANYTHING is toxic at a high enough dose; thus, dose determines toxicity.

Reference (50) refers to harm from high glutamate levels and is in the specific context of inhibited glutamate transporters. Reference (49) explicitly states that retinal amino acid concentrations were NOT affected by any of their treatment regimens, and therefore it is inappropriate to apply the findings from (49) to (50). Moreover, synthesizing data to draw new conclusions or making speculations about what the results of multiple studies might imply when taken together, constitutes something like original research (at best) and is not allowed. If scientists or others have raised this specific concern, that's fine. Cite them (accurately). Otherwise, it's just your opinion.

"Reference 51 could be replaced by numerous references, but it is impossible to give just one or two references that include every aspect of potential synergestic effects. One must understand a bit about the issue. But reference 49 showing an increase in excitotoxins from methanol exposure is enough for those familiar with research on excitotoxins and the retina (for example) to see that there is a *potential* synergistic effect."

Possibly, but this is you saying this as an opinion, not a scientist (or any other person, for that matter) saying it as a fact or theory in a peer-reviewed publication (or any other publication, for that matter). Again, synthesizing data to draw new conclusions or making speculations about what the results of multiple studies might imply when taken together, constitutes something like original research (at best) and is not allowed. If scientists or others have raised this specific concern, that's fine. Cite them (accurately). Otherwise, it's just your opinion.

"Again, all of these references were balanced with references on the pro-aspartame side."

I am more concerned with maintaining fidelity to the actual findings in the scientific literature than I am with coddling one side or the other in a debate so that they are both "equal". If either side has more or better references (preferably both) than the other, so be it. Moreover, the references on the pro-aspartame side are correctly represented in the text and easily verified, which is in contrast to the anti-aspartame side.

"As far as Olney being cited, I see numerous citations of other authors in that section (in fact the overwhelming majority of citations are not Olney). A couple of his citations relate to the history of excitotoxicity as it related to aspartame research, so it is expected he would be cited. Reference #39 shows that Olney is not the only concerned scientist. Other references could be listed, but being the leader in the field, he has done most of the key research (as it relates to the aspartame controversy). The same could be said for aspartame metabolism studies and Stegink or aspartame and methanol studies and Tephly on the pro-aspartame side."

Really? Consider this question: Of the citations listed in the section I discussed, is Olney listed as an author? (45) Yes. (46) Unknown, but you said that it came from the fulltext of (47), which is by Olney, so that's: (46) Yes and (47) Yes. (48) Yes. (36) Yes. (49): No. (50) Yes. (51) Will consider it a no despite my reservations about using this citation at all.

So, the tally is: Olney: 45, 46, 47, 48, 36, 50; Not Olney: 49, 51. That's 6 to 2 in favor of papers listing Olney as an author; 5 to 2 if you don't count (46), since it is a review paper and that might have come from a reviewed paper, and not Olney; and still 3 to 2 if you only count papers on which Olney is the primary author. Furthermore, the two citations that aren't his are the same ones which I have the most reservations about with regards to their representation in the text. Olney is clearly cited more than any other author.

"The DKP issue is already discussed in the article as it relates to aspartame and cancer. Citations 53 and 54 (the articles themselves) present evidence of concern as it relates to mutagenic potential and cancer from this particular DKP and citations 55 and 56 present evidence that it should not be a concern. My point about this DKP is that I have not seen evidence that it occurs naturally (although perhaps it does -- anyone know of a paper that presents this evidence)."

Given that Asp-Phe occurs regularly in protein sequences and that proteins denature and break down when heated, it is easy to see why fre dipeptides of Asp-Phe almost certainly must occur to at least some degree in all cooked or digested foods as proteolysis products of proteins. Because Asp-Phe dipeptides readily form their diketopiperazine in solution, it follows that cyclic(Asp-Phe) almost certainly occurs exogenously in natural foods and endogenously as a proteolysis product. But this is just my opinion; I don't have a citation to prove it, and even if I did, it'd probably reduce to the same tenuous assertions of toxicity at low dose based upon higher-dose studies as are levied against aspartate and phenylalanine, so I don't have the inclination to look.

How about we focus just on one pro-aspartame citation and one anti-aspartame citation you have problems with. Discussing too many issues at once may not be productive???

I'm not required to have problems equally with pro- and anti-aspartame citations and neither is anybody else. Writing an NPOV article does not necessarily require me to have no opinion on the subject. If you can find "pro-aspartame" citations in the text which are cited incorrectly or misleadingly, point them out, and if you can find "anti-aspartame" citations with the same problem, point those out too. At present I am content to focus on the specific area(s) already under discussion in this thread.Jonroybal 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to want to get into a debate about only anti-aspartame citations and most of the criticism rests on the fact that you have not read the full papers being cited -- only a short summary (if that). I only want to discuss if there's information in the full papers on both sides of the issue that backs up the statements. If you don't have an inclination to read the papers, that's your problem. From Wikipedia article about abstracts: "It is a common misconception that the abstracts in MEDLINE provide sufficient information for medical practitioners, students, scholars and patients. The abstract can convey the main results and conclusions of a scientific article but the full text article must be consulted for details of the methodology, the full experimental results, and a critical discussion of the interpretations and conclusions. Consulting the abstract alone is inadequate for scholarship and may lead to inappropriate medical decisions."

I would be happy to discuss a specific citation and the full paper involved to start things off, but I do not find this discussion constructive. I perceive it is an ongoing attack on any citation on the anti-aspartame side of the issue. Maybe we can make a constructive discussion by discussing and fixing one citation at a time rather than taking a "shotgun" approach.

"Cite your sources; I've cited mine."

Unfortunately, you haven't cited anything related to differences in toxicity in the components of aspartame between humans and rats/mice. All I said that if there is a discussion of "high" doses used in some animal experiments, then the other side of the argument should be presented to prevent bias (POV). One of the citations, for example, might be: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=6756793&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum . If someone was to be critical of that citation or others, it is reasonable to expect to see specific criticisms based on the paper itself.

"Relevance is contextual by necessity. I'm not trying to discredit the study because I can't see the abstract. My point is that I can't verify the text easily with online sources. For all I know (without actually digging up twenty-year-old journal issues), an offline source could say that unicorns feed on leprechauns."

Most peer-reviewed, scientific publications are not freely available online. As you know, that is where scientists tend to publish their papers. One citation presented an online source with two of the most respected scientists presenting testimony. That is actually very rare that such information is available online, but you criticized the citation stating that the papers they discussed in their testimony should have been the citations. Well, if that were the case, then there wouldn't be an online source of information on that side of the controversy.

"But it is implied by its contrast with the starting sentence of the paragraph ("Some scientists think that humans and other primates are not as susceptible to excitotoxins as rodents and therefore there is little concern with aspartic acid from aspartame. [...] Other scientists think that primates are susceptible to excitotoxic damage[45]") that it is to be taken as arguing for human susceptibility versus rodents by association with primates."

You simply cut the last part of the sentence from the quote. The last part of the sentence: "and that humans concentrate excitotoxins in the blood more than other animals." [46] have a reference to susceptibility issues related to primates. While I would agree that it could be worded slightly better, the references are there to back up both the pro- and anti-aspartame side of the issue.

"If it is based on "multiple studies", cite them. Cite the FASEB study too. A single graph without context is almost meaningless. What were the study parameters? Were there any confounding factors? How confident can we be in these data, statistically speaking? I can't answer these questions from a single graph."

You also cannot answer these questions with a typical online source or abstract. You have to readthe whole studies.

"If you refer to the person(s) arguing for the text cited in (47) as "they", you surely must have at other sources besides this single Olney review paper...."

Yes, see Reference #39 cited in the same section.

"I'm pretty sure that would be unusable for the article under Wikipedia guidelines per copyright restrictions, but I'd still like to see such images if you have them. If you can't, I'd also accept another source. That seems like the easier route anyway. Surely somebody besides Olney has asserted this."

Yes, there are other references, but since you criticize every study posted without even reading the paper, what is the point? As I said earlier, if we focused on exactly one issue/citation at a time, that would make it much easier to come to a consensus, I think.

"I am aware of this. However, it does not say anything (at least, not in the abstract) regarding concern about 'the potential long-term neurodegenerative effects of small-to-moderate spikes on plasma excitotoxin levels'",

It does discuss this in the paper itself.

"(39) demonstrates, at best, that Olney is not the only one concerned about excitotoxins such as domoic acid and glutamate. Aspartate is not even mentioned in (39) except in the insert, and neither is phenylalanine. Again, applying concerns about some excitotoxins to all excitotoxins is logically invalid."

The one article you have read, I feel you are misrepresenting. "Dietary excitotoxins" are mentioned in the article. They did not list all of the dietary excitotoxins, just used one common one (MSG) as an example. The "insert" where aspartame was specifically mentioned, is an 11-paragraph article about the debate.

"So, the tally is: Olney: 45, 46, 47, 48, 36, 50; Not Olney: 49, 51. That's 6 to 2 in favor of papers listing Olney as an author; 5 to 2 if you don't count (46), since it is a review paper and that might have come from a reviewed paper, and not Olney; and still 3 to 2 if you only count papers on which Olney is the primary author. Furthermore, the two citations that aren't his are the same ones which I have the most reservations about with regards to their representation in the text. Olney is clearly cited more than any other author."

You already agreed that Olney is not the only scientist concerned with dietary excitotoxins as reference #39 shows. I looked at it in a completely different way: 18 references in that section, 5 with Olney as author or co-author, two used during based discussion of excitotoxicology, leaving 3 on the anti-aspartame side. More could be added, and if we take an approach that facilitates developing a consensus on one citation at a time, it might be possible to have time and energy to make those additions.

I am going to respond to only portions or your debate response unless you are willing to focus on only one issue at a time so that a concensus can be developed to that issue / citation. My focus is having a NPOV article that accurately presents both sides of the issue and not having endless debates. I prefer taking my time on one issue, solving it and then moving on to the next.

Twoggle 16:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Three references styles listed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:References#Embedded_HTML_links. Embedded HTML Links, Harvard Referencing and Footnotes. The text of the article seems to discourage the use of Footnotes: "Many of today's style guides require not using or recommend against using footnotes and reference endnotes to cite sources." I would prefer the Embedded HTML Links format. The other issue is that a very, very long Reference section would tend to push other sections off the page. That is why References are supposed to be put at the end of the article. However, External Links also go at the end. Since the Reference section will be extremely long and the External Links section will be shorter, I suggest putting the shorter section before the longer section. If that is not agreeable. Then I would want a link to the External Links section before the References (not just in the Table of Contents), so readers getting to the end of the article are well aware that there is another section a long ways down on the page, below the References section. Twoggle 15:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, good point to bring up. I chose to put the HTML references in the same way as other references, using the <ref name=></ref>, I do understand that that sometimes gives long references sections. IMHO, that is not a real problem, it is more that I don't like the mix of styles. For now I do it automatically, using a script that cleans up a lot of things in a page, but that indeed gives sometimes very ugly titles (but at least people know where they go when they click the link). I might be able to cut that down (I could e.g. only use the homepage as a text after the full link). Any suggestions for that? By the way, if there is an inline URL, the URL still should be also in the references section, so that does not cut it down.

Of course the External links - section can go before the references section, but both are not a real part of the article, people scrolling there already know that they get into a list of links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi! I tried the reference links with IE and Foxfire your script set up and there was something not working right because clicking on the reference numbers either didn't go anywhere except a big jumble of HTML (rather than a clickable link). I suggest that we use Embedded HTML links as described at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Embedded_Citations. It would be relatively easy to duplicate these links in the References section using the suggestions on the Embedded_Citations page and then, gradually add more detail to the Citations as they suggest. You're right about the link being in the reference section. In addition, they suggest a full citation. However, smaller type can be used and that is why I recommended putting the External Links first -- The novice Wikipedia reader may click on the reference links while reading the article, but may not realize that way, way down the page below a more detailed reference citations are some pro- and anti- and new links. Twoggle 21:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm .. I am running Opera, and did not see a problem. It is conform one of the cite-mechanisms of Wikipedia. Now I must say, there were some references in that page, that looked like a whole lot of jibberish to me, quite a deeplink. Thus far (though I have not run the script on that many pages yet), I have not heard anything. Maybe one of the links in this article is not compatible with my script, I will leave it, its OK (it is in my disclaimer here, if it goes wrong, just revert and drop me a line). See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't try Opera, but all I know is that I didn't see any clickable links, just something more akin to HTML code (in plain text/ASCII format). If there are no objections, I'll just manually go ahead and do what you were doing with the script, using the REF function, but gradually add more detailed citations. It's probably the easiest way to fix up the citations so they have more detailed information. Twoggle 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What the script does is first see if the url has the format [http://www.here.com A link about here] (so, this url has a decent description), these are left as is, just puts a <ref name="http://www.here.com"> before, and a </ref> behind (so if the same url is linked twice, it will appear only once in the references list!). Links of the type [http://www.here.com] (so without description) are converted to <ref name="http://www.here.com">[http://www.here.com http://www.here.com] (so the url of the link becomes the description, otherwise all those link will look like [1] <- this, which is non-informative in a bulletted list). Most references were of the latter format, but there was at least one very stange one .. might have gone wrong. But by all means, go ahead. I will copy the old version to my sandbox, and run my script on that, see if and what I can improve. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

US Policy Section

I cut the section because of the NUMEROUS citation requests, and a lack of citations being added over a resonable amount of time. Please add citations if replaced. Thank you. 76.20.176.60 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Refs

Let's expand the references into full citations rather than just pubmed numbers. I can start working on it, but it's a big job and I'd appreciate all the help I can get. Thanks! delldot | talk 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Vandalism

"However, the conclusions were refuted after an exhaustive, double-blind study that showed that mice, fed only sugar-free gum and diet Coca-Cola not only showed no adverse affects, but on the contrary, appeared 20%-35% slimmer and more sexually attractive."

I presume this is a joke/vandalism, so I'm deleting it. --RITZ 18:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly if there is no verifiable source confirming that this study ever took place or came to that conclusion, it's fair game for deletion, regardless of whether it's vandalism. -Amatulic 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts to Discussed NPOV sections (Methanol / Responses )

I was gone for a while and noticed that two sections had significant and NPOV edits apparently without any discussion:

1. The Responses section was edited so that all of the pro-aspartame responses were at the top and the anti-aspartame responses were buried below. Of course, that is NPOV. It is already the case that the pro-aspartame links are listed first. To also list the pro-aspartame responses first starts to make the article more like at PR piece.

2. The Methanol section was drastically changed from banter back and forth of pro-aspartame and anti-aspartame arguments to a pro-aspartame section. In addition, many of the sentences completely misrepresent the arguments. For example:

a. "There has been some concern that aspartame metabolism releases methanol." This misrepresents the concern. The real concern on the aspartame side is that the release of methanol from aspartame causes the exposure to and accumulation of significant amounts of formaldehyde while such exposure and accumulation has never been seen from traditionally-ingested substances. While the manufacturer has a response to this concern, to represent the concern as simply the release of methanol is inaccurate.

b. "This methanol is distributed throughout the body, rapidly broken down into formaldehyde and formic acid, and shuttled into the energy production pathway." This is not quite accurate and relies on an undergraduate engineering review as a reference. There has been research on both aspartame and formaldehyde exposure slowing formaldehyde adduct accumulation. In fact, some of this research has been on smokers exposed to formaldehyde. So, while some percentage of the formaldehyde is converted to formic acid, not all of it is. I'd be glad to cite other research.

c. "It is believed that...." The pro-aspartame statement is prefaced with "It is believed...." and the anti-aspartame statement is prefaced with "Some say...." implying that one side has more weight than the other. Let's be consistant.

d. "For comparison, it should be noted that the methanol content (in milligrams/liter) of a soft drink containing aspartame is 55, whereas the methanol content is 20-36 for white wines, 99-271 for red wines, 181-2425 for brandy, 16-680 for grape juice and 180-218 for tomato juice." The comparison is irrelevant since it does not matter how much methanol is in other products. The only thing that matters is if the methanol in aspartame is enough to cause chronic toxicity after converting to formaldehyde and if the methanol in other products does or does not convert to formaldehyde. The reason such chart was left out of the discussed methanol section before is that it is used as PR and not part of a serious scientific discussion.

If a comparison chart of methanol levels is included as is often done by manufacturer researchers, then the counter arguments and chart needs to be included that shows that methanol levels in some fruit juices and alcoholic beverages are far above the levels proven to cause chronic toxicity ... and therefore these researchers argue that this would be more evidence that these substances contain protective factors. So, I'm just asking and hoping for NPOV information on both sides.

Twoggle 18:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the previous "studies" section that cited research from both sides. This section also includes proper references and phrases that put the sources into perspective. The fact of the matter is that you have several public health safety bodies on the one hand and small profit making companies that sells books and other material on the other hand. --Deon Steyn 06:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate of already-entered list of organizations deleted. The list is put together in an unbiased (NPOV) way as to not denigrate any of the organizations as that is not the point of the article. Some of the organizations are smaller and some are larger. Some of the organizations accept financing or exchange employees with the manufacturer of aspartame and some do not. Some have web pages about revolving door representation or 'quackery' or many other negative things. Almost all of the organizations listed are long-running, national organizations that some people respect and some do not. The fact that all pro-aspartame links are listed first and that a pro-aspartame organization is listed first should make the pro-aspartame crowd happy even though some might consister that very slight NPOV itself. Twoggle 17:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is far from a neutral point of view to list some of these questionable sources along massive public health institutions. They have given themselves deceptively similar official sounding titles and most derive profit from their unsupported claims. To simply mix them in between the actual proper institutions is a deception, but then not to show references questioning their motives is definitely biased. The article has to show that laughable organizations such as Feingold Association with money making fads like [[Feingold Diet derive profits from their claims. --Deon Steyn 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is simply extreme bias (non-NPOV) to denigrate certain national organizations that have thousands of members including scientists and researchers and accept other similar organizations that make statements more to your liking. My own bias is that organizations that take money from the manufacturer of a product might not belong in the article or should be buried somewhere below, but I know that in order to be NPOV, that cannot be done. For example, the main person responsible for continuing aspartame approval during the 1990s at the FDA worked with manufacturer researcher on their next generation sweetener (for pay). That doesn't make the FDA's statement right or wrong, but someone with a bias could bury the government organization since they claim the revolving door system at the FDA creates extreme bias.

It is important to remember that the Responses section was set up to list responses from a small selection of organizations on the subject that was discuss in an NPOV manner above that section. In order to do this, organizations are given equal weight -- even those public organizations that take funding from the manufacturer. After all, the Wiki on NPOV states: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Twoggle 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all responses should be listed, but there should most definitely be a distinction between organizations by their function. One the one have you have government agencies tasked with public health and safety issues while on the other hand you have private organizations with unclear motives – some of whom profit directly from their claims. No one is "denigrating" either of the two groups, it's simply a factual distinction. Furthermore this distinction is an important one, because it seems that only the private organizations seem to be against Aspartame. One could argue that either group is biased or have ulterior motives, but the fact is that the organizational distinction remains and has a definite bearing on the organizations standpoint. --Deon Steyn 06:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe that organizations funded by the manufacturer of the substance or their trade groups should be the distinction rather than whether they are "non-profit" or not. After all, any joker can set up a non-profit organization. Nevertheless, most of the anti- and pro-aspartame organizations listed *are* public non-profit organizations (e.g., Feingold, NHF, etc.). Rather than manipulating the order and organization to suit my own bias, I comprimised and listed pro-aspartame org, anti-aspartame org, pro-, anti-, etc.

Again, according to Wiki rules: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." Repeated attempts to bury anti-aspartame organizations (that you called "laughable") are directly in conflict with those rules. In addition, there are a myriad of ways to categorize the organizations, including as I suggested whether they have accepted funding from the manufacturer or exchanged employees with the manufacturer -- which some might consider more relevant than their tax designation (i.e., non-profit status).

If we cannot list the organizations in a non-biased, NPOV way, then we should permanently remove the entire section until a consensus can be reached. I think a comprimise of NOT categorizing organizations by non-profit status (even though almost all listed have that status) or by whether they have proven conflict-of-interest in the subject at hand is a reasonable comprimise. I even went so far in comprimising as to list a pro-aspartame organization first (even though pro-aspartame orgs are listed first in the links section). Twoggle 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One other thing I noticed is that the "Responses" are duplicates of some of the External Links and really should be removed if no NPOV consensus can be reached on listing them without creating extreme bias. 24.34.65.127 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One more followup.... I just reviewed a number of controversial Wiki sites related to ingesting substances. None of them had a "Responses" section, but they did have a *small* selection of external links that allowed readers to see opinions from various organizations. Twoggle 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not create the "responses" section, I'm merely trying to prevent bias (that in fact border on advertising) in the article. The organizations you mention (Feingold and NHF) most definitely profit from their claims through the sale of books and DVDs (things like the Feingold Diet). Worse still, they masquerade as non-profit organizations when they are not. Please also see (Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith) as no one ever attempted to "bury" the "anti-aspartame" orgs. I merely separated the various bodies into 2/3 groups, you can change the order of the groups if you like and put the anti-aspartame ones at the top, but to put someone with an official sounding name like the national health foundation next to the FDA, lens them undue credibility when they are in fact a small website selling DVDs. Why don't we just divide it into "pro" and "anti" groups then? --Deon Steyn 08:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The extreme bias put in the section is obvious. You started by calling the anti-aspartame organizations "laughable" and then burying them and the bottom. In addition, you are now inaccurately claiming that Feingold and NHF are not non-profit organizations when both are non-profit organizations. They sell books just like the organizations that you listed under non-profit organizations sell books. In addition, NHF has been around 50+ years and Feingold has been around for decades as well. Whether you agree or like or respect an organization is completely irrelevent. The same goes for me as well. It's clear from Wiki NPOV rules that they should be listed in an unbiased way or they shouldn't be listed at all.

I have removed the Responses section. I always start out by assuming good faith. However, repeated denigrating of certain large, national organizations in the talk section and then changing the previous setup (pro-, anti-, pro-, anti-, etc.) to bury the anti aspartame organizations and further denigrating them by putting the ones you don't like in their own 'special' category, makes me think that NPOV cannot be reached in this area. As I mentioned before: 1) there is no difference between the non-profits as they all sell items and they are all non-profits; and 2) non-profit status of organization is just one of many possible ways of categorizing the organizations.

I suggest we make suggestions here before we keep reverting. This will prevent constant reverts until a consensus can be reached. There is a Wiki section on Wikipedia:Negotiation. We have used it several times on this page subject before posting things to the main article page and in this way avoided constant reverts. Twoggle 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the position by Twoggle. I must say it is a strange to way to apply principles by Deon Steyn. He dismissed opinion forming organizations whose goal is to further a cause as “for-profit” because they don’t give away their material for free but sell it. At the same time, he sees industry lobby organizations as non-profit and impartial. MaxPont 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

MaxPont, you are not seriously going to call U.S. government health organizations such as the FDA, CDC and NCI "lobby groups" are you? That is patently false! They are large organizations tasked with public health that don't have to rely on commercial funding. Admittedly that doesn't always equate with honesty or integrity (in fact some would argue exactly the opposite).... and this has always been my point: it is interesting and important to distinguish (at the very least) between government funded and private. Whether we put the one group first and then the other doesn't matter (for the record the gov ones were first, because it was an easier edit since they were mostly at the top and accusations of trying to bury is patently ridiculous). Either way, I support the last edit of user Twoggle to rather remove the section in it's entirety (who is doing the burying now :-), because it doesn't contribute much. Furthermore, it is quite difficult for the rest of the world's readers to appreciate, decipher and read between the lines when Americans wade in with corporate conspiracies theories etc. --Deon Steyn 06:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest section

I didn't see a single conflict of interest in the whole section. Tenuous connections between high level officials are not "conflicts of interest" especially when you realize that any high level officials are both corporately and politically connected. After all a dollar is a dollar, see, no conflict there!

The fact that they are both corporately and politically connected is a conflict of interest. 202.40.139.109 (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is very poor

For instance, at the moment it's a link farm. It's also very POV. I'm going to put the tag on and remove excess links for a start, it should only have a couple pro- and a couple anti-Merkinsmum 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide specific paragraphs/sections where boths sides of the issue are not presented fairly. Other Editors have commented positively, but it is certainly possible that there are POV sections where both sides are not presented clearly! Twoggle 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Waited nearly two months. Removed tag until requirements for POV tag, specifically 2nd paragraph of NPOV Dispute page, are met.Twoggle 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Books- only a couple of important ones need be listed, for each point of view. Not every book ever published about it:)Merkinsmum 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, I *restored* the top few links for each section as those that were listed at the top, for the most part, represented the most authoritative links and links with the most scientific discussion/resources.Twoggle 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. In case editors here don't know, we do have a PMID template. You only have to type in PMID followed by the number. Also, see the infobox on my userpage for a script to generate a reference for any PMID - it's listed under PMID template in the userbox on my userpage. Just enter the PMID, and it gives you a fully-formatted reference. (Click on the drop-down menu in the first box to get to PubMed instead of drug database.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very hopeless at cites so please bear with me and I'll try to swat up. Sorry:)Merkinsmum 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to let you guys that are working on this page know that you've done a great job improving it. Most "controversy" pages have huge NPOV problems, whereas this one is pretty good all around. Good Work! GravyFish (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Independent opinion on this link

http://www.1800naturalhealing.com/aspartame-ant-killer.html

I'd like an independent opinion on inclusion of this link in external links section. I removed it twice and it comes back without explanation. Maybe I shouldn't remove it, or maybe :-) the owner of the site is watching the page.

I'm personnally anti-aspartame. But here is what I still think about that site:

219.94.56.185 and Sovind need not apply. 70.80.113.243 05:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all scientific and not useful in wikipediaKnorrepoes 10:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting link as are many on the web, but we recently reduced the number of links on both sides of the issue to the major links on the Net. Twoggle 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FDA approval process (removed)

I've removed [2] the following text:

FDA approval process

{{tl:inappropriate tone}}

The head of the FDA, Jere E. Goyan, was removed from his post on the first day of Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981). Previously, Goyan refused to approve the legalization of aspartame, due to the studies documenting increase of cancers in rats. Reagan appointed Arthur Hayes, MD, (FDA Commissioner 1981-1983) Commissioner. He legalized aspartame a year later. Reagan supporter Donald Rumsfeld was president and later CEO of G. D. Searle & Company from 1977 to 1985. Arthur Hull Hayes MD was a defense contractor before he was head of the FDA. In November 1983 Hayes was under fire for accepting corporate gifts. He quit and joined Searle's public-relations firm as senior medical advisor. Searle lawyer Robert B. Shapiro, renamed aspartame NutraSweet. Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro later became Monsanto president.

Several members of the FDA board left their jobs after stevia (aspartame's main competitor then) was banned in 1991. They were all hired at Nutrasweet in higher paying jobs, according to national records. Dr. Michael Friedman quit the FDA when Jane Henney was selected to become the permanent FDA commissioner (1999). Friedman elected to sign with G. D. Searle as a senior vice president at a purported $500,000 a year. He later accepted a position with Monsanto.

It's poorly sourced (two advocacy websites) and amounts to yellow journalism. We don't write innuendo in Wikipedia. --82.18.8.94 20:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there indications that this is not true? Nikola 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reliable source confirming these allegations, which is why I removed much of the same garbage from the main aspartame article way back in April 2006. Some seem to feel that the existence of a separate "controversy" article provides license to include whatever wild stories have been in distribution about aspartame, but the standards for the wiki remain the same for all articles.Bustter (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Hull Hayes

Somrthing else I removed is back -- the accusation that Arthur Hull Hayes was paid off with a job for Searle has come back as a job with Searle's PR firm. This job does not appear in any of the AHH bios appearing on the web, and the source is aspartame critic Mary Nash Stoddard, The reference dies not offer a web link to its source, but here it is:

http://www.aspartamesafety.com/Article9.htm

This amounts to no documentation at all; it is merely an accusation from a severely biased source. Stoddard says this is a matter of public record, so cetainly a better source should be available if she's not mistaken.Bustter (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There are news articles where Dr. Hayes' work with the Searle PR firm is mention, but I put the text back with a GAO reference that lists his work with the Searle PR firm. I agree that it's better not to editorialize that he was "paid off" or "not paid off" and just state the facts here. Twoggle (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, my previous examination of that document was too cursory. Primarily, the document is exculpatory, but it does confirm the consultancy by Hayes on page 9 of the pdf (numbered 7). Is there a proper format for adding page numbers to citations? It may help to avoid similar errors in future.Bustter (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld

The Health Concerns section in the Aspartame article mentions Rumsfeld as part of the controversy ("possible conflicts of interest involving CEO Donald Rumsfeld in the approval process"). That section has the present article as the "main article" link, but here there is no mention of Rumsfeld. This clearly needs to be fixed one way or the other. Since this article is about the controversy, and Rumsfeld's name certainly features abundantly in the controversy whether he was actually involved or not, it seems to me there should be some mention of it here. 195.159.217.98 13:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC) (Nick)

I agree, and there's been plenty of time to remedy this. I'm removing the Rumsfield reference in the Aspartame article. Bustter (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Replacing Reference 19 in Article

Suggestion to replace this reference with:

Posner, Herbert S., "Bio-Hazards of Methanol in Proposed New Uses," Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Volume 1, Pages 153-171, 1975.

Kavet, Robert, Kathleen M. Nauss, "The Toxicity of Inhaled Methanol Vapors," Critical Reviews in Toxicology, Volume 21, Issue #1, Pages 21-50, 1990.

Shaham, J., Y. Bomstein, A. Meltzer, Z. Kaufman, E. Palma, J. Ribak, "DNA--protein Crosslinks, a Biomarker of Exposure to Formaldehyde--in vitro and in vivo Studies," Carcinogenesis, Volume 17, Issue #1, Pages 121-125, 1996.

Wantke, F., C.M. Demmer, P. Tappler, M. Gotz, R. Jarisch, "Exposure to Gaseous Formaldehyde Induces IgE-Mediated Sensitization To Formaldehyde in School-Children," Clinical and Experimental Allergy, Volume 26, Pages 276-280, 1996

Main, D.M., T.J. Hogan, "Health Effect of Low-Level Exposure to Formaldehyde," Journal of Occupational Medicine, Volume 25, Pages 896-900, 1983.

These references, along with the existing reference #18 address the three points mentioned. Twoggle (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing the suggestion for replacement Reference 19 as follows. The point of the sentence is to show what particular experts have stated. In this particular sentence, it involves the anti-aspartame side of the argument. As one example, a reference to an journal article about aspartame and methanol by Dr. Woodrow Monte was given (Reference #18). To replace reference #19, I propose a reference by Dr. H.J. Roberts who had numerous journal publications before becoming a clinician and focusing partly on aspartame. While the originally-suggested references do relate to methanol's effects, they are not statements from "experts/scientists" specifically about aspartame and methanol. References by Dr. Monte (Reference #18) and my suggestion, Dr. H.J. Roberts do provide proof as to what the anti-aspartame crowd believes. My suggestion for the H.J. Roberts reference is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=nlmcatalog&cmd=retrieve&dopt=expanded&list_uids=1104712

Twoggle (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

against, isn't there a more recent article on this topic than 1975 or 1990 ??? Considering the amount of work done on aspartame a more recent article should be there...Knorrepoes (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One editor suggested changing Reference #19, so I thought I propose some suggestions. The reference related to what certain experts believe: "Other experts/scientists believe ...." My first suggestion above was a number of peer reviewed references providing evidence to back up these experts' beliefs. These references are both newer and older than some of the pro-aspartame references. They are the type of references cited by both pro- and anti-aspartame scientists as well as government and non-government organizations.

However, my revised suggestion (as stated above) is to replace Reference #19 with a single Reference showing (along with Reference #18) that some scientists/experts believe the statement made in the sentence:

"...(a) fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain protective chemicals such as ethanol that block conversion of methanol into formaldehyde, while beverages with aspartame contain no "protective factors"; (b) exposure to very low levels of methanol and formaldehyde have been proven to cause chronic toxicity in humans; and (c) the low levels of methanol and formaldehyde in natural human metabolism are tightly-controlled and small increases above these levels can contribute to chronic poisoning."

These are the types of references provided for the pro-aspartame side -- namely, a couple of references demonstrating that there are scientists on the pro-aspartame side that believe:

"that the metabolism of aspartame does not damage the body because: (a) the quantity of methanol produced is too small to disrupt normal physiological processes; (b) methanol and formaldehyde are natural by-products of human metabolism and are safely processed by various enzymes; and (c) there is more methanol in some natural fruit juices and alcoholic beverages than is derived from aspartame ingestion."

What does everyone think?

Twoggle (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

removed a "self-reported case on the internet"

Is it just me, or does self-reporting on Wikipedia (which demonstrates an obvious ignorance of how this site works) somewhat discredit the medical conclusions drawn by the person concerned? I suppose he/she might have been a brilliant medical scientist intimately familiar with the subject, but it still makes the poster look a bit foolish. Whatever happened to pattern recognition? (Says the anonymous commenter who is probably breaking the talk page pattern at this very moment. Oo! Irony!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.111.3 (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Section about political moves to ban or restrict

A new section should be added about poltical moves to ban Aspartame. Use this ref to start with: [3] MaxPont (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! Information about similar situations in New Mexico and the UK could be included. However, I believe that it should go below the scientific sections since the scientific controversy has been ongoing since the 1970s and I think it has more interest to the readers. Twoggle (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename

I propose we rename the article from “Aspartame controversy” to “Aspartame conspiracy theory”, because frankly, there is no aspartame controversy. — NRen2k5, 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is still a controversy in the scientific literature. See, for example, "Direct and Indirect Cellular Effects of Aspartame on the Brain," European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 8 Aug 2007, pp. 1-12 or the Soffritti studies or on the other side of the issue, the Ajinomoto review in Critical Reviews in Toxicology in 2007. On the political front, there were hearings this week in Hawaii on a bill to ban aspartame sale. A similar bill was before the New Mexico legislature not too long ago. So, there is a controversy there as well. And online there are clearly controversies, in my opinion. So, I think the title should remain as it is. Twoggle (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You’re right. — NRen2k5, 10:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New scientific study to be integrated

From European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, "Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain" Reviewed here [4] MaxPont (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

More to integrate: A controversy in the UK involving supermarket Asda [5] MaxPont (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotation Changes

Its nice to have consistency in quotations, but each template and wikimarkup has its own advantages and disadvantages; each has their own role to fill. It also doesn't make an argument stand out more than another, I think that is just a subjective view. The quotation scheme will not make the article POV.68.148.164.166 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting your edit; it looked like you added some editorial comments, but what happened was the diffs got shifted to make some text look new. I just tried to revert myself but you beat me to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld and conspiracy theories

I reverted the addition of these to See also. There's a topic above on this. It might be good to add this (referenced) to the article, but I don't see much use to just tossing it in See also. The main article has two references on Donald Rumsfeld and the COI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#cite_note-18.II 02:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "PubMed8939194" :
  • [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8939194&dopt=Abstract ncbi, PubMed 8939194]
  • [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8939194&query_hl=2 ncbi PubMed 8939194]
• "PubMed3574137" :
  • {{cite journal |author=Stegink L, Filer L, Bell E, Ziegler E |title=Plasma amino acid concentrations in normal adults administered aspartame in capsules or solution: lack of bioequivalence |journal=Metabolism |volume=36 |issue=5 |pages=507–12 |year=1987 |pmid=3574137 |doi=10.1016/0026-0495(87)90052-7}}
  • [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3574137&query_hl=11 ncbi PubMed 3574137]
• "PubMed7854587" :
  • [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7854587&query_hl=41 ncbi PubMed 7854587]
  • {{cite journal |author=Olney, J. |title=Excitotoxins in Foods |journal=Neurotoxicology |volume=15 |issue=3 |pages=535–544 |year=1994 |pmid=7854587}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Government Studies and FOIA Data

Repeated attempts have been made to remove U.S. FDA Government research and data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (obtained by Freedom of Information Act) as a reference to the [aspartame] and [Aspartame Controversy] articles. Research and data provided by the U.S. Government meets the criteria for Reliable Sources. I would hate to see Wikipedia have a policy that no U.S. Government research or data be used as references.

The Bressler study had it's scientific finding just like numerous other government references in the articles. We will have to remove all text and references related to aspartame and government findings if we cannot include the Bressler study and, for that matter, studies on both side of the issue produced by the U.S. Government. That would include any FDA and European Food Safety findings as well. I would prefer to keep government research findings mentioned in this and other Wikipedia articles.

The data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and obtained from FOIA requests has been discuss in books and available for years. Many people have copies of these documents. I did not see any Wikipedia rule for not using U.S. Government reports obtained with a FOIA request.

Now if the whole issue is that these Government documents happen to reside on a domain that is not considered independent, then that has been something that has already been raised and dealt with and we can move these documents to another domain (archive.org for example). In addition, images of the original can be posted along with the text for verification. These documents can be obtained from the FDA. Pre-approval research and documents are not freely available at government web sites, but can be ordered.

Let's try to find a solution to using government documents as references here before moving the conversation to another part of Wikipedia.Twoggle (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a discussion was started about [aspartame] and [aspartame controversy] on a Wikipedia page unrelated to aspartame. There was no consensus reached in those very short discussions. However, my understanding has been that this has always been the page to discuss edits to these articles.

If there is some objection to government references and Editors of the article disagree, then I think it is best to discuss the changes before. If it is just a matter of the domain or the format of the government document, then please take the steps recommended by Wikipedia and clarify and discuss it. Twoggle (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated thoughts: In order to edit the government references (or remove all government references completely), I think a discussion is absolutely necessary so we can understand each other's concerns. It's almost impossible to fully express or understand each other's concerns in the "Edit summary" of the Edit/Revert to the article. If we use the Talk page, we may be able to keep govenment references and keep the article from becoming extremely one-sided (i.e., POV). Twoggle (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Toggle, the FDA is a reliable source, no doubt, but riddle me this: how do you know that the "Bressler Report" over at http://www.presidiotex.com/bressler/index.html is authentic? Who even maintains that website, and how do you know that they've faithfully transcribed the report from the actual FDA document obtained by FOIA (if it really exists) to the html shown on the website? And how do you know the website's interpretations of the FDA findings are valid? Whose interpretations are they (i.e. "The Bressler report is one of the most damning documents about aspartame in existence. .."--according to whom)? Presidiotex.com is self-published source and certainly has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy and thus is not a reliable source. If you can find the Bressler report or even some official mention of it on the FDA website (fda.gov), in the public docket (www.regulations.gov), in the federal register (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/), or in the archives of a newspaper, then maybe that could be used as a source. But what we've got right now is some anonymous, self-published website claiming that there's such a document as "the Bressler report" and offering not actual scans of the document (except for a lone, disembodied table of dubious provenance and relevance), but an unverified transcription of it as well as some interpretation by an unknown individual with unknown credentials. WP has higher standards than this. Yilloslime (t) 16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"how do you know that the "Bressler Report" over at http://www.presidiotex.com/bressler/index.html is authentic?"

Because I and many others have taken the time to order a copy from the FDA / US Government.

"Who even maintains that website, and how do you know that they've faithfully transcribed the report from the actual FDA document obtained by FOIA"

I do not care so much what is on that website. I do care that U.S. government documents can be used as references and made available as a resource for Wikipedia readers. Anyone can order this report using the existing law (FOIA), so it is available to those who want to obtain it.

"If you can find the Bressler report or even some official mention of it on the FDA website...."

I can order the Bressler report as many have. I don't think it has to be in one of the select locations you have mentioned. I have seen it mentioned in various goverment documents (GAO document, hearings, news articles, state resolution, etc.).

I agree about moving it off that site and even offering a scanned version and maybe a text version for easier reading. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you would like to see a scan and have it moved to an independent site. If that's the case we can take care of it without removing any government references! Twoggle (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is has to be a reliable, published source. Is this published by the fda? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is published by the FDA. The FDA asked a team of their scientists, led by Jerome Bressler to conduct this review and publish the results. As I said earlier, it is mention by the GAO, state legislatures, US government hearings, news articles, and by scientists who have written on the subject. However, it cannot simply be downloads off a government site, but it can be ordered. The same it true for some studies, other government documents, some news articles, some books, etc.

Tom, do you agree that if we move it to an independent site and offer a scanned copy as well (as well as perhaps links to mentions to the report ... or not) that this will solve the problem? Thanks! Twoggle (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If its the work of the Federal Gov't, then it's not copyrighted, and you should be able to scan it and upload it to commons.wikipedia or wikimedia.org for all to see. Yilloslime (t) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if you don't upload it to wikisource (the more appropriate place), it is perfectly acceptable to cite an off-line ref. That should be better than using a dubious web-source. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource--that's the one I was trying to remember! Yilloslime (t) 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Like Rifleman says above. With or without scans, we need detailed publication data. Title, author, dates, publication numbers, etc. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Bressler findings were cited extensively throughout the GAO report: GAO/HRD-87-46, but even they did not mention provide all of the citation data. These are internal FDA documents. I can scan the top page which mentions the priority of the investigation, the date, distribution list, and has Jerome Bressler's signature. In addition, the GAO report can be cited as well since the Bressler Report is used to list concerns and this GAO report quotes a selection of these concerns. I could also scan the summary of findings of one of the studies since that is only eight pages long. Twoggle (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with citing GAO/HRD-87-46 and the pdf linked there. The "internal FDA documents" sound like they are by definition not published. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• "U.S. GAO - HRD-87-46 Food and Drug Administration: Food Additive Approval Process Followed for Aspartame, June 18, 1987". Retrieved 2008-09-05.

Okay, the FDA documents were published for CFSAN at the FDA. Twoggle (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Any luck with title, author, dates, publication numbers, etc.? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes & No. As I mentioned, it was published for use by the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) -- at their request, not for the general public. Author: Jerome Bressler, Date of investigation: 4/25/1977 - 8/4/1977, date of report: 8/7/1977. No external publication # needed though to obtain report. A request asking for the 8/7/1977 FDA report by Jerome Bressler on study E-77/78 (P.T. 988573) for the FDA Bureau of Foods is all that is needed. That is how everyone else has obtained it from the FDA. Maybe I should scan some of the initial pages when I get back into the office next week? Then you can see what I mean. What do you think? Twoggle (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like there is no published document called the "Bressler Report." Does anyone cite it in their academic papers or include it in a bibliography? Do no libraries have it? Whatever you would scan would be the same as what's already up at presidiotex.com, dorway.com, and rense.com, wouldn't it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tom Harrison. And I'm not convinced it was 'published'.

Okay, so the secondary source (GAO Report) that quotes extensively from the Bressler Report is an acceptable source. There is another published government document with testimony from an FDA Toxicologist who led a study of Searle's research and who quotes extensively from that FDA report. It meets the exact same requirements as the GAO Report. I can scan it in and include page numbers for the area where the FDA studies/reports are quoted from. Even better, the two secondary sources have slightly different slants so it keeps an NPOV article. Twoggle (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the scans. If a source is published, I'll order it from the library, and anyone else can do the same. If it's not published, we can't use it for a source, with or without scans. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I've done everything I could to provide full copies of government documents wherever possible. I will continue to do that.

So, if it's okay, I'll propose a reference list (using your suggested GAO reference format) and some minor wording changes to match the reference terminology. For example, the references use the term "FDA Task Force" or something similar (not looking at those documents at the moment) rather than "Bressler Report." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoggle (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat my query: If you agree, I'll propose a reference list using your suggested GAO reference format) and some minor wording changes to match the reference terminology. Then we can be done with this disagreement and move on to the next one without any edit wars. Thanks! Twoggle (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I thought we were having a discussion and I was waiting for you to agree (see above) before I submitted a suggestion and then we might have a consensus! Perhaps you were waiting for me for some reason. So, I reverted back to the original so we can finish our discussion. Here is what I propose --

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Two U.S. FDA Task Force teams investigated the pre-approval research conducted by the manufacturer and found missing raw data, errors, discrepancies in available data, and "a pattern of conduct which compromises the scientific integrity of the studies."

REFERENCE "U.S. GAO - HRD-87-46 Food and Drug Administration: Food Additive Approval Process Followed for Aspartame, June 18, 1987". pp. 94–96. Retrieved 2008-09-05.

REFERENCE Testimony of Dr. Adrian Gross, Former FDA Investigator to the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, November 3, 1987. Hearing title: "NutraSweet Health and Safety Concerns." Document # Y 4.L 11/4:S.HR6.100, page 430-439.

The PBOI chose to ignore the FDA Task Force reports.

REFERENCE Brannigan, Vincent, "The First FDA Public Board of Inquiry: The Aspartame Case," in Law and Science in Collaboration (J.D. Nyhart & Milton M. Carrow eds. 1983). @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I will include images to the 2nd reference when I can scan them. What do you think? Do we have a consensus? Thanks. Twoggle (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I did want to point out that the text above has a negative slant as it must describing the history, but finishes with a more positive slant as it also accurately describes the history: "Citing data from a Japanese study that had not been available to the members of the PBOI[citation needed], Hayes approved aspartame for use in dry goods." Twoggle (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I'll assume that by this weekend my suggestions are okay and I'll start making the suggested changes. Thanks! Twoggle (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Links

In September 2005, in order to avoid spamming anti- or pro-aspartame links, the discussion came to a consensus to list a small number of prominent links on each side and relevent to what was discussed in the article. This was to prevent the article from becoming an industry PR piece or an anti-aspartame tirade. I think we need to stick to this, otherwise the article will degenerate into a competition between pro- and anti-aspartame forces (as it has been in the distant past). Twoggle (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that approach, but for now I've replaced one with another to keep it 'even'. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We tried just a list of links, but it was a mess of POV links. I suggested alternating pro- and anti-aspartame links in the list, but ended up agreeing with someone who wanted to separate them out. The original idea was to cycle the links so that pro-aspartame links would not always be listed first. Then the list of links got way to long and Editors just kept adding to the list on both sides. In addition, a long list of links is unfair to the side that gets pushed down the web page. So, the consensus was to try to limit each section to the list of most prominent links on each side. I focused on suggesting links that provide huge repositories of information on each side. Twoggle (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Political call to ban Aspartame in the Philippines

Newsarticle that could be integrated in the article. [6] (Sunstar: Lawmaker wants artificial sweeteners banned, Sep 4, 2008) MaxPont (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links and references

Tom,

As I said in the revert, I disagreed with most of the many removals that you performed in a single edit:

a) Removal of dorway.com repository link that I recently edited. It meets the criteria under: Wikipedia:External links. In addition, it is the biggest repository of documents related to aspartame on the Internet. ;

b) Dr. Walton's review of peer reviewed research is certainly a citable document even though he choose not to publish it in a journal. He is a recognized expert on the issue since he has published peer-reviewed research on the subject and been invited to give papers an aspartame conference. More importantly, given that this page is about "aspartame controversy" and this is one of the main controversies where some feel that industry studies were biased (Walton) and the manufacturer has responded and tried to demonstrated how Walton's findings were mistaken. This is a significant part of the controversy and I think should be included. The sources are about the controversy itself. I do not think that all documents on anti-aspartame sites should be removed, but documents on pro-aspartame sites should be kept, or visa versa. Note: This was removed as a reference twice.

c) I don't understand what the removal of the Elsas testimony was for. It is from a U.S. Government document. Perhaps you want me to provide the document #, etc. and scan it in to re-include the reference? Please let me know and I can do that.

d) I agree with removing that dorway.com reference to the Monte study, but I think we should replace it to a link to a reproduction of the peer-reviewed study on the author's own web page: http://thetruthaboutstuff.com/pdf/(1)%20Aspartame%20Methanol%20and%20the%20Public%20Health%201984.pdf

e) I agree with removing the dorway.com link to the UPI newpaper article. Over the next few months, I will see if the author of the article can find a way to reproduce it on his own page or the UPI page.

f) I propose the changing the removal of reference #23 (Bressler Report) to the other two references we/I proposed in our last and unfinished discussion.

Please note that I believe despite our differences on references and edits, I think we *may* be not far from consensus ... I hope. Twoggle (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. -- I think there is a good chance we can reach consensus on a, c, d, e, and f above. "a" because the external link meets Wiki guidelines in this case. "c" because we already agreed for allowing government documents, but you prefer a different format. "d" because it's a peer-reviewed article moved to a recognized expert's web page. "e" because I agree with you about removing it -- at least until we can get it reprinted either by the author or perhaps in a government document. "f" because we were very near consensus already on this issue. So, if you agree on a, c, d, e and f, please let me know. That would only leave "b" (above) to discuss! Twoggle (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom, I'll assume that by this weekend my suggestions are okay and I'll start making the suggested changes. Thanks! Twoggle (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

More critical RS references to include

This is an excellent compilation of quotes from various sources about the risks with aspartame. Some of them could be integrated in the article [7]. I think they reflect the critical opinion quite well and could be used as examples of the viewpoint of the worldview of the critiques. MaxPont (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is balanced with quotes or a page on the other side, I think it's a good idea. What does everyone else think? Twoggle (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"Uncited and POV Material"

DHeyward, I disagree with the large parts of the text removal, but agree with some of your ideas. 1) One of the controversies surrounds reported effects. It is crucial for readers to know the sources of reported effects as listed. But I would strongly agree that each of these five sources need references. This should be fairly easy to add. Is this what you were getting at in this section? 2) There is a debate in the scientific community about the quality of the aspartame research on both sides of the issue. This relates to the length of studies, use or non-use of real-world aspartame, possible improper testing procedures (on both sides of the issue), etc. Since this is about the controversy, I think it is appropriate to include it. 3) I agree with removing the sentence about an alert related to aspartame in a U.S. Air Force Magazine. While there have been blubs with warnings about aspartame in numerous flying-related magazines and it is part of the controversy, it raises an issue that is not discussed in detail in the article. Unless we discuss it in a little more detail, it probably should be removed in my opinion. 4) Changing from "Some scientists" to "Scientists" makes the article more POV. Unless we use the exact same terminology on both sides of the issue, it might degenerate into a much more biased article. I used "Some scientists" because it is not all scientists or even most scientists that believe one way or another. 5) I don't think there is anything wrong with making a very concise list of common methanol poisoning symptoms, but the sentence you removed just mentioned one symptom. A short list of the most common symptoms might be helpful. What do you think? 6) I think you inadvertently completely removed one side of the argument related to aspartame and methanol. 7) If we are going to mention that Tephly believes that the researchers were not measuring formaldehyde, it is NPOV to mention that the researchers stand by their view that they were measuring formaldehyde. I agree that we should not conclude that one set of researchers is right and the other wrong. I believe that the researchers on each side need to be fairly represented.

As for references for sources for reported symptoms, here are some ideas:

a) Reports and analysis of case histories in scientific journals and at medical conferences

Johns, Donald R.. "Migraine Provoked By Aspartame," (Letter to the Editor), New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 314, August 14, 1986, page 456, 1986.

Roberts, H.J., "Reactions Attributed to Aspartame-Containing Products: 551 Cases," Journal of Applied Nutrition, Volume 40, page 85-94, 1988.

Walton, Ralph G., "The Possible Role of Aspartame in Seizure Induction," Presented at "Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function." Proceedings of the First International Meeting on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function, Washington, D.C., May 8-10, 1987. Center for Brain Sciences and Metabolism Charitable Trust, P.O. Box 64, Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA 02142. Reprinted in "Dietary Phenyalalnine and Brain Function," c1988, Birkhauser, Boston, MA USA, page 159-162, 1988.

Blumenthal, H.J., D.A. Vance, "Chewing Gum Headaches," Headache, Volume 37, Number 10, pages 665-666, 1997.

McCauliffe, D.P., K. Poitras. "Aspartame-Induced Lobular Panniculitis," Journal of the American Academy of Dermitology, Volume 24, page 298-300, 1991.

Drake, M.E., "Panic Attacks and Excessive Aspartame Ingestion" (Letter to the Editor), Lancet, September 13, 1986, page 631, 1986.

b) Symptoms reported to the FDA and other governmental agencies

"Adverse Reactions Associated With Aspartame Consumption," Department of Health & Human Services Memorandum, April 1, 1993, Reprinted in preface of "Bittersweet Aspartame: A Diet Delusion" by Barbara Alexander Mullarkey, NutriVoice, P.O. Box 946, Oak Park, Illinois 60303, (708) 848-0116.

"Evaluation of Consumer Complaints Related to Aspartame Use," Division of Nutrition, Center for Health Promotion and Education, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA 30333, November 1984.

c) Symptoms reported to non-governmental organizations, researchers, and physicians

Testimony of Janet Smith, Executive Director, Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, November 3, 1987 regarding "NutraSweet Health and Safety Concerns." Document # Y 4.L 11/4:S.HR6.100, pages 479-480.

Walton, Ralph G. "Seizure and Mania After High Intake of Aspartame," Psychosomatics, Volume 27, page 218-220, 1986.

Novick, Nelson Lee, "Aspartame-Induced Granulomatous Panniculitis," Annals of Internal Medicine, Volume 102, Number 2, pages 206-207, 1995.

d) Reports of symptoms and health conditions in the media

"FDA Denies CNI Aspartame Petition; More Clearances Granted," Food 1986. Food Chemical News, July 28, 1986, page 44.

e) Self-reported cases on the Internet.

http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/Victims/victims.html (Obviously, there are a huge number of self-reported cases on the Internet -- whether one agrees or disagrees that they are caused by aspartame. But we can just not list a reference or suggest a reference to a google search if the above domain example is not a good idea.) Item "e" above is a significant place that people find self-reported case histories and this is part of the controversy. Twoggle (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this article include undue weight, bad sources, and original research by synthesis. Some of Twoggle's suggestions have merit, but the version of 21 October is a better base from which to advance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss each area before removing only anti-aspartame sections. Obviously, each side needs to be given equal weight. There is certainly no reason to remove sections if there is a bad citation or the wording has to be adjusted. Let's start by discussing one thing, hopefully we can quickly reach an agreement and then move on to the next thing. For example, do we want to say "Some scientists" or "scientists" throughout the article on both the pro- and anti-aspartame side of the argument? I think "some scientists" is more accurate and since we don't have an exact percentage, it is a good choice of words. But I don't care so much as long as we're consistent and don't choose words to disparage one side or the other. What do you think? Twoggle (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Bashing

This article is very poorly written. There is no discussion of the actual chemical formula of aspartame and how it compares in chemical formula to other very potent hypnotics such as phenobarbital or cocaine. As for a "controversy", that is the biggest one of all! Aspartame is a drug, it was never intended as a food additive.

There is a great deal made out of the "food additive approval process", when in fact the real controversy is about taking drugs such as aspartame and getting them approved as food additives. According to its discover, aspartame was a failed ulcer drug which happened to be hyper-sweet in taste, so the less rigorous "food additive" approval process was used to try and find a market for it. This process did NOT require extensive neurological human studies, and the controversy is how a substance that is almost identical in chemical formula (carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, nitrogen atoms, and oxygen atoms) to heroin, cocaine, quaaludes, or downers(phenobarbital) could first be petitioned as a "food additive", and then not tested for "neurological effects".

The drug industry and the pharma industry certainly laugh at the shallow nature of this article, as they know that no one editing it has any real clue what is going on. The differences between cocaine, heroin, and downers is only in the number of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen atoms, and yet they are all "hypnotics". Yet a similar set of differences that creates "aspartame" is looked at as "gee, no problem". That is because aspartame is used in very small quantities as an additive because it is so sweet...but if you keep on putting it in everything, the dose goes up and up.

There is no mention made of the history of cocaine as a food additive, and how it had to be pulled once neurotoxic effects became apparent. Cocaine was once "a controversial food additive". Why doesn't cocaine have its own Wikipedia page called "The Cocaine Controversy"? Because it wasn't developed in a lab, or millions spent trying to find a market for it. Why is every failed drug that looks like cocaine, heroin, phenobarbital, or quaaludes being applied for as an "artificial sweetener" food additive? Is that not controversial enough?

Look, FDA and all the "experts" know what the hell is happening. Someone took a drug which is similar to all known hypnotics and sedatives, got it approved as a food additive instead, and all hell broke loose. Now this product is out in the general population, where those who ingest it end up with all kinds of hypnotic effects (confused about thirst vs. hunger, sedation, grand ideas) and FDA and the makers claim "no harm". Well, if there is no harm then why if you stop taking it does your thirst return to normal, your energy bounce back, your hunger drop, and your thoughts become clearer. There are tens of thousands of anecdotal reports like this.

Look, this is "cocaine" in food all over again. 100 years later, and we never learn from history. Well, some of us can learn, but then we aren't being paid to "not learn", so we aren't afraid to illuminate the controversy some more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.35.157 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see your Talk page for important messages. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI to 67.68.35.157 -- A couple of years ago, this aspartame controversy article was moved from the aspartame article. The aspartame article has chemical formula information. Yes, the history of aspartame has extensive controversy that could be discussed. At one time, the FDA wrote a letter to the U.S DOJ requesting a possible fraud prosecution based on the pre-approval studies of the manufacturer. But on the other side of the coin, the current FDA officials do not feel that way. I think it's a good idea to be as informative and NPOV as possible -- present both sides of the aspartame controversy even though there could a desire of both pro- and anti-aspartame people to eliminate one side of the argument. But I think adding some of the controversy surrounding the history is an interesting idea as long as we could keep it NPOV. Twoggle (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think all of the so-called controversy is historical. There is enough usage and studies to conclude overwhelmingly that it is a safe and an effective replacement sweetener. This is the overwhelming scientific opinion. Any controversy should be in the historical context, not as a fringe outlet for extreme min ority viewpoints that are not shared by the scientific community. --DHeyward (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of recent research and controversy on both sides of the issue. For example, last year a number of prominent scientists, (2 NIEHS, 1 Harvard, etc.) called on the FDA to re-review aspartame and possibly ban it's use (See: SCIENCE VOL 317 6 JULY 2007 page 31.) On the other side of the issue, the FDA continues to insist that aspartame is safe. Then there was a review published last year by a team of scientists in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition that concluded, "From all of the adverse effects caused by this product, it is suggested that serious further testing and research be undertaken to eliminate any and all controversies surrounding this product." (EJCN; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866). On the other side of the issue, Ajinomoto funded by review and published in Critical Reviews in Toxiology that said that aspartame is safe. In addition, there have been recent hearings in the New Mexico and Hawaii legislature about banning aspartame in those states. (See for example: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2008/Testimony/HB2680_HLT_POST_02-08-08_.pdf ). The Ramazzini Institute studies are within the last few years and have raised numerous scientific issues related to the controversy. I don't think that scientists on either side of the issue are part of some "fringe" and I don't recall ever seeing that kind of reference in the scientific literature. Twoggle (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

removal of section ?

In the article the part Conflict of interest is still shown. However, the results date from 1996 and the main body of the aspartame literature dates from after that date. The section thus is heavily outdated. There are also no scientific articles of Dr. Walton after 1998 at all and he is no longer emplyed by the university. I propose removal of this section here to the talk page, so not to loose it, but it is so outdated that it does no longer fit in the main article to my opinion.Knorrepoes (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In cases where there is recent information, it should either replace older material or be added after it (to form a history of events). When there is no newer information, the older material should be kept. Wikipedia is here to provide the reader with the most up-to-date information available. This isn't a newspaper - we don't only provide information about current events. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear that this information is historical and whether it applies to more recent research though. Verbal chat 17:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"recommended further investigation"

The current second sentence of the lead reads "Many studies have recommended further investigation into the possible connection between aspartame ...". Recommending further investigation is a catch all cop out which is now banned in many medical journals as it adds nothing to any debate and is uninformative, plus other reasons (see the book "Bad Science by Ben Goldacre). I feel this phrase should be removed from the lead for similar reasons and for being weasely. Verbal chat 17:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Took a pass

I took a pass at this article. Here is my final result. I do not pretend it is the best, but I removed a LOT of problematic wording, weasling, equivocation, poorly sourced/vetted material, and some material that blatantly lied. It's still rough, but it's an improvement.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's an improvement, thanks. I restored a paragraph that I felt you removed too hastily. Please take care when removing text that cites reputable research journals and PubMed sources. If you find that the text misrepresents the sources, the text should be fixed, not wholesale deleted along with the sources. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the sources are being misused in such a way that they may not belong in the article at all. I don't think that this is what happened in this case, but too often people think that just because a source is good it necessarily belongs in Wikipedia. Just 2 (perhaps unrelated) cents. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think something happened weird here. This wasn't a partial revert at all! Anyway, I tried to make my edits piecemeal enough so that you could undo individual ones. Please do that.

In particular, most of the material you restored was not citing reputable journals nor PubMed sources. Most of it was citing innuendo and private websites.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AAargh! Something went wrong. I had intended to restore one paragraph you deleted, and it looks like I reverted a whole lot more. I must have been working from the wrong version. Thanks for re-reverting me. I'm going to try again.

No Problemo! This is the most friendly revert war I've ever been involved in. Please feel free to revert the appropriate paragraph. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, you should probably take a look at the corresponding paragraph in the aspartame article. I don't think it really captures the content of this article in a balanced way. Oh, and three cheers for you for getting onto this. There's far too much hysteria and far too little attention to the literature in the general public perception of aspartame, with obvious consequences to the accuracy and neutrality of the corresponding WP articles. -Kieran (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the edits (perhaps well-intentioned) produced a one-sided article as it removed most of the arguments on the other side. I request that we discuss each edit to make sure that both sides are represented fairly before massive removal of text. In this way, we can prevent edit wars and Wikipedia keeps its reputation of consensus building rather than mass edits to promote one viewpoint of a significant controversy. Twoggle (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is the other "side" simply doesn't "exist" as you would have it. The "controversy" is one that has taken place due to advocacy of a a few health nuts and a particularly strident organization, but they have been unsuccessful in making their case in the peer-reviewed literature while those opposing them have been successful. Therefore, we must, to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia, according to WP:UNDUE and WP:PARITY excise the poor resources of the anti-aspartame crowd when they fall into the category of unreliably sourced. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source

The Martini quote was sourced from an unreliable partisan source, just like everything else she writes. Find a V & RS. -- Fyslee / talk 06:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The unreliable H.J. Roberts is also quoted in a non-Pubmed listed source. This article needs its sources checked using WP:MEDRS guidelines. -- Fyslee / talk 01:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Magnuson review

An excellent review that should be used:

Formatted for copying:

• <ref name=Magnuson>Magnuson BA, ''et al''. "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671 Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies.]" ''Crit Rev Toxicol.'' 2007;37(8):629-727.</ref>

Active ref: -- Fyslee / talk 02:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

MedCab

Hi all. As you can see, there is currently a MedCab case open regarding this article. I invite anyone who wishes to participate to come by and read the ground rules so we can get the dispute settled as quickly as possible. [ roux ] [x] 07:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab has been closed; named party does not wish to participate. I advise an RFC on the article if issues continue here. [ roux ] [x] 17:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's located here. -- Fyslee / talk 01:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view?

This article is stuffed to the gills with accusations of conspiracy and CoI of U.S. government officials as a justification for its existence, but it totally ignores the approval of aspartame (and reaffirmations in 2002 and 2006) by the European Union's Scientific Committee for Food, Food Standards Australia/New Zealand, Health Canada, the UN's FAO and the World Health Organization. Are all of these scientific bodies also part of the conspiracy? Horologium (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are! That's how these things work! :) All of these approvals should definitely be linked in the article. — Scientizzle 20:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Critical examination of conspiracy theories?

"The conspiracy theories, claims of aspartame dangers, and the source of those claims has been the subject of critical examination."

By whom? One article on Media-Awareness.ca? Industry websites such as Aspartame.org? The conspiracy facts have not been "critically" debunked anywhere on or offline.

A few hours ago I removed the above section and reference on "Alleged conspiracy and dangers" (which previously said all aspartame conspiracies can be traced back to "one woman"), however it has been reverted. FactFinder55 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is relevant, informative, and sourced. It should remain. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Are there any outstanding issues that have not been addressed? If not I'll remove the tag. Thanks, Verbal chat 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Now a very POV article IMO, but as you know, I have requested dispute resolution in regards to conduct and how that led to certain changes to content. I would be very happy to discuss each NPOV point, but I suggest we wait for outcome of the dispute. Let me know if you want me to bring up an NPOV point. Twoggle (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Either mention specifics or the tag will be removed. Verbal chat 07:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a very large number of scientific and factual inaccuracies now and other issues that cause serious NPOV problems. I don't know if you want to discuss one at a time or several at once. So, I just list one to start: There is a reference to a article published in one of the world's top scientific journals that showed that there is an equally split opinion of members of the Society of Neuroscience on the potential long-term detrimental effects of food-borne excitotoxins (a category that aspartame falls into). [8]. Therefore, all removal of one side of the issue related to aspartic acid creates POV since there is strong evidence of a equal split of the scientific community. For example, there is now a listing of references that found no effect of excitotoxins in primates, but the reference to research finding an effect (which was accepted in a FASEB review as their finding, by the way) was removed. Another example is: "The measurements of the blood plasma levels of aspartic acid after ingestion of aspartame and monosodium glutamate do not indicate to human subject researchers a cause for concern." This is POV because it's stated as fact when there other studies (cited in the same Wikipedia article!) showing a large spike in plasma levels of aspartic acid and reviews cited showing a large concern about such spikes (~50% of the Society of Neuroscience). Another example in that same section is the wording of sentences so that it appears one side is factually accurate (when there are really major disagreements in the scientific community) and that just "one group" is the outlier.

Please let know if you want to discuss this issue in more detail or think I should start bringing up other NPOV-related issues. Twoggle (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For some reason my institution’s Science subscription is on hold, so I can't read the article you've linked to. Therefore, I'll assume that you're accurately portraying its contents. First, that Science news piece is from 1990. Since then, there have been approximately 620 publications on aspartame that can be found in PubMed. Recent reviews that indicate generally sufficient safety include PMID 17828671, PMID 15367404, PMID 8052458, PMID 8140158 (here are reviews by The NutraSweet Company: PMID 12180494 & PMID 7838988; also interesting: treating osteoarthritis via aspartame PMID 9630831). The WHO/FAO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives & European Food Safety Authority recently indicated that aspartame has been thoroughly tested and is relatively risk-free PMID 17397982. I think you're overstating the case. If "~50% of the Society of Neuroscience" (of which I am a member) in 1990 expressed concern over spikes of plasma levels of aspartic acid, there seems to be a surprising paucity of follow-up publications that highlight this as a problem with aspartame. — Scientizzle 22:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

My statements on this one issue and the above-mentioned POV issues in the article is specifically focused on the aspartic acid (Excitotoxicity) issues related to aspartame. Members of the Society of Neuroscience are *the* experts on the effects of excitotoxins, discovered their effects and have been researching them for decades. While I am not a member of the Society of Neuroscience, I have collaborated with members on the issue of excitotoxins. The policy on weighting for Wikipedia articles states: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." Since that piece from 1990, there is no evidence that either viewpoint is in the majority from experts in the field. Members of the Society of Neuroscience tend to focus on testing specific excitotoxins (e.g., aspartate, glutamate) and there are many, many studies on those excitotoxins since 1990, some showing concerns and some not. Not that it relates to my concern about excitotoxins, but out of the six reviews you listed, 3 were funded by the manufacturer (NutraSweet/Ajinomoto) (yes, they have an opinion about their product), one was a 1994 review about aspartame and body weight, one was a review about aspartame and cancer which is long out-of-date since numerous studies on both side of the issue have been published since then, and one is about aspartame and hyperactivity which is not discussed in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoggle (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Twoggle's reply is unconvincing; thanks Scientizzle. This is a historical artefact and placed in context does not effect the current weighting. Any further problems not yet dealt with? Verbal chat 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I realize that it is unconvincing to you, but I reiterate the policy: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." Since 1990 are their any surveys of experts related to aspartame and excitotoxins that show that one side is in the majority? Please remember, it's supposed to be easy to show that one side is in the majority if that truely is the case. Twoggle (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

First, to avoid WP:SYNTH violation, a source must directly link aspartic acid from aspartame to the etiology of a condition. The references I provided, and others like those listed below, assert that aspartame is generally considered safe. You claim that "[s]ince that piece from 1990, there is no evidence that either viewpoint", regarding aspartame-mediated aspartic acid excitotoxicity, "is in the majority from experts in the field". Aspartame+excitotoxicity gathers only one hit from PubMed, Olney's '94 paper (PMID 7854587). As in all science, one must assume the null hypothesis without evidence to the contrary--therefore to allude that a lack of studies of studies on a specific topic is indicative of a mixed consensus is incorrect. However, I can cite, for example:

• the most recent review (PMID 17828671) clearly states "The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior."
• International Programme on Chemical Safety and confirmative re-evaluation
• Health Canada, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the CDC, FDA, etc.

These suggest that the current "mainstream" opinion of relevant scientific & health organizations is that aspartame is generally considered safe. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate otherwise. There are certainly publications that make claims against the safety of aspartame...these should be addressed with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE in mind. — Scientizzle 00:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is specifically about the aspartame controversy. Presenting viewpoints from both sides of a controversy is appropriate depending upon weighting (which is what we're discussing now). I agree that the article should not draw a factual conclusion about the effects (or no effects) of aspartic acid from aspartame without specific research linking aspartic acid from aspartame a condition. The Aspartic Acid section prior to 10/26/08 listed both scientific sides of view, or in more appropriate terminology: both sides of the controversy since that is the subject matter of the article.

I do not generally use PubMed as a sole source of finding research because it is easy to miss countless studies. There are many studies on aspartame and excitotoxicity but you just have to choose your terms more appropriately and don't rely on PubMed summaries. As a member of the Society of Neuroscience, I'm sure you focus on the articles themselves when you have time.

"the most recent review (PMID 17828671)" -- is not the most recent review, but it was funded by the manufacturer and, as I said, they are entitled to their opinion (and have it represented appropriately in Wikipedia articles). A more recent review of aspartame effects on the brain and independent from the manufacturer is: (PMID 17684524). But neither of these reviews were done by researchers who directly study excitotoxins. So, my point is that the most recent evidence for weighting as it related to the aspartame controversy and excitotoxins is that their is a split amongst neuroscientists. In addition, there are two recent reviews, one funded by the manufacturer (that you cited) claiming no problems with the excitotoxic part of aspartame and a more recent one claiming problems with the excitotoxic part of aspartame.

I don't know why you posted two links to the 1970's pre-approval research of aspartame as any evidence related to weighting for the aspartame controversy and excitotoxicity issue. As you probably know, the FDA requested Fraud prosecution against the manufacturer for their pre-approval research. You linked to a summary of the CDC review that has no listed author (but the summary was written by the FDA not the CDC). It is true that government agencies have put out opinions on aspartame and that should be represented in the article (and is represented), but that has nothing to do with weighting as it relates to the aspartame controversy and excitotoxins. Twoggle (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're going to raise some new issues, can you please stop tagging the article as POV. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you think I added the tag before? Now that I've added the tag, I can present the evidence of each POV issue (starting with the Aspartic Acid section) and my suggestions for remedy per WP:NPOVD.

Original research

There is (or was) a controversy about Aspartame if the reliable sources say so. There is not a controversy just because some unreliable sources say so. That there are any number of studies on plasma levels of aspartic acid seems kind of beside the point. Though the article is now much better, there is still too much synthesizing of primary sources in support of the fringe thesis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The controversy is historical and was not of the nature the fringe sources claim. Verbal chat 10:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We need some reliable sources for exactly what any 'aspartame controversy' is about, where the debate is focused, who the parties are, etc. I've added a citation request to the section Reported effects. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have just cited the Washington Post which is a reliable source confirming the existence of a substantial controversy. If you think there is some OR then you need to be more specific. I shall remove the tag until some specifics are forthcoming. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved the tag to the particular section where I added the citation request. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Continued from above. My first NPOV point was focused very specifically on the Aspartic Acid section and the issues that were discussed in the article as it relates to excitotoxins. Also, so people reading my comments know: out of the four breakdown chemicals discussed in this article, I find two of the arguments more convincing by the industry and two by independent scientists. But I believe both sides of the controversy should be presented fairly and accurately.

Before I get back to weighting specifically on the Aspartame and excitotoxins issues, I want to point out what I feel happens when WP:NPOV is not sought prior to major changes in a controversial article. As the article currently stands, in the Aspartic Acid section, one of the references looks at aspartame's effects on the brain. This study was conducted by a team of scientists supported by the manufacturer. This is cited in Wikipedia as evidence of something despite the fact that the evidence these researchers displayed was a recropped picture from a completely different study with different types of primates. In addition, the same picture for both studies was from the wrong part of the brain. Finally, the researchers admitted that the primates with the pictured slice of brain had been given phencyclidine which protects against excitotoxic damage. Many people who are members of the Society of Neuroscience are aware of this and I would think it would be inappropriate (and perhaps embarrassing) for independent research showing the opposite effect to be removed from Wikipedia. It was that type of research that upset a number of members that I've spoken to and led to a FASEB panel to conclude: "The Expert Panel found no reason to question the validity of the lesions produced by Olney et al. (1972) but did have concerns about the interpretations of negative studies particularly with regard to the question of inadequate fixation." (FASEB Report: Analysis of Adverse Reactions ot Monosodium Glutamate (MSG); July 1995; FDA Contract # 223-92-2195, page 57 : Note: this section of the report was looking at the effect of excitotoxins on the brain of primates). If a secondary source was used that relies on the same type of research, that would not clear up WP:NPOV issues, IMO. But it's not only the use of this reference, but that the statement is presented as fact when clearly there is a split amongst the experts at the Society of Neuroscience and a FASEB Expert Panel (even with industry consultants!) accepted the research that was removed from this Wikipedia article.

As alluded to before, there is an enormous controversy on both sides, a fact that is admitted to in many reviews (government and scientific) as well as newspaper articles, etc. While I believe that it is incumbent upon Editors to present both sides of the controversy fairly since there are countless studies on both sides of the issue (including two very recent reviews drawing opposite conclusions) and obvious controversy in the general public with government hearings on banning aspartame (which I mentioned before) and even European Food Safety Agency being goaded/dragged into another review. Specifically, for the excitotoxin (Aspartic Acid) section of this controversy, there is no requirement of "absolute proof" of a split amongst the experts to give equal weighting (See WP:Weight), but in this case the we have evidence that there is a split amongst scientists at the Society of Neuroscience.

(Later Edit: Areas of NPOV violation: Bias; Undue Weight; Balance; and Impartial Tone.)

If my attempt at dispute resolution related to WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, WP:Disruptive Editing, etc. fails, I propose that we change the Aspartic Acid section back to a pre-October 26, 2008 version and discuss any concerns. That way, people outside of Wikipeida cannot point to a reliance of what they may call "scientific fraud" to push one POV and, of course, so that we can achieve WP:NPOV. Twoggle (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is against you. The article is being improved by the consensus of editors here. Returning to a biased version that favours your POV, while removing the good contributions and the consensus formed in the meantime, is not a solution and would probably be changed back. Your forum shopping and attacks against editors aren't improving the article. Give short descriptions of actual problem parts of the article so that we can move on. However, I don't think you'll be satisfied as the controversy is now a historical footnote. Verbal chat 21:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yours was the only comment on the very specific issues I just raised after I put up the POV tag just a few hours ago. If the consensus amongst Wikipedia Editors is to go against the split of opinions amongst experts at the Society of Neuroscience, the opinions of the FASEB Expert Panel (as I just pointed out) and instead make statements of fact based solely on industry-supported research that involved 'evidence' obtained from recropping of pictures from unrelated studies, inappropriate use of brain protective substances, and looking at the wrong portion of the brain, then I'd like to see those Editors publicly state their support for this type of consensus in the Talk section. Otherwise, there is no consensus, just two differing opinions. On the other hand, I am not proposing to remove this point of view, just to balance it with other research accepted by Members of the Society of Neuroscience and FASEB. Twoggle (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As a followup comment: Now that I added the tag a little while ago and have begun a discussion on the WP:NPOV dispute, I am very much looking forward to seeing how other Wikipedia Editors respond to the very specific points I am raising. Getting a bunch of Editors responding to these very specific points as agreeing or disagreeing or even wanting more information will be very useful and informative as far as I'm concerned.

The next area of WP:NPOV I'd like to discuss is the Methanol and formaldehyde section. I'll wait for comments on the Aspartic Acid section, but I will say that by removing the other side of the argument from the Methanol and formaldehyde section, readers (including perhaps children) are left with a text that implies that a provably-lethal dose of methanol (or aspartame) might be safe. It would be sad (or deadly) for science students to experiment with methanol or aspartame based on what is written on this Wikipedia page. Twoggle (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One more note of clarification from your earlier comment. The tag does not tag the article as POV, it merely states that there is an ongoing NPOV-related dispute. I think that's probably what you meant, though. Just to clarify.... Twoggle (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, one user disagreeing with consensus does not a dispute make. Your points are largely historical, and allegations of continued conspiracy are not supported by the evidence. Re the lethal dose comment, can you quote the text that you think is wrong and provide a V and RS that states it is wrong/what the lethal dose is? It might be better to put separate issues in new sections, and try to be more concise - then you'll get more input. Thanks. Verbal chat 09:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Any Editor can raise an NPOV dispute. I have very rarely raised such a dispute and do not do it lightly. According to WP:NPOVD, the disputed areas are then discussed on the Talk page until a consensus about the disputed points are reached. I will create a separate section from the point I posted the tag with the section title suggested by WP:NPOVD.

I provided my suggestion for fixing that section as well as the specific reason it violated the WP:NPOV policy. But I forgot to add the specific areas of that policy that I feel area being violated: Bias; Undue Weight; Balance; and Impartial Tone.

I was as concise as I could be -- maybe even too concise. It is difficult to detail all of the evidence related Bias, Undue Weight, Balance issues, and Impartial Tone issues on a complex scientific topic in just a few paragraphs. Yes, I prefer to get more input, including agreeing or disagreeing with my suggestions as that will provide very useful information to me and perhaps other readers. However, no response from Editors is a form of feekback as well. Twoggle (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Couple of additional points: 1) Text and references repeatedly removed from Aspartic Acid section with claim of "removing poorly vetted sources (again)" [9] included information about research findings from the neuroscientist who founded the field of Excitotoxicology, Dr. John Olney. 2) While it is relevant in relation to Bias, Undue Weight, Balance, and Impartial Tone (i.e., WP:NPOV) that there is split amongst Members of the Society of Neuroscience and that the FASEB Expert Panel accepted Olney's research (without removal!) and that the founder of the field has been publishing papers on the subject for nearly 40 years, I believe that none of that is necessary to allow an equal/balanced presentation on a page about a controversy according to Wikipedia rules: "Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." WP:NPOVD "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." WP:UNDUE Twoggle (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Air Force warning

I removed this because it was sort of hanging out there with no context, and there appears to be some source confusion:

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

If anyone can fix this an find a good home for it, great. — Scientizzle 02:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that this sentencte should stay. It is verifiable from a paper based RS. MaxPont (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It should only stay when it is also mentioned when the USAF revoked this alert. Also in 1992 ? Any source ?Knorrepoes (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you can find a ref for that. The more pressing issue is how to integrate it in the article. MaxPont (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Food Chemical News and other paper references are reliable

There seems to be some confusion regarding sourcing. Verifiability does not mean a source is online. Accessibility has never been the priority with verifiability. Food Chemical News, published by Informa, is plenty reliable. It is a trade publication that keeps people in the industry informed. No reason whatsoever for it to skew facts. There's no reason to expect the FDA to record every statement it has made, or put online every report that they have produced. I wish it were so, but government agencies frequently keep the documents and reports they don't want known about off their websites. Fyslee is taking the better approach: tag with {{Verify source}} if you want someone to start digging. However, the onus is on the individual wanting the source verified to take the first steps. If you're having serious trouble, go to WP:LIBRARY and ask for help. Check your local libraries archives. I've done it; I've gone to my nearby academic libraries and read journals from the 1930s. It is part of the research process. II | (t - c) 20:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying this down. I made the anonymous edit a little while ago. How is Food Chemical News not reliable? It is published by an academic publisher, Informa, for the industry. II | (t - c) 19:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To repeatedly claim that Food Chemical News is an unreliable source about this topic is bordering on bad faith.MaxPont (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have verified that the article in question is not about "Aspartame Controversy" referenced in this article. Rather, quotes were cherry-picked in order to make it seem that way. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is entitled "Aspartame Adverse Reaction Reports Down in 1994 From 1985 Peak". It is about exactly what it sounds like. The subsection in this article is entitled "Reported effects". Keeping this information out because the source doesn't state "aspartame controversy" is tantamount to wikilawyering. I've started a thread on the RS/N. II | (t - c) 08:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a source for aspartame, maybe. Since it isn't about the aspartame controversy it's the same problem that water fluoridation controversy had when people tried to insert statements about fluoride health risks that were unrelated to the water fluoridation controversy. Essentially it's original synthesis. If you think differently, report it to WP:NORN. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, does that imply that sources claiming that Aspartame is safe and harmless should also be removed because it is considered prohibited synthesis to add them? MaxPont (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(copied from RSN) The statements are being used to support the "ongoing" controversy stance, and to support the thesis that aspartame is controversial according to the FDA. This is not what the article says, as far as has been ascertained, and is synthesis. It is, maybe, a reliable source, but it isn't being used honestly. This may be accidental, but it is a violation of the project's policies. Verbal chat 13:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason that there is a controversy around aspartame are the alleged health effects. Wilcox states that "there is still a concern" and "some people have an intolerance to aspartame". That's exactly why there's a controversy, and Wilcox is clearly referencing the controversy. The synthesis argument doesn't make sense. Another thread started at WP:NOR/N. 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC) :ImperfectlyInformed forgot to sign 18:23, 15 November 2008)

The sources rightly dispute whether legitimate "controversy" over aspartame exists, or ever existed. To that end, adding a source that is pretending to support the claim of the existence of evidence for the only groups that claim a controversy exists essentially is offering a unduly weighted original research synthesis. The promotionalism of ImperfectlyInformed and MaxPont is plain. Just because they believe that there is a controversy doesn't mean that Wikipedia must adopt their claim -- and certainly their efforts to source their beliefs to various articles which are not about the "controversy" is essentially POV-promotionalism in defiance of WP:MAINSTREAM. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is bluffing. There is no Wikipedia policy called WP:MAINSTREAM.MaxPont (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To insist it's reliable, and to suggest the concern is that it's a print journal, misses the point. There is not, today, a significant controversy in the scientific community. The problem is less the source than the original research for which it's being (mis)used. Cherry-picking quotes and using them out of context to support a fringe position is not legitimate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Two new sections: political moves to ban Aspartame + UK supermarket withdrawal

The Aspartame controversy is not just a scientific controversy. The political and market process also needs to be covered. Below are drafts for two new sections that I believe should be integrated in the article:

Political moves to ban Aspartame

In Hawaii, state politicians wanted to ban Aspartame in 2008, even though there is a federal approval of the product, following a similar attempt by state legislators in New Mexico from 2007. In the Philippines, the small political party Alliance for Rural Concerns introduced House Bill 4747 in 2008 with the aim of having Aspartame banned from the food supply. In 2007, the Indonesian government considered banning Aspartame

Controversy in the UK and voluntary withdrawal by food retailers

Due to public concerns over artificial sweeteners, in 1997 the UK government introduced new regulations on sweeteners. These regulations say that manufacturers must state clearly next to the name of the product the phrase "with sweeteners". In the UK, the supermarket chain Sainsbury's removed Aspartame from the store-shelves in 2007, as well as the competitor ASDA and M&S. MaxPont (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: food retailers that "removed Aspartame from the store-shelves in 2007". Not true. Not even supported by the sources. And the Daily Mail is most certainly not a reliable source. For example, Sainsbury swapped Aspartame for sucralose in its own-brand low-calorie drinks.[10]. ASDA and M&S "promised" to remove it from own-brand goods in May 2007.[11]. Both ASDA and Sainsbury sell other brands. Colin°^Talk 00:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Aspartame, not Sucrlalose. Thanks for the additional refs. They can be be integrated in the text. Large daily newspapers as The Independent and Daliy Mail are blatant WP:RS for reports about general news items.MaxPont (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a tabloid and has an extremely poor record for reliability, particularly on health issues. Please stick to the quality press or business press for information about companies. My main point is your proposed text is wrong. Neither your or my sources support the statement that these stores have removed aspartame from the store shelves (i.e., all products they sell, own-brand or otherwise). In addition, those sources are in the context of supermarkets generally removing "additives" and so any text should in fairness make this clear (i.e., they aren't just responding to the aspartame issue). Colin°^Talk 10:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading the WP article about Daily Mail gives a picture of a large circulation newspaper aimed at the "middle market". Considering the strict libel laws in the UK, newspapers spend considerable energy on fact checking. And by the way, this is not a medical claim, but a news item about a decision by retailers. MaxPont (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The the wikipedia article on the Daily Mail needs updating! :) Although I agree with you about the libel laws, some newspapers (or tabloids in this instance) aren't that careful about fact checking - as frequent mistakes and lawsuits will show. Also, they have ways of writing to mitigate litigation. Even if this article was 100% untrue I don't see any reason for Asda (Walmart) et al to sue, and what damage does it cause them? Verbal chat 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fact checking and libel law are unrelated. The latter is only concerned with a tiny minority of statements and is very expensive. Although the statement isn't a medical claim, it is a health-related story and the Daily Mail is notorious for spouting nonsense in this area. As Verbal said, unless the Mail is saying something that significantly harms ASDA's image (for example), they can say just about anything. Colin°^Talk 14:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added an additional WP:RS and corrected the text to adjust for the objections above before adding the text to the article. There is also a discussion about the Daily Mail as a reliable source in another context [[12]] and it seems to be at least semi-reliable for general news reporting.MaxPont (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Misleading article

The reference in the beginning of the article where it states: The conspiracy theories, claims of aspartame dangers, is a highly misleading term that tends to set the tone for the rest. The dangers of aspartame are far from conspiracy theories, just like the dangers of smoking are. That the tobacco industry manipulated research for many years, is a fact that was later revealed. Much is the same for the aspartame industry. To keep the article neutral, I don't think anyone should quote the industry, but rather independent research, which are worldwide showing clear dangers in normal and excessive use of aspartame. Betty Martini has always denied she had anything to do with Nancy Markle (see: http://www.dorway.com/nomarkle.html), and by keeping this piece of disinformation as a way to discredit the anti-aspartame movement, is far from neutral. Therefore I'll be removing that bit. (Immortale (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

I've undone your edit as it moves the bias too far the other way. Verbal chat 13:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The title is Aspartame CONTROVERSY. The controversy is inadequately addressed. Especially the beginning of the article is an attempt to downsize the critique by summing up why Aspartame is such a safe product. If that isn't propaganda, then what is? The Nancy Markle example is RIDICULOUS and is not a valid source. You need facts and arguments here, so I'm putting my edit back. (15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortale (talk • contribs)

Please don't edit war, or promise to edit war - it is against the rules. Try to justify your edits here and get consensus for them. Verbal chat 16:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change non-neutral language into neutral language, it's okay to do so. More substantial changes - such as removing sourced material or replacing it with material that cites other sources - should only be done if those sources are reliable ones, and if you are reverted the solution is to discuss the matter here (for more on this, see "the bold-revert-discuss cycle") and not to edit war. That will get you blocked from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Media Awareness Network is not a reliable source. It's a website and websites can claim whatever they want. The Nancy Markle emails have very little to do with the anti-aspartame movement and Betty Martini has officially stated she has taken no part in it. Therefore the line: This analysis says Ms. Martini constructed an apparently false story about "Nancy Markle" is a plain lie and should be removed. If not, then the whole article takes a very strong side towards the industry, something that isn't Wikipedia policy. Unreliable sources should be removed. The other source, about.com and snopes.com are just other websites. The claims they made are fully rebutted. Before I'm going to put my edit back, I'm curious how these sources are justified within Wikipedia's policy. (Immortale (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm guessing you don't see the irony in maligning the content of websites that can "claim whatever they want" whilst basing your argument on claims from a website in which someone has a demonstrable history of claiming whatever she wants...? — Scientizzle 18:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I guess, Betty Martini has stated she has no part of the Nancy Markle emails and that's good enough to acknowledge that. By keeping accusing her as the instigator, is not Wikipedia's policy and if you want to take this a step further, by all means.(Immortale (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

I re-wrote the part on Media Awareness Network a bit but my edits were reverted without debate. It said they had done an investigation. On their site I read nothing about an investigation, it's an exercise in deconstructing a webpage, the one from Rense.com (which is a smart choice because rense.com is full of nonsense) written by spoof Nancy Markle. How this one exercise is being used to discredit the whole anti-aspartame movement is beyond me. The sentence: This analysis says Ms. Martini constructed an apparently false story about "Nancy Markle", should also be removed because Media Awareness Network does not reach that conclusion, nor has this been proven by facts. On the contrary, Betty Martini denies being involved (how often do I have to repeat that here?) What Media Awareness Network do conclude is this: "It would also be accurate to use this Web site as an example of one side of the Aspartame debate." (Immortale (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Bring it up on WP:RS/N to get some uninvolved, less biased opinions. It's pretty clear that some website which claims to have found "the source of the controversy" is not a reliable source. The multiple sclerosis thing is a sidenote, and should not be be the first section. Aspartame was looked at cautiously by the regulators and scientists, which is why they did a survey till 1995 tallying the adverse effects. Note, for example, the statement cited to Science: "Neuroscientists at a 1990 meeting of the Society for Neuroscience had a split of opinion on the issues related to neurotoxic effects from excitotoxic amino acids found in some additives such as aspartame." It's pretty clear that this article has taken a gross turn away from NPOV. Also note that in reported effects, a 1987 article is cited to criticize the methodology of the critical research articles from 1993, 1988, and 2001. II | (t - c) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Alleged conspiracy theories"

This section is generalizing "conspiracy theories" based only on a single example. It indicates that all skeptical theories are "Conspiracy Theories". This terminology is loaded. At the same time, this section uses a single example of an non-credible source to indicate the general trend that all skeptical theories are non-credible! This argumentation is insufficient! Hence, I vote that this section is deleted as it is biased and shows an insufficient amount of examples to make a general statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenep (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have my vote. I addressed the same thing yesterday and edited the paragraph, which was removed again. Actually the whole article, that is supposed to explain the controversy, is an attempt to RIDICULE the criticism against aspartame. To me it shows that the industry people are in control here, and using this as yet another piece of their propaganda. Just look at the part below, called: Potential Sources to use.... It contains only links with questionable info on how safe and good aspartame actually is, and how dumb all those people are who believe otherwise. Very subtle, folks! There's hardly any real debate going on here, about improving the article. (Immortale (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

I tell you, that giant check I got from Big Sweetner this week for providing those sources will go a long way towards buying that third yacht. This life couldn't be sweeter if I was coated in aspartame itself!

Immortale, if you wish to be taken seriously, confrontational nonsense like this should be avoided. — Scientizzle 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

With all that money you can buy some nice new socks if this continues. Verbal chat 19:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Alleged conspiracy and dangers" section is a bit lean...I think the "FDA approval process" could become a subsection of the consiracy theory section, which should perhaps be renamed to refer to its large foundation as an internet/email phenomenon ("Internet conspiracy theroies", perhaps?) and certainly to remove the "dangers" as the "Reported effects" effect section can handle even the baseless effect claims more appropriately. I'm surprised there's no mention of Donald Rumsfeld on the page! — Scientizzle 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole beginning needs to be re-written. This is supposed to be about the controversy. It needs to explain why there's a controversy, by mentioning industrial fraud in the research and ethical and economic ties between many governmental agents and the food industry. The addition "at current levels of consumption" in the sentence "Quality studies do not support a link to cancer in any tissue", which was removed, needs to be put back because the reader might get the impression that no matter what the consumption is, there's no risk for cancer. The study was only done with the ADI. A few words in that paragraph about the Ramazinni research, that did discover cancer, need to be mentioned. We should also mention that in order for research to be accepted, it needs to be approved by the industry and they have a hand in how the research needs to be conducted. Scientists who came with negative results were fired, and the lab conditions in which aspartame is tested, are different then the product in the shops. That's why almost all independent research shows negative results while the industry's research shows almost a 100% positive. This is an interesting and important fact and is the core of the controversy. (Immortale (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

Sweet Poison

The documentary Sweet Poison was removed from the External Links section, with the reason "Google video (YouTube, etc) are not generally appropriate encyclopedic links". This is not a valid reason - please see WP:YT. The documentary is the source of much of the controversy, and linking to it is perfectly reasonable, as it's directly relevant to the article. Greenman (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons why this link is probably inappropriate. WP:YT indicates that it's a rare occurrence for a YouTube/Google Video link to be appropriate, so I'd like to see more justification of why you believe this to be such a case. You state that Sweet Misery is "the source of much of the controversy". On what basis do you say that? Do independent, reliable sources identify this documentary as notable and important? A separate issue is copyright status. I'd like to see positive justification before inserting the link. MastCell ^Talk 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Documentary films COULD be considered a Reliable Source. There is no blanket ban on using documentary films. MaxPont (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential sources to use...

• "A Web of Deceit", TIME, 8 February 1999
  • Deals specifically with the Nancy Markle nonsense
• "How Sweet It Is", TIME, 29 August 1983
  • Details rocky FDA approval
• "Link between aspartame, brain tumors dismissed by FDA, cancer group", CNN, 18 November 1996
  • About Olney's report of an aspartame-brain cancer link & the response
• The Truth about Aspartame, Skeptoid, 11 November 2008
  • General overview of practically everything in this article...

— Scientizzle 02:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Skeptoid is self-published. MaxPont (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to remove this paragraph. This page is for discussion and should not be used as a way to insert one's personal agenda. All these sources are pro-aspartame links. If you want sources, put them in the original article if they are valid. (Immortale (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC))

You're kidding, I assume. The Skeptoid link is certainly dismissive of aspartame conspiracies, but the others are mainstream news stories that express some of the anti-aspartame points. I placed these on here because when I found them I figured they were potentially useful but lacked the time to fashion any cited prose. — Scientizzle 22:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing they could possibly be used for are the conspiracy theories/policy info, per WP:MEDRS. And since those are pretty well-covered, I don't think we need any of these sources. Thanks for trying to find sources though. II | (t - c) 23:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory/policy info is the stuff that needs the most help, I think. There's plenty of {{fact}} tags to address. — Scientizzle 23:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you quote "some of the anti-aspartame points." I couldn't find it, except when it's being ridiculed afterward. And the Time article from 1983? That just reports the change between sweeteners. The whole Nancy Markle bit is indeed nonsense, so why mention that? This fictional character has nothing to do with serious aspartame research. The Skeptoid bit to me reads like a sarcastic almost a parody piece. People say a lot of stupid things about aspartame on the Internet, just like there are lots of stupid things being said about tobacco. To ridicule the health hazards of tobacco by quoting the nonsense as proof that tobacco is really good for your health, instead of using valid research and facts, is not something anyone would take seriously these days. Let's not do the same with aspartame. (Immortale (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

Lead - Restructuring

This article really needs restructuring. I have restructured the beguinning of this page, and therefore have removed the following valuable sentences that I don't know where to put:

"In 1999 Jon Henkel reported that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration scientists believe that the safety of aspartame is "clear cut" and "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved." As of 2008, however, concerns still exist among some scientists over aspartame's role in certain mental disorders, compromised learning, and emotional functioning, although other scientists are not concerned. Quality studies do not support a link to cancer in any tissue."

I believe that the whole of this article should be restructured... I feel it's a bit messy! Who volunteers? --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead seems to have disappeared. Was there a reason for this? Verbal chat 13:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Negative, Verbal:

* Most of the stuff was moved in the new section "Origins of the aspartame controversy".

* I did remove two sentence and place them temporarily in the discussion (now above in this section) in view of finding a better place for it.

Hoping you find the changes adequate, --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead as an entity was removed though - no introduction or summary of the article. That's a bit of a problem. I don't think the lead is/was/is-again great though. Verbal chat 14:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any justification for removing the above two review articles from the lead. I'm putting them back. II | (t - c) 18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Verbal, I thought the lead was too long and entered into too far much detail for an introduction. However, I see that ImperfectlyInformed has already put it back in place. But this leaves a few redundancies between the lead and section "Origins of the aspartame controversy". Also, the sentence that I had temporarely removed and saved above still needs to be put back in an appropriate place.

And I still think that this article needs a serious restructuring. I would be prepared to think about it with who wants... see my contact details in my user page. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientific studies

In Scientific studies it reads: For a 70 kg (154 lb.) person, this is the equivalent of consuming about 20 cans of aspartame-sweetened beverage or about 100 sachets of tabletop sweetener with aspartame per day. and uses as source the industrial website aspartame.org. This is not a good source to use neutral facts. They cannot even get their own facts sound right. A can of aspartame-sweetened beverage contains 200mg aspartame, which would translate to 17,5 cans a day (15 for the 40mg/kg ADI) for a 75 kilo man, not 20 like they stated. What is conveniently ignored are children. 40 kilo teenagers who are obsessed with their weight and consume large quantities of Diet soda is much more common. The legally established maximum ADI in Europe is 40 mg/ kilo body weight and sets for them a maximum of 1600 mg aspartame. In other words, 8 cans or one 2 1/2 liter bottle of Diet soda. A child of 20 kilos, 4 cans or a 1 1/2 liter bottle of Diet soda. Add to that any of the other 6000 (with estimates up to 9000) aspartame products, and you easily cross the ADI. We should mention this in the article. (Immortale (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

According to this reliable source, your numbers are off..."There are 180 mg of aspartame in a 12 ounce can of diet soda." 70kg*50mg/kg=3500mg ADI of aspartame. 3500mg/180mg/can=19.4 cans. 19.4 is reasonably "about 20 cans". You added "For a 40 kg child, this is the equivalent of consuming about 8 cans of aspartame-sweetened beverage a day" but the same math above gives 11.1 cans for 50mg/kg ADI & 8.9 for 40mg/kg. The industry, whether you like them or not, can be used as a reliable source for their own product claims...but replacing that sourcing with my NCI link seems like a perfectly fine idea. However, what we can't do is the mathematics ourselves (using numbers we pick), as that's a violation of WP:NOR. As such, I'll fix the section to use the properly-sourced data extrapolations from the NCI source.

As to your second point RE high-level consumption in special populations, if you've got a suggestion for a proper source that discusses that issue, please do present it...it sounds potentially relevant for some specific consumers. — Scientizzle 21:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think using "facts" from various FAQs instead of peer-reviewed research is not Wikipedia's policy. There's plenty of peer-reviewed research out there. Let's used that as much as we can. 33 cl or 12 Ounce cans is 1/3 of a liter. One liter contains 600 mg, which has been verified by quite a lot of research (I mentioned one). 200 mg is the maximum legal amount a beverage manufacturer can put in his can. The sweeter the drink, the more they sell, so there's no doubt they put that in there. Sadly enough, Coca Cola claims to only put 79 mg in their cans. There's no reason to give preference to the American ADI when it comes to illustrating where the amount reaches its limit. It's already a weak statement since we only mention soda cans, as if consumers don't use any other of the 6000-9000 aspartame products. And why mention 75 kilo men why the majority of diet soda consumers are teenagers and skinny women? These are numbers the industry has picked. I don't change any numbers, just use a more realistic target group. I can supply reliable sources. (Immortale (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

I reverted back to my version: it was directly sourced to an obviously high-quality source and provided clear context for average consumption. Immortale, you make a lot of claims but have failed over and over to back them up with sources...please start doing that. I have no quibble with the idea of using a source that uses 40mg/kg over 50 for the mathematics, but we must use a qualified source for such a demonstration. The "75 kilo men" was the direct example provided by the NCI. Get this: your math is original research and, thus, not appropriate for inclusion. If you've got a quality source in mind that explicitly supports your claim that the "majority of diet soda consumers are teenagers and skinny women", particularly if it contains information about their respective levels of consumption, maybe we can find a good way to qualify this data in a meaningful and responsible way. — Scientizzle 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple and trivial maths is not Original Research. For example, look at the article homeopathy for the calculations of serial dilution. Those calculations have been accepted by the WP community for a long time. However, the claim that teenagers are the typical Aspartame user needs to be referenced. MaxPont (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The homeopathy dilutions have been and are currently easily backed up by reliable sources. The problem is not needing a source to tell us that "(70kg*50mg/kg)/(180mg/can)=19.4 cans", it's finding a source that indicates that these are correct and relevant values to use. Using the exact example provided by a high-level reliable source such as the National Cancer Institute (as I did) is a no-brainer. Immortale's numbers were clearly chosen in a way to represent the highest "danger level" possible, using some assertions that aren't currently backed up by any presented sources. Show me something better and I'd be happy work with it... — Scientizzle 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My numbers were not clearly chosen in a way to represent the highest "danger level" possible. In that case I would have chosen 15 kg toddlers. I chose a more realistic consumer group than 75 kg men. According to this source from 2008, in the US, women continue to be the primary consumer for diet soda. I've added some sources in the article that were from scientific peer-reviewed journals, but Scientizzle removed them, claiming that I need more sources. On the other hand, Scientizzle has no problem with his own trivial, secondary, anecdotal sources. Your source from the National Cancer Institute, comes from a FAQ, which is sourced to the Industry, while my source came straight from a peer-reviewed journal. If you want to remove such sources, debate them here, don't act like you are the editor-in-chief here and make all the decisions on your own. (Immortale (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC))

Oh, please, don't be coy. You chose the highest aspartame content, the lowest ADI, and a smaller body weight for the overwhelmingly obvious reason that you're pushing a WP:POV that the aspartame industry has "manipulated research" hiding "clear dangers in normal and excessive use of aspartame" and that "industry people are in control here...using this as yet another piece of their propaganda. You still haven't backed up your core assertions, that "40 kilo teenagers" are more common (or "realistic") consumers of diet soda than 75 kilo men. I've mentioned above in no uncertain terms that qualified sources clearly indicating categorical aspartame consumption will help us determine a responsible and appropriate mathematical example. Let's take your source at face value, even though it doesn't have some of the contextual information that would help, and laso that the average white American women is 60-70kg according to this source (which I wouldn't cite or call authoritative, but is useful for discussion purposes), then a 60kg woman at 40mg/kg ADI drinking 180mg cans of soda still needs ~13 cans. Surely we can do better than these sources, but I'm perfectly willing to cooperate on this issue.

Your laughable implication, that quoting the website of the NCI--a prestiguous and authoritative organization--is inappropriate, doesn't mesh well with WP:MEDRS. Read it. Secondary sources like "position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations" are top-level Wikipedia sources. The NCI must have

The only obvious case in which I removed a source you added was this edit, in which you added a lot of text attributed to one questionable website. Start a new section if you want to chat about a particular source.

What you need to understand is that claims of negative effects of aspartame have been generally rejected by major scientific and regulatory organizations, as demonstrated by reliable sources. Therefore, even though there is some legitimate academic disagreement about the topic, on Wikipedia all of this topic falls under WP:UNDUE in determining proper weighting and sourcing. No doubt some anti-aspartame claims fall under WP:FRINGE, in which little-to-no coverage is appropriate. My only interest is in enforcing Wikipedia's neutrality and original research policies and sourcing guidelines whilst making this article informative and readable. — Scientizzle 22:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that I understand a bit more of the logic you referred to, let me re-write my earlier statement: Scientizzle has no problem with his own trivial, anecdotal sources. Because your FAQ from NCI is not a secondary source because it doesn't involve: "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." The source I was referring to that was removed was this one (not the one you mentioned): Aspartame ingestion and headaches A randomized crossover trial by S. K. Van Den Eeden, PhD, T. D. Koepsell, MD, MPH, W. T. Longstreth, Jr., MD, MPH, G. van Belle, PhD, J. R. Daling, PhD and B. McKnight, PhD: Departments of Epidemiology (Drs. Van Den Eeden, Koepsell, Longstreth, and Daling), Health Services (Dr. Koepsell), Environmental Health (Dr. van Belle), and Biostatistics (Drs. van Belle and McKnight), School of Public Health and Community Medicine; and the Department of Medicine (Drs. Koepsell and Longstreth), School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. (These are no health nuts or conspiracy mongers)(Immortale (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

Oh, the one you added in this edit. I reformatted it here based on the title of the link you provided, which I now realize was incorrect. I'll be happy to fix this co-operative error.

You can keep gnashing your teeth about the NCI FAQ, but I'm pretty confident that would hold up as a quality reliable source. Try the WP:RSN again if you like. — Scientizzle 00:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

We are not here to solve the aspartame controversy, nor to create one. We are to REPORT it, in a balanced and neutral way. I think you’re confusing this article with the regular Aspartame article. To suggest that there isn’t a controversy and that anything can be traced to one woman, Mrs. Martini, is deliberately misleading the reader. Aspartame has been controversial right from the start, when Searle wanted it on the market in 1970. Through exposure of fraudulent industrial research, it was advised by FDA scientists not to bring it on the market. After two Congressional Hearings in the 1980s, thousands and thousands of officially filed reports on the adverse reactions of aspartame to the FDA (aspartame holds the record), aspartame is the world’s most controversial food additive in history. In recent years, the majority of scientific research shows adverse reactions (there has been very little industrial sponsored research lately), and much like the tobacco industry, it unravels itself.

Anyone wonder why Mrs. Martini would take the pseudonym Nancy Markle when she uses her own name all the time on all kinds of communications? Anyone can copy and paste text and put a fictional name under it. That doesn’t mean the writer of the original text is responsible for it. That is a giant leap of logic.

The founders of the aspartame controversy are James Turner, Mary Nash Stoddard, Jerome Bressler (former FDA Inspector), Adrian Gross (former FDA Toxicologist), Dr. John Olney, to name a few. The article now states as if there’s unanimity among FDA scientists that Aspartame is safe. There was a very real controversy before there was (modern) internet.

Since you are referring to WP:WEIGHT., let me quote from that page, which I think is important to what is going on here:

Partial, but lengthy, quote of WP:WEIGHT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. A vital component: good research Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little ground work can save a lot of time justifying a point later. Balance Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. Impartial tone Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

So my suggestion is to mention the root cause of the controversy, when aspartame was being examined to be allowed on the market, that there is a clear difference between industrial sponsored research and non-industrial sponsored research (are Congressional and Senate Hearings acceptable sources?), the amount and weight of medical complaints all around the world regarding aspartame (cannot just wave that away, we need to report it). We need to report the controversy, not downsize it or ridicule it. (Immortale (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

←Immortale, you won't find many editors on Wikipedia more familiar with WP:WEIGHT than I. Therefore, leaving out the text to which I've alluded before is apparent...

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all
...treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject
...Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be described, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

The point I've been trying should be clear: the established scientific mainstream consensus opinion (as reported in multiple high-level reliable sources) is that aspartame is safe for consumption, up to 40 or 50mg/kg ADI, by almost everyone. There has been, and continues to be, valid scientific research into potential side effects and negative health consequences; however, this research, to date, has not generally swayed regulatory organizations from their approvals of the product.

You don't have agree with the FDA or NCI or JECFA or whathaveyou. But, to edit here, you must agree to follow Wikipedia policy, including the neutrality policy that clearly asserts prominence for mainstream views over outside views.

That said, I can see a lot of room for improvement on this article, and you touch on some of them above. The Markle stuff is a bit of a sideshow attraction for anyone remotely educated, but it's clearly notable and needs to be discussed. The FDA approval process could use better organization and sourcing if only to explain why the United States General Accounting Office investigated and found nothing inappropriate, for example. Valid research has suggested certain health concerns over time, and these should be presented along with studies that found no risk for these symptoms and the general literature reviews. Some very public attempts to ban or force withdrawals of aspartame are notable as well. There are also plenty of claims out there that fall into WP:FRINGE territory and shouldn't be addressed on the page at all.

This article can be good and fair. You're going to have to work with people like me to get it that way. Throwing around hyperbole like "aspartame is the world’s most controversial food additive in history" or poorly-cited claims like "It even once made a Pentagon list as a potential biochemical weapon" slows such progress. If we can all limit ourselves to verifiable claims from cited quality sources, I'm sure we can address these issues. — Scientizzle 01:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Pentagon list

In this edit, Immortale (talk · contribs) adds:

It even once made a Pentagon list as a potential biochemical weapon.

sourced to "Committee for the National Institute for the Environment, "Food Additive Regulations: A Chronology," Congressional Research Service, Updated Version, September 13, 1995."

I'd like to see this source directly because I have a feeling that the addition may lack important contextual information... — Scientizzle 22:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is the source, there's nothing in there about the Pentagon or biochemical weapons as far as I can see... — Scientizzle 22:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't find anything there either. We do need to examine any sources provided by anti-aspartame activists very closely, since the history of the conspiracy theories traces back to a fabricated story, involving a non-existent conference and an apparently faked woman, Nancy Markle, all sourced back to one woman named Betty, and she has been the source of that story right from the beginning. No other sources have ever been provided, and she has been identified with it right from the beginning. She started circulating the story, and still does so. No, these stories started with one fabricated story involving several fictive elements, and her followers wouldn't be above twisting the evidence to suit their purposes. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee is misreprestenting facts by pretending that all the sources that are critical don't exist. MaxPont (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

??? Not only do I not understand what is meant, I do take offense at this blatent lack of good faith ("misreprestenting", "pretending") MaxPont, what do you mean? Please AGF. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fyslee and Scientizzle - there is nothing that I can find in this source that supports any claims about biochemical weapons and aspartame. MaxPont, please address improving the article and discussing sources, not making personal attacks which are banned. I suggest you strike the above and apologise. Verbal chat 13:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill here...Fyslee's comment is fairly accurate if one reasonably assumes "anti-aspartame activists" is a descriptor of the pervasive non- or pseudo-academic, ideological elements readily witnessed online. MaxPont is correct that there are critical sources with WP:RS credibility and academic credentials, many currently cited. Let's move on to more improtant things, and not worry about these minor quibbles. — Scientizzle 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let’s move on. As long as we don’t see attempts to portray the controversy as an internet hoax[13] I am fine. MaxPont (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. The controversy is one thing, the conspiracy theory is another. The one predates the other. Interestingly there is a connection, since it's the conspiracy theory and activism of Betty Martini that has kept this issue alive for so long. Without her influence there might exist some small controversy, but it would be at a scientific level, not a mass hysteria level. Not only does she keep it alive, she vastly exaggerates any possible dangers far beyond what any scientific source involved in the legitimate controversy has ever done, in that she claims aspartame is the cause of a long list of serious illnesses, and she even claims it frequently causes many individuals to drop dead. This is supposedly happening all around us all the time! Her extreme charges have had the unfortunate effect of causing the controversy to be looked upon with skepticism, in that it's hard to separate the controversy from her conspiracy theory and extreme claims. Extremism does that. Her cause has also suffered from its use of several unreliable and discredited MDs who, like herself, are using the issue to gain fame, get speaking engagements, and boost the sales of their self published books. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

←...back to the topic of this section...I removed the Pentagon claim after the source I found (which appears to match the initial citation) clearly could not substantiate the assertion. If this is a case of the wrong source being applied to a verifiable claim, let's rectify this and evaluate that source. If that is not the case, and there's not some other good-faith explanation for the error, I think this is an egregious example of misusing Wikipedia and would caution all editors to actually vet their sources. — Scientizzle 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your source looks like the one I quoted but I'm not sure what happened. I'll look into this myself and will try to find the official document in the next few months. To be continued... (Immortale (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

New ref: connection with Seizures

Eur J Emerg Med. 2008 Feb;15(1):51. Seizures and hyponatremia after excessive intake of diet coke. Mortelmans LJ, Van Loo M, De Cauwer HG, Merlevede K.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Klina General Hospital, Brasschaat, Belgium. luc.mortelmans@klina.be

We describe a case of epileptic seizures after a massive intake of diet coke. Apart from the hyponatremia due to water intoxication the convulsions can be potentiated by the high dose of caffeine and aspartame from the diet coke. To our knowledge this is the first report of seizures due to excessive diet coke intake.

PMID: 18180668 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] MaxPont (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Mortelmans LJ, Van Loo M, De Cauwer HG, Merlevede K (2008). "Seizures and hyponatremia after excessive intake of diet coke". Eur J Emerg Med. 15 (1): 51. doi:10.1097/MEJ.0b013e3282703645. PMID 18180668. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Jeez!...drinking 9L of any fluid in a single day doesn't sound pleasant...As this is a single case report (of an extreme case of hyponatremic Diet Coke consumption), I don't think it's an appropriate source for use in a general article like this. However, the publication was useful if only to see their cited claims. Mortelmans et al cited a letter to a journal and Camfield PR, Camfield CS, Dooley JM, Gordon K, Jollymore S, Weaver DF (1992). "Aspartame exacerbates EEG spike-wave discharge in children with generalized absence epilepsy: a double-blind controlled study". Neurology. 42 (5): 1000–3. PMID 1579221. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Camfield et al has since been followed up by:

• Rowan AJ, Shaywitz BA, Tuchman L, French JA, Luciano D, Sullivan CM (1995). "Aspartame and seizure susceptibility: results of a clinical study in reportedly sensitive individuals". Epilepsia. 36 (3): 270–5. PMID 7614911. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Shaywitz BA, Anderson GM, Novotny EJ, Ebersole JS, Sullivan CM, Gillespie SM (1994). "Aspartame has no effect on seizures or epileptiform discharges in epileptic children". Ann. Neurol. 35 (1): 98–103. doi:10.1002/ana.410350115. PMID 7506878. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Published work prior to Camfield et al (1992) doesn't show a lot of support for aspartame causing or exacerbating seizures in humans, and rodent work was often done in really high doses (i.e., 1g/kg in rats PMID 2010138). Since seizure actually gets little attention in this article, perhaps it's possible to fashion a paragraph about the aspartame-induced seizure literature. — Scientizzle 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's possible to fashion a paragraph about the caffeine-induced seizure literature ;-) Why look for the obscure and rare, when the obvious and common is staring one in the face? A fundamental principle involved in making any medical diagnosis is that the most obvious diagnosis is usually the correct one. When living in Alaska, don't assume that the sound of galloping hooves outside the house are galloping zebras. They really are most likely a herd of reindeer. Only a fool would assume that a herd of zebras was galloping past the house (although a few that have escaped from a traveling circus are not an impossibility)!

Here is an interesting study:

• Absence of an effect of aspartame on seizures induced by electroshock in epileptic and non-epileptic rats

-- Fyslee (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At the end of that study it says: "This work was supported, in part, by a grant from the NutraSweet Company." Not exactly an impartial source. (Immortale (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

A need to rearrange the "Origins..." section

We currently have a jumbled section with duplication in two places. I propose we fix that based on the chronology of events.

The Markle hoax and its associated conspiracy theories, all attributed by V & RS to Betty Martini, first began in 1995 (none existed before then). The speculations about the "FDA approval process" were speculations about earlier events. Therefore our presentation should start with the origins (the Markle email spread by Martini) of the whole thing in 1995, and then present the conspiracy theory's contents about earlier events.

This brings up the questionable practice of describing what is pure speculation. We must not present conspiracy theories as fact.

The current section contains duplication and fragmentation of subjects. We currently have this structure:

1 Origins of the aspartame controversy

1.1 Scientific Studies

1.2 Internet rumors (similar to lower section)

2 Alleged conspiracies

2.1 FDA approval process

2.2 Internet activism (similar to upper section)

It is in two basic sections, and I suggest we still divide it into two basic subsections, but with a combination of the duplications, and a new subheading:

1 Origins of the aspartame controversy

1.1 Scientific Studies

Current content

1.2 Creation of conspiracy theory (New subheading)

1.2.1 Internet rumors and activism

Markle letter and internet activism

1.2.2 Speculations about FDA approval process

Description of conspiracy theory references to FDA approval process

This source (which we use as a reference) says this:

• "Comments: First off, despite the attribution at the top (absent in some versions of the message), this text was not written by "Nancy Markle" - whoever that may be. Its real author was one Betty Martini, who posted a host of similar messages to Usenet newsgroups in late 1995 and early 1996. The original email was penned in December 1995." Source

Since we must be true to the sources, we should mention Martini as the author of the "Aspartame warning" email. No one else has claimed authorship; she is the one who started circulating it; and she is the first major activist, also having founded an organization called "Mission Possible International. All this has gained her fame and income based on speaking engagements and other activities. That she has later denied authorship is not found in reliable sources, but is her own self-serving defense of her hoax. It is an unreliable statement and should be given no weight, if mentioned at all. Since it is found in an unreliable source, I'm not sure the rules here even allow mention of her statement. We don't mention lies unless we also name them as lies, or in some way mention their dubious nature. No reader should, after having read it, even consider that it could be true. If we haven't done that, we haven't been true to our V & RS, which are to receive most WP:WEIGHT. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The structure of this article needs substantial work. There's much redundancy after some well-meaning editing essentially duplicated a lot of material and placed it in separate locales. I'd also like to see, perhaps, subsections within the scientific research section dedicated to the main medical claims in the scientific literature (i.e., cancer risk, headache, seizure). I think this might be a clearer way to organize the relevant literature than the format we currently have. — Scientizzle 21:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a shot at it and hope the result is better. I did it in small steps so as to make it easier to follow what I was doing. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Martini admits she wrote the original email

The current wording in the article no longer makes definite claims about Martini making a hoax email, but makes it clear that many have claimed she wrote the original email, and some have used the word "hoax". That's the "history" of the conspiracy theory. Contrary to Immortale's claims of her non-involvement, she claims authorship of the email, only denying that she later placed the "Nancy Markle" name on it. That seems to have been a later act by some unknown person. [14][15] It is indeed an untrue theory, filled with false statements. Here are some interesting sources for those who want to sort this out. They are unreliable, as far as scientific information goes, but accurate as far as the history goes:

• https://listserv.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109a&L=parkinsn&D=0&F=P&P=13548
• http://www.dorway.com/nomarkle.html
• http://dorway.com/dorwblog/?page_id=636

This particular page is an unfinished page with editorial comments that are VERY interesting! I'm surprised this is still available, as it shows how inaccurate their editorial practices are:

• http://www.dorway.com/benkofinal.txt

We can't use these sources for anything other than documenting that she does claim to have written the original email, just as is claimed by the various conspiracy theory and urban legend websites. They are accurate about that, and they are accurate about it being a conspiracy theory filled with unscientific claims and outright lies about the words of Clarice Gaylord, who never said what Martini (Markle) claims she said. Gaylord flat out denies it. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly we can use unreliable, unverifiable websites/ mailing lists to prove a point, at least in this section? This is what Betty wrote in your source: "A person calling herself Nancy Markle published the article under her name, changing the title and some of the wording." That this person copied and pasted it from old posts from Betty was never on dispute. But don't sidetrack the controversy and hold Betty responsible for the whole controversy. If she never existed, the controversy would be the same size/magnitude. Don't forget that there were 2 Congressional Hearings in the 1980s, overwhelming scientific research from the last 3 years pointing towards adverse effects of aspartame, and a manufacturer (Monsanto) who has been caught numerous times of bribing governmental agents (fully documented) and together with GD Searle committed serious research fraud (which was revealed in the hearings and the Bressler Report). The original research was so badly presented that U.S. Attorney Samuel Skinner had set up a grand jury up to investigate G.D. Searle. The accusations were deliberately forging and hiding study results regarding the safety of aspartame. On top of that, a Public Board of Inquiry that could not allow Aspartame on the market in 1980. Betty can be in a side note on Internet activism somewhere in the article, balanced of course. (Immortale (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

You must not know Betty very well. Don't underestimate her influence in making this controversy known. Without her the scientific consensus would have had a better chance to calm the waters and deal with serious concerns about aspartame in the context of a basic maxim of toxicology - "the dose makes the poison" (Paracelsus). Also don't underestimate the damage she has done to the anti-aspartame cause because of her manner of activism and exaggerated and unscientific claims. She can never stick to the point, or answer a question straight. She just resends her enormously long screeds and endlessly repeats herself. Her activism has scared vulnerable and gullible people and caused them to see problems that were not there, or to attribute the cause of their real problems to aspartame, when instead they should have been getting the proper treatment for the real cause of their problems, IOW Betty "has put the wrong crook in jail", and the real culprit(s) are still at large. The huge numbers of complaints filed by these people has drowned any serious complaints that should have been getting attention. She has done all in her power to create a mass hysteria.

I'm not saying that everything she says is nonsense. That would be pretty much impossible. There is a shred of truth in some of what she says, but it is a conspiracy theory that promotes the POV of some pretty weird MDs, especially Roberts. They have created careers in their old age based on their odd ideas. If we could get more reputable scientists to say some of what they are saying, we'd have a much better chance of sifting through the chaff that Betty and her allies have created. Their hyperbole has not helped the matter. Their promotion of a competing product has not helped the matter. Their sales of self-published material has not helped the matter. Their profiting from the matter has not helped. Their conspiracy theory mindset only causes them to be ridiculed by serious scientists.

No, we must keep the legitimate controversy and her conspiracy theory somewhat separated as two different matters that both deserve mention. The scientific controversy would now be a low level or pretty much nonexistent matter, unknown to the public without her conspiracy theory and activism. She is considered by all her allies, and quite correctly so, to be a "super-activist". I haven't encountered anyone on the internet that can quite match her, except for her close internet friend (but on the subject of breast implants) who is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. They are both unreliable loose canons who do great damage to their own causes. I sympathize with both causes, but cannot support their destructive manner of dealing with them. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The article currently has no mention of Roberts, when in fact he's far more important in the controversy than Martini is. He has a lot on PubMed, especially comments (search for "Roberts HJ"). I certainly don't agree that without Martini, the aspartame controversy would be unknown. Anyway, you are right that Martini seems to admit that she wrote the article which Markle's email is based upon, and Martini appears to praise Markle. Personally I don't see why it matters much, but feel free to change it to make it more accurate, which does not mean that it should be changed to say that Martini = Markle. II | (t - c) 01:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

When did we start to use WP:OR on self-published conspiracy websites as input to Wikipedia? There are millions of conspiracies floating around on the web, we can't mention all conspiracies - or most articles would need a section about crackpot conspiracies. This "Martini, Nancy Markle" conspiracy is really peripheral and has not received any substantial media coverage. It should not be given more than a few sentences in the article. In addition, I believe there are WP:BLP issues that would prevent us from accusing a living person. MaxPont (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Any web search on the subject will reveal the vast influence of Betty M.. Much of the controversy usually comes back to her front door. The "Nancy Markle" email has been commented on by RS, and since it's an important part of the history of Betty M.'s conspiracy theory, it deserves mention. The vast majority (98%?, considering the vast numbers of people she has alerted) of people who have any doubts about aspartame can thank her for letting them know. That's why the anti-aspartame movement calls her a super-activist and a saint of the movement. We are using V & RS in the article, and the section has been revised enough to clear up any BLP issues, IOW we aren't "accusing" BM, but giving her the credit for what she claims to have done, which is to have written the original contents of the email. If there are any specific inaccuracies, then please mention them so we can deal with them. We also deal with the scientific aspects of the controversy, and are keeping them separate from the Betty M. matter. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Industrial sponsored research

We should be careful citing sources from research that was paid by an aspartame manufacturer. Wikipedia shouldn't become a string puppet of the industry. There's a great deal of industrial propaganda out there and it's known that the industry's goal is to make money, as much as possible. Negative publicity of a product will always result in less profits and therefore every large industry will do everything to prevent that. When I'm investigating, for example, the source mentioned in the sentence: "Quality studies do not support a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in any tissue": "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies", I find out the study was done by the Burdock Group, whose website states: "To find out more about how we can help bring your product to market quickly and effectively, contact Burdock Group today for a complimentary consultation." If that doesn't raise anyone's eyebrows, the study was paid by Ajinomoto (the largest aspartame manufacturer in the world). Strangely enough, they had to mention: "The identity of the sponsor, Ajinomoto, was unknown to the chair and expert panelists throughout the conduct and completion of the review, and submission and peer review of the manuscript. Panelist identity also remained unknown to the sponsor. There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors. (see: [16]) Even if that's true, Ajinomoto hired them for a reason, they knew exactly what outcome the Burdock Group would bring. The press release of the results of this study comes from something called Aspartame Resource Center at aboutaspartame.com, a website owned by Ajinomoto, which often refer to the Aspartame Information Center, at aspartame.org, a website owned by Calorie Control Council. From their site: "The Calorie Control Council, established in 1966, is an international non-profit association representing the low-calorie and reduced-fat food and beverage industry. Today it represents 60 manufacturers and suppliers of low-calorie, low-fat and light foods and beverages, including the manufacturers and suppliers of more than a dozen different dietary sweeteners, fat replacers and other low-calorie ingredients." I could continue with the individuals listed to these websites, but we're not writing a a book here. Industrial propaganda is real, and we should be careful listing it as a reliable, impartial source. If anyone insists to mention such "research", we should mention it was paid by the manufacturer, because such facts add to the controversy, and that is what this article is about. (Immortale (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Although I agree that industry-sponsored studies are less reliable, the fact that the panelists were unaware of the sponsor makes this review fairly reliable. I recognize one name off that list, John Doull, and he does seem to be one of the foremost toxicologists in the world (see bio here, see. II | (t - c) 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Burdock Group is not a Consumer Advocacy Group, they are CONSULTANTS, which describe themselves like this: "Our services provide our clients with solutions to the regulatory and safety issues affecting their FDA and USDA regulated products. At Burdock Group, we do more than solve problems. We design solutions... Burdock Group's team of consultants, comprised of recognized experts, will work with you to deliver real-time support and practical solutions for safety assessment and regulatory compliance - on time and on budget." If I was a manufacturer facing a risk for new food regulations on my food product, I'd hire them. They would HELP me. They pride themselves that 90% of their customers return. They provide zero negative results for a client (which is the industry), because they want to make money and they want their client to come back for more. The boss of the Burdock Group, GA Burdock, was part of the aforementioned study. Do you honestly believe that the owner of a company wouldn't know anything about their client? To quote Mark Gold this time: "John Doull was a paid consultant of Monsanto, a member of the Monsanto-funded ACSH Advisory Board, and a Trustee of the Monsanto- and Ajinomoto-funded corporate research association, ILSI (Tobacco 1993, CSPI 2008). This author’s consultancy with Monsanto and official positional within Monsanto- and Ajinomoto- funded associations was not disclosed in this aspartame review." And to end with Mark Gold's words: "A reader might ask, "Is it possible for there to be an unbiased review of aspartame, made by Ajinomoto and Monsanto, where the review is funded by Ajinomoto, authors have done paid work for Monsanto, several authors have official positions in trade and research associations funded by Monsanto, Ajinomoto, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, etc., several authors work for corporate advocacy groups, one of which called aspartame toxicity a "nonissue," and one author who consults for companies that sell aspartame and in the past has said that aspartame is safe?" I think a reasonable answer might be, “No! Are you kidding me?!" (Immortale (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

I wonder why they put R.M. Kroes as one of the participants on this review. The review was finished in September 2007, while Kroes died at the end of 2006 from cancer. What did he contribute with, besides loaning out his name to them? He became internationally known through his function as President of ILSI Europe from 1999 to 2005. [17] (Immortale (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

I agree that conflicts of interest should be disclosed, and EHP apparently agrees. Good job finding that EHP letter. II | (t - c) 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I added twice the source of this letter and the statement that it was paid by Ajinomoto, which was twice removed again, without discussion. The last time by Fyslee, which wrote: "Revert vandalistic removal of sourced information and sources by User:Immortale. Don't repeat it!" What this means, I have no idea because it doesn't make any sense. I get accused and lectured for adding a small valid, reliable impartial source, which another editor here agreed with. We need to set up some basic rules for this article, otherwise it'll be a long year ahead. When you disagree, discuss it here, don't act like a dictator-in-chief and pretend you own the place. This is what I had written: "According to a review paid by aspartame manufacturer Ajinomoto, quality studies do not support a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in any tissue." Regarding the notes on Snopes.com, why mention the same source triple (being on an urban legend site)? Almost all the pro statements are sourced more than once on each occasion, but when I give more than one source, it's often reduced to one again. Is this a subtle way of telling the reader that the pro statements have the overhand in the world? And I didn't read a unanimous decision that Snopes.com is a reliable source. (Immortale (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

This line:"She believes that there is a conspiracy between the FDA and the producers of aspartame. This conspiracy theory has been discussed on several major internet conspiracy theory and urban legend websites." citing the snopes.com sources. One Snopes source is about ant poison, which clearly is about something else, the other source is the Markle letter again (how many times do you want this to be squeezed into the article?). Why not find instead a source where "a conspiracy between the FDA and the producers of aspartame" is being discussed. (Immortale (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC))