Talk:Aspartame/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

American Centric

Once again controversy uses the American FDA as it's evidence. Do you not realise that most countries have their own regulatory bodies (the MHRA in the UK) - we dont approve things based on what the FDA says, so to claim a conflict of interest with the FDA and corporations who synthesize this, and use this as evidence that Aspartame is somehow bad (when no evidence exists by the way) then its just nonsense, and should be removed. If I removed it, no doubt it will just reappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark gg daniels (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(not taking sides concerning article subject) FDA is a reliable source. If you have something from one of the other organizations that contradicts this then bring it forward so the opposing view may be represented. What conflict of interest? Is that addressed to a specific editor here?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is covered in more detail at Aspartame controversy. One of the major claims by conspiracy theorists is that there were flaws in the FDA approval process. There were; it was approved, flaws were identified, and approval was revoked until they were investigated. This claim is in the hoaxes that circulate beyond US borders, so it is not the article that is being US-centric. There should be a way to write so that the fallacy that flaws and alleged conflicts of interest in the FDA affected regulatory bodies around the world is not implied (or provide a sourced refutation). For example, as memory serves, aspartame was approved in France in the period between revocation of approval and final approval, but I don't have the details at my fingertips. The section does need a rewrite for this point and a few other weaknesses. Simple deletions of material would not be helpful, but any suggestions for improvement would be welcome. When I can sit down with references at hand, I'll see what I can do.Novangelis (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. So my trial balloon is floated. Fire away.Novangelis (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"aspartame is safe for consumption at current levels"

I'm only half way through the article and yet i've seen that wording three times. Does anyone know what the current level of consumption is? It reads like a Disclaimer as it is. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's scientific jargon. It could be that consuming five pounds of aspartame each day would present health problems, but consuming several times the maximum that anyone would reasonably consume does not. TFD (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly that - no substance, natural or artificial, is safe at every concentration.
If you're looking for a number, the source (Magnuson et al. says: "Using the most current food consumption data available for the U.S. population, the average intake of aspartame among individuals consuming aspartame was determined to be 4.9 mg/kg bw/day (95th percentile 13.3 mg/kg bw/day in the United States)." --Six words (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible reverse placebo effect in appetite

The current article states "There have been few studies directly addressing the effect of aspartame on appetite," however, this mini-review published in Yale's Journal of Biology and Medicine presents a counterexample: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/

This review compares outcomes of different aspartame trials, based on the information and choices which were available to the participants.

	Controlled Diet	Uncontrolled Diet
Knowingly Consumed Aspartame	Average person got skinnier	Average person got fatter
Un-knowingly Consumed Aspartame	Average person got skinnier	No Change

The author reaches the conclusion that Aspartame consumption by the general public (knowing consumption with an uncontrolled diet) may indirectly cause weight gain through a reverse placebo effect with the following rationales:

• making a good dietary choice by substituting diet soda for sugar soda may help rationalize poorer dietary choices later.
• sweet taste may condition the brain to seek out more sugar and carbohydrates.
• the uncontrolled correlation between artificial sweetener usage and obesity fails to refute this theory.

I would like to cite this article in the Weight change and hunger section.

Please see my sandbox page for my suggested edit.

Forestjohnson (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues:

1. Author of review does not use term "reverse placebo effect"
2. what you list there are not conclusions, but rather hypotheses of the author
3. the hypotheses are not about aspartame per se (the chemical and any chemical effect it, specifically, may have)

That said, several people have brought up on this Talk page, these studies "connecting" artificial sweeteners to obesity; most of the sources seem to hypothesize (like this one does) about indirect mechanisms. I wonder if it would be appropriate to have content in the article about these matters, in some NPOV way that emphasizes a) there is no evidence of a direct chemical effect on body weight either way and b) the hypothetical nature of these "connections" to obesity. What do folks think about that? Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've produced a new edited section according to your requests. Forestjohnson (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"Claims that aspartame contributes to weight gain and obesity are not supported by the medical literature."

Or so claims this article. However, a study by Fowler et al. concluded that "AS [artificial sweetener] use might be fueling—rather than fighting—our escalating obesity epidemic." The study can be found here. I would like to know if you guys think this study should be mentioned in the article. I also suggest you examine this recent review which concluded, "...frequent consumers of these sugar substitutes may also be at increased risk of excessive weight gain." Jinkinson (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

the first study you cite (from Obesity) is a primary study which we do not use to overthrow the consensus. the author of that report writes: "Results from interventional studies have varied significantly. Several studies have described increased appetite (4,5), hunger (6), and food consumption (7,8,9,10) following AS exposure. The majority, however, as reviewed by Rolls (11) and Malik (12), have reported either no increases, or actual decreases, in hunger, consumption, and/or weight following AS exposure. De la Hunty, summarizing a meta analysis of weight-change data from nine randomized clinical trials (13), reported significantly greater weight loss among aspartame users vs. nonusers (P = 0.04 for the most conservative comparison, which excluded follow-up periods and studies with weight gains among enforced-intake comparison groups), and concluded a beneficial role for aspartame use in weight control." the second piece is "opinion" and is not WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I chose to edit this page as an assignment in a college class. I've been going through lots of journals looking for articles about aspartame, and I was surprised to find that there are lots of recent and peer reviewed theories and early research papers (Opinions) about artificial sweeteners that investigate aspartame correlations with metabolic problems in humans, rodent studies showing metabolic changes in aspartame-fed members of a cohort, changes in appetite signaling, etc, but most consensus reviews and regulating boards unanimously conclude that aspartame is safe for use.

Because wikipedia's citation standards prefer established consensus over bleeding edge research, If I read this article to learn about aspartame, I'd never know that skepticism about aspartame's safety lives on among scientists in 2013. I'm wondering if that should be mentioned in the article, something like: "Aspartame is one of the most-researched food additives ever, and scientists continue to study it critically, even after decades of food-safe approval." It would need some proper citations, but I'm sure I could use some of the reviews already cited, because I remember reading something like that in a review I found via this wiki page. Forestjohnson (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not think any reviews say skepticism remains among scientists, and the article already says that safety has been extensively researched. TFD (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I was taught that science is never conclusive; it is always open to new research. Lots of drugs were extensively researched for safety, put on the market, and taken off the market when they turned out to have dangerous side effects.

If you can find a review article in a peer-reviewed journal on PubMed that summarizes significant research and raises skepticism about aspartame's safety, put it in. That would meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

There's also the issue that people use aspartame as a sugar substitute to lose weight, but there's no evidence that when people use aspartame as a sugar substitute in their diet, it lowers weight. Or is there? --Nbauman (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Original research

"Despite this" seems like OR and "some consumer advocacy groups like" also seems to be WP:OR.[1] I have noticed all over Wikipedia there is mass OR on almost every single article. Wikipedia does not enforce its own rules. QuackGuru (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This type of statement is allowed provided it reflects what the sources say. Although Wikipedia does not allow original research by editors, it cannot provide parity to mainstream and fringe opinions. "Despite this" means that these groups hold beliefs that are not supported by scientific consensus. However, I do not think the statement is properly sourced, it provides a link to the site of a consumer advocacy group that opposes aspartame. TFD (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the current text: "The consumer advocacy group the Center for Science in the Public Interest continues to promote the position that aspartame is not safe.[37]" QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

EFSA risk evaluation

Looks like the EFSA risk evaluation is now released. Will have to carefully read through this to see if there is anything useful to add to this article. Yobol (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article reads as if it were written by a party disposed to presenting aspartame in a positive light. The tone that permeates the article is set towards refuting any negative health effect claims on it. It totes the neutrality line carefully, not violating obviously, but nevertheless perhaps presenting a biased viewpoint. Thoughts, anyone? Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 19:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any specific complaints or sources to bring forward? Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have a complaint, I read that hundreds of studies had shown health effects of Aspartame, this article reads like an advert to me. I came to this page hoping for impartiality and do not think I got that at all. The Aspartame controversy page is not something I came across until I researched Aspartame away from Wikipedia - that page should be part of the Aspartame page for the purpose of balance and impartiality. - kie000 at gmail ? com

To state that countries have declared Aspartame safe without mentioning that others voted on banning the sweetener shows considerable bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.119.197 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

What countries have "voted on banning" it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.32.116 (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of crap on the internet. Wikipedia is a corrective to that crap. If you don't believe something that you read in this article, please check the source from which it comes. Everything said in this article is very well sourced and true. Good luck sorting out your thinking on this! Please don't believe everything you read on the internet. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This article discusses CNS toxicity related to the consumption of aspartam --Mikeschaerer (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Aspartame production

I want to add that it is partly manufactured from a chemical by-product of the e.coli bacteria.

source: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0036258.html http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:16466681 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is original research. A patent on one technique to produce a compound that can be synthesized by numerous techniques is meaningless, especially if there is no evidence that the specific technique is in use in the commercial market.Novangelis (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you are mistaken according to this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/worlds-top-sweetener-is-made-with-gm-bacteria-1101176.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That news article does not mention E. Coli. One reference currently in the article (Ref 40) describes two methods of aspartame production, neither of which use E. Coli or the methods reported in the other references you cite. The article could probably benefit from at least some elaboration on the current manufacturing methods, particularly if there is notable concern about fermentation methods that use microorganisms that are genetically modified for more efficient production of the phenylalanine portion of aspartame. ChemNerd (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is sufficient evidence for describing this method of production. There is no single method of production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources that describe the potential E Coli methods do not claim that they are currently used in production. The source that does describe current methods of production does not include the E Coli methods among them. How can you possibly conclude from this that there is sufficient evidence that the E Coli methods are used? It defies basic logic. It is possible that E Coli methods are used in production, but the fact remains that there is zero evidence presented here that supports this conclusion, and Wikipedia content needs to be based on verifiable information, not our own speculations. ChemNerd (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Independent article is from 1999 and does not mention e coli. TFD (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You wanted sources, well here they are

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2013/08/26/Aspartame-patent-reveals-E-coli-feces-used/8131377527919/

www.naturalnews.com/041766_aspartame_gm_bacteria_patent.html

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/aspartame-genetically-modified-bacterial-excretions-your-food-and-drink Helios solaris 14:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughts, but none of those are reliable sources. Natural News, oy! Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent study of ~60,000

Some material that might want to be incorporated: UI study finds diet drinks associated with heart trouble for older women Has only been reported at a conference, not sure if it has been published yet. --Dr DBW (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Though with further reading it doesn't actually state that there is a direct risk with diet drinks, bit of a junk science study by the looks of it.--Dr DBW (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The summary does not even mention aspartame. There are other artificial sweeteners as well as stevia. TFD (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Article related to CNS toxicity

I've posted an article related to CNS toxicity but it has been archived without discussion. Here is the link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23553132 Any comments? Mikeschaerer (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You need to explain why this article out of tens of thousands is significant. TFD (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say that since we already have a number of high quality sources, I doubt a Polish neurology journal citing in vitro work has anything to add here, per WP:WEIGHT. Yobol (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Who wrote this article, the Aspartame Council?

Every paragraph has at least a sentence reassuring us that Aspartame is safe. It reads in a very biased way. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.236.157 (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories aside, if you think there are problems with the article, you are welcome to suggest specific changes that are consistent with Wikipedia policy. Deli nk (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the history. Every time someone linked to a unflattering study it was immediately rolled back with notes like "That study has been disproved". Seems I'd be wasting my time against someone with a much greater interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.236.157 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Here's an example of the tone throughout the article: "The consumer advocacy group the Center for Science in the Public Interest continues to promote the position that aspartame is not safe.[37]". An unbiased phrasing would be "According to the consumer advocacy group... aspartame is not safe". The original phrasing presents the fact at the same time it diminishes it. Let's just say that you don't see that kind of wording in an article on ibuprofen. To an experienced reader, it screams viewpoint disguised as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.236.157 (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality in Wikipedia does not been providing equal weight to different views, but providing the weight they have in reliable sources. For example, we do not provide equal weight to the view that men have visited the Moon and that the Moon-landing was faked. In this case there is scientific consensus that no evidence has been provided that aspartame is unsafe. If you are interested, you can follow the links to the review studies which have addressed the findings of the better known studies that called into question the safety of aspartame. TFD (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, neutrality? so then why are so many studies that are not independent, and are filled with "scientists" bought and paid for buy large companies "reliable sources"... Also why is there no link or talk about Aspartame addiction? ... this article is complete BS, and it's why nobody trusts Wikipedia anymore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.160.235.216 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Bring some proper sources to substantiate your claims or go away. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

So search for "Aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide,[27][28] with FDA officials describing aspartame as "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" and its safety as "clear cut", but has been the subject of several controversies, hoaxes and health scares." You will find it in countless pro aspartame articles that sound exactly like this Wikipedia article. Far from coincidence I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.160.235.216 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes many sites mirror wikipedia. So you have no sources then. Move along. Colour me surprised. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about linked sources. I'm talking about paid advertisements added to searches that show up. They all sound like this article. Not exactly worded, but all have key phrases that are repeated like a broken record... in other words they sound like advertisements about fracking on TV. yes, technically safe when everything goes perfectly, but ignore all the real complaints. This article does the same things. It sounds convincing by providing a straw man. Hence why people think it's being written by paid advertisers. It's an encyclopedia. If it's safe then a few lines stating it's approved by the FDA is fine. Not pages upon pages of "scientific studies" that nobody trusts... that's why it's biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.160.235.216 (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

If you don't have any sources you are wasting everyone's time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter who funds studies, what matters is whether they are accepted in the academic community. Oil companies spend vast amounts to fund studies on global warming but climate change skepticism has received no support. The same thing happened with tobacco companies. But even if the consensus in reliable sources is wrong, that has happened, policy requires us to reflect what they say until consensus changes. Wikipedia is not a forum for arguing views that are not generally accepted. TFD (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit

A recent edit adds back information about a primary study on aspartame.[2] Please note that it is against the policy of neutrality to provide this type of weight to a single study and also violates the medical reliable sources guideline. Please do not continue to add this. TFD (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

IP is edit warring the following into the article:

In a recent study published in the prestigious Nature journal found that artificial sweeteners, including Aspartame, negatively impact the gut bacteria in both humans and in mice. The team from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, fed mice various sweeteners — saccharin, sucralose and aspartame — and found that after 11 weeks, the animals displayed glucose intolerance, a marker of propensity for metabolic disorders such as obesity and diabetes. In a follow-up small follow-up study to the mice study, the team recruited seven lean and healthy volunteers, who did not normally use artificial sweeteners, for a small prospective study. The recruits consumed the maximum acceptable daily dose of artificial sweeteners for a week. Four became glucose intolerant, and their gut microbiomes shifted towards a balance already known to be associated with susceptibility to metabolic diseases, including obesity and diabetes. Although the human study was small it does raise questions about the impact of artificial sweeteners on gut bacteria.

References

This has been deleted by multiple editors. i deleted it b/c source is PRIMARY and doesn't comply with WP:MEDRS - this is UNDUE for work this preliminary; the "prestigious Nature journal" is puffery that adds to the UNDUE-ness. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the source may be reliable (not the link the IP gave, but the real link http://www.nature.com/news/food-preservatives-linked-to-obesity-and-gut-disease-1.16984 ), however, the I.P isn't saying what the actual study says, the study looked at food preservatives, not artificial sweetners, althought there's a brief mention of them in that article. I think the I.P is engaging in some Synth or OR , if not , they're at least majorly misquoting the source. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent article in AJIM

This article says that "On the basis of the evidence of the potential carcinogenic effects of APM herein reported, a re-evaluation of the current position of international regulatory agencies must be considered an urgent matter of public health." It seems like it might be a review article. On the other hand it is also described as a "commentary" in the abstract. Do other editors think it meets MEDRS? Everymorning talk 01:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it is a review, but the results obtained by the Ramazzini Institute are generally rejected by regulators due to a number of irregularities in the way they do their testing. EFSA has rejected their aspartame studes twice (here and here) and the EPA won't use them either. Half of the review is actually a defense of the Institute's own credibility. So if you use it, it might be worth mentioning that the Institute itself is rather controversial. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 03:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is just a repetition of special pleading by the shoddy researchers at Ramazzini. They don't like that their research has been rejected for poor methodology. There isn't really anything new here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Need more attention to poor attribution

Content in the metabolism section was sourced to commentary, letters to editor, and discredited studies from the usual cast of characters that currently make their living off of turning aspartame into the greatest evil known to food. The article needs to be monitored for that kind of source creep. 209.6.66.13 (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Aspartame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140811190734/http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/mail/goodanswer/us_fountain_beverages.pdf to http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/mail/goodanswer/us_fountain_beverages.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_sugar.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Biased article with the bias being maintained with reverts

The article matter of factly states that aspartame has been heavily studied that there are no safety concerns. Yet, the University of Liverpool found a problematic interaction between aspartame and synthetic colorants. A person stripped the information out of the article saying single studies aren't good enough to qualify as evidence.

That's ridiculous. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective source of facts not pushing an agenda. The University of Liverpool study is definitely worth inclusion in the article. Moreover, The Guardian is a respected media source.

This happens too often on Wikipedia. Content that is unhelpful for corporate agendas is reverted with the flimsiest of excuses. Now, even scientific studies aren't good enough!

Please see WP:MEDRS. Find a secondary review that says what you want and we can include it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aspartame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100331163714/http://www.usp.org:80/pdf/EN/fccRefStandards.pdf to http://www.usp.org/pdf/EN/fccRefStandards.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150816103942/http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/aspartame.htm to http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/aspartame.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aspartame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923210555/http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/FoodAdditives/ucm208580.htm to http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/FoodAdditives/ucm208580.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507075849/https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/06/9999999997-06-013522 to http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/vprr/06/9999999997-06-013522

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aspartame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090411071437/http://www.pharmacopoeia.co.uk/pdf/2009_index.pdf to http://www.pharmacopoeia.co.uk/pdf/2009_index.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609193259/http://www.food.gov.uk/safereating/chemsafe/additivesbranch/sweeteners/55174 to http://www.food.gov.uk/safereating/chemsafe/additivesbranch/sweeteners/55174#h_5/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130508231731/http://www.nutrasweet.com/articles/sendfile.asp?Id=161&filename=AF-TB-03-005.pdf to http://www.nutrasweet.com/articles/sendfile.asp?Id=161&filename=AF-TB-03-005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Methanol

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The reference dose of methanol is given there as 2 mg/kg/day. Hydrolyzing one aspartame molecule (mol wt 294) yields one methanol molecule (mol wt 32), or 32/294 = 0.11 mg methanol/mg aspartame. The 180 mg aspartame in one can of diet soda, cited here, will then produce about 180 x 0.11 = 20 mg of methanol. So dividing a person's weight in kg by 20/2 = 10 gives the number of cans the person can drink per day before hitting the reference dose -- 7.5 cans per day for the 75-kg person, but the person can consume that many only if the person is not getting any aspartame from any other source, which is not likely. So either the risk is more significant or the reference dose for methanol is set too low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hieronymus Illinensis (talk • contribs) 12:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The risk of consuming something which is eventually metabolized to methanol is not necessarily the same as the risk of consuming pure methanol. From here: "Current use levels of aspartame, even by high users in special subgroups, remains well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority established acceptable daily intake levels of 50 and 40 mg/kg bw/day, respectively." and "Acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies with aspartame, and its decomposition products, conducted in mice, rats, hamsters and dogs have consistently found no adverse effect of aspartame with doses up to at least 4000 mg/kg bw/day." If you can find something that meets WP:MEDRS fine, but WP:NOR. --tronvillain (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article gives impression of being engineered for a fee

The Wiki article on Aspartame gives an impression of being paid for by vested interests. In probably every section, it mentions that there is no evidence that aspartame is bad for human health. Big pharma and the food processing industry have a lot of clout. Since Wikipedia is an open platform, it may not interfere unless users raise a flag. Let the pro-aspartame lobby ask themselves a question: "Would I allow my family to consume aspartame containing products on a regular basis?" I am pretty confident the answer will be "No." Let other Wiki users who are not pro-aspartame, read the article and add a talk section or edit the article if need be. Needless to say, if they edit, they must have reliable sources for their arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.76.23.62 (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please bring sources that comply with WP:MEDRS that show that aspartame is dangerous, or show that some part of this article does not reflect MEDRS sources. Otherwise, do not abuse this Talk page as a place to post your opinions. Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read through the article before forming an opinion ("probably every section" hints that you didn´t)? While it can´t be proven that people who make money from aspartame haven´t edited the article, it seems their control of the content is not that absolute, quoting:

• The safety of aspartame has been the subject of several political and medical controversies
• Headaches are the most common symptom reported by consumers
• Because sucralose, unlike aspartame, retains its sweetness after being heated, and has at least twice the shelf life of aspartame, it has become more popular as an ingredient.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Aspartame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://ttp%3a//www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1999/699_sugar.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nurseweek.com/features/99-4/myths.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110310160411/http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/anstopics/topic/aspartame.htm to http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/anstopics/topic/aspartame.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://ttp%3a//www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/FoodAdditives/ucm208580.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070514184641/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_22_6/ai_62920821 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EUY/is_22_6/ai_62920821

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Neurological section seems one-sided

The section on the neurological effects seems to me rather one-sided. I suggests that the neurological concerns are voiced only by laymen and not supported by evidence.

But there is evidence that aspartame makes depression patients more depressed and that aspartame may affect mood and depression scales, and cognitive tests for working memory and spatial orientation. I think it would be great of the current state of the medical evidence would be accurately reflected in the neurological section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.83.184 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

see WP:MEDRS; we don't pay mind to refs that are not to that standard. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

An excellent review which references the article by Walton et al. explains the current state of medical evidence. I hope this is a useful resource to help you in your research.

• Magnuson B, Burdock G, Williams G, et al. Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies. Critical Reviews In Toxicology [serial online]. 2007;37(8):629-727. Available from: MEDLINE with Full Text, Ipswich, MA. Accessed May 20, 2017.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcd8604 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the referral to the source, however we already cite this source (actually over 20 times). Yobol (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Vague comparison: "The amount of methanol in aspartame is less than that found in fruit juices and citrus fruits"

This comparison makes no sense. There is no clarification of what 'the amount of methanol in aspartame' means exactly. In its current state, the sentence is provably false: the amount of methanol that is released from 100g of pure aspartame is much higher than that of 100g of fruit juices.

I'm reverting the reversion of the addition of a tag asking for clarification. Please don't undo this revision again unless you can clarify this statement.

Ragnagord (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your seem to understand what the sentence says perfectly but are contesting that it is accurate. Is this the case? Jytdog (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The sentence is not making the specific claim that you say it does and is not "provably false" in the way you say it is. Perhaps it could be improved with wording that is less prone to misinterpretation. Something along the lines of "the amount of methanol produced by consuming a serving of an aspartame-containing food is less than the amount of methanol in a serving of fruit juice", or some variation of this wording that can be supported by a reliable source. Deli nk (talk)

The content is directly supported by the Mangusun ref, page 638. I have copyedited a bit. Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aspartame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509171916/http://www.acsh.org/opinion/acsh-debunks-internet-health-hoax-2/ to http://www.acsh.org/opinion/acsh-debunks-internet-health-hoax-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

RTP paper

I'm concerned that a paper in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology is cited a dozen times in this article, given that it has been accused of being "little more than an industry mouthpiece" [3] and has been called a "captured" industry-controlled journal whose editors are carefully chosen for their pro-industry views. [4] Therefore, I think the RTP paper being cited should be removed. Everymorning (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Without going into all that, the review is from 2002 and per MEDDATE we should update. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

2017 Review

A 2017 systematic review was added, but it is looking at non-nutritive sweeteners in general rather than aspartame specifically. Granted, two of the seven RCTs they looked at specifically used aspartame (here and here), but none of the observational studies did so explicitly. I'm not sure we should report "observational data suggest that routine consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with a long-term increase in BMI and elevated risk of cardiometabolic disease; however, these associations have not been confirmed in experimental studies and may be influenced by publication bias" as "with some data supporting weight gain and heart disease risks" for aspartame specifically, especially in the lede. --tronvillain (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a systematic review and metaanalysis. These are our prefered sources.

This means that these researchers looked at ALL the evidence on aspartame and summarized it.

So yes no evidence of benefit and some evidence of concern.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is in serious need of updating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Except that the review was of non-nutritive sweeteners in general, not aspartame specifically. And I would disagree that "observational data suggest that routine consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with a long-term increase in BMI and elevated risk of cardiometabolic disease; however, these associations have not been confirmed in experimental studies and may be influenced by publication bias" is accurately summarized as "evidence of concern" even for non-nutritive sweeteners in general, let alone aspartame specifically. --tronvillain (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This review was specifically about aspartame[5] and the other review covered aspartame. Observational data does support associations but does not support causation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Ah, you added two - the diff I linked to wasn't about that one. The one I linked to covers asparatame in the sense that aspartame was almost certainly one of the sweeteners in the artificially sweetened sweetened beverages and is specifically mentioned in two of the RCTs. But yes, the observational data supports an association. --tronvillain (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Added Citations.

I updated the info when it comes to the section relating to hunger and weight gain with numerous citations from journals. However, I would appreciate if someone corrects the manner in which the citations were placed. Thanks.

I think both sides should be represented. One of your citations even says that aspartame is still recommended to help reduce energy intake. Jnordwick (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Undue weight. We don't give equal representation to multiple sides. We represent the consensus of reliable sources. Also, it would be original research to associate "help reduce energy intake" with "weight loss". They aren't necessarily the same thing. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

As the article stands it misrepresents the weight issue in multiple places. It seems someone with an agenda came through. Jnordwick (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted these[6]

We need to use review articles not primary sources

The changes to the summary of the Magnuson review did not accurately reflect the overall conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Formatting of references

An IP insists on playing with the references, thus creating different formats. User:Doc James and myself disagree with the IP. This isn't a content issue (where BRD would be more appropriate), but a formatting issue, and policy states that it's good to use a consistent format in one article, and the original formatting should be followed. Doc James has resolved some inconsistency so we have uniform formatting throughout the article, and the IP should respect that format. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Since they are IP hopping article may need protection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Multiple accounts/sockpuppetry, even by IPs, is not allowed, at least not in this manner. If they're going to hop around, they should create an account. Semi-protection sounds like a good idea. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

How is Aspartame manufactured?

There doesn't appear to be an explanation how aspartame is made. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:A983:F192:A06B:1725 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's in the § Chemistry section. DMacks (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Damage to microbiome

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Most of the sources in this article are old. You really need to add a section on the interaction between sweeteners and the microbiome. For example. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=aspartame+microbiome&t=hb&ia=web Claustro123 (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggest an edit with supporting references that meet MEDRS then - a link to a DuckDuckGo search is nothing. --tronvillain (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you accept this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29038387 Claustro123 (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Other than an offhand mention in the introduction, that appears to be completely unrelated to "sweeteners and the microbiome." --tronvillain (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

How about this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13793 Claustro123 (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Primary research? Probably not. Take a look at WP:MEDRS, specifically "For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used.". --tronvillain (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't suppose thais will help. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13793/metrics Claustro123 (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Please read the WP:MEDDEF part of MEDRS which explains what the kinds of sources are. We use secondary sources as defined there. If you don't understand why, WP:Why MEDRS? may help you. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

OK so i read your "essay" under "WP; Why MEDRS". I started with "This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."

Somewhere in all your rambling text listed under WP's you need to be reminded what is important. That is all your rules are written to try to improve the health of the people or at least not to harm the health of the people. My issue is that you take a stance of denying access of the people fo a highly respected journal that points out significant harm being done by artificial sweeteners. Sure if you are convinced this article is wrong you can withhold it but please be advised that you are doing so at significant risk to the public. You are hurting people. I suggest a return to simple principles. Claustro123 (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The simple principle is "For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used.", as per the guideline WP:MEDRS. The essay WP:Why MEDRS is simply attempting to explain to you why we have a guidelines like MEDRS. --tronvillain (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

What tronvillain says. Yes "Why MEDRS" is just an essay, meant to explain why MEDRS has broad and deep consensus. As I said, it may help you. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy

In the section titled "Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy"

I find the text

"While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them".

Again is your strict adherence to your so called "rules" more important than people's health? Are you really willing to trash the journal Nature to protect your WP's? You really need to think deeply on what you are doing. Claustro123 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

My opinion about the study is completely irrelevant - the study could have concluded that artificial sweeteners had absolutely no effect on the microbiome and we still wouldn't include it... because it's primary research. There is no "trashing" of anything, it's just not a good idea to use primary research for medical articles, as explained in previously mentioned guidelines and essays. --tronvillain (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

No you are not a encyclopedia as you say you are. You are an computerized encyclopedia and that is quite different. Any print publication has to be sure as once a edition is put to print it cannot be changed.

You ,by contrast, Do have that option. You can stay up to date on stories and comment as necessary.

Perhaps you need to consider adding a timely up to date section to some of your articles that simply lists new and exciting research. This would add to your content and could be updated as necessary. You have this option. You should use it. Claustro123 (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should go over to WP:MEDRS and try and gain some consensus there, because adding "new and exciting research" to medical articles is not currently an option. --tronvillain (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The sentence in MEDRS that says "primary sources should generally not be used" is a guidance statement, not a prohibition, else it wouldn't use the term "generally". MEDRS itself is one of Wikipedia's guidelines (which describe our best practices) rather than a policy (which describe the rules we work under). Avoiding primary sources on Wikipedia is a best practice, particularly with biomedical subjects. At the same time, there is zero prohibition on citing primary medical sources. They can be used to a limited extent, such as to provide a context for current research. If primary sources are used, the Wikipedia text should absolutely describe the study with correct terminology, such as "an isolated study", in vivo, in vitro, "based on rats", etc. to make it clear that the findings simply exist but aren't conclusive or applicable to humans. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's certainly not a prohibition, which is why I originally said "probably not", but you'd need consensus and the WP:MEDANIMAL section would seem to be relevant, where "Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources."--tronvillain (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

When I grew up in Rhode Island in the 50's I read of a change to the Massachusetts state law. Massachusetts repealed a law that allowed anyone to shoot a Rhode Islander on sight that crossed the state line. This is why I have little faith in those that strictly follow the letter of the law.

As for your comment on being animal tests the paper states that the tests were repeated on humans with the same results.

The article states "Our findings suggest that NAS ( non nutritive sweeteners) may have directly contributed to enhancing the exact epidemic that they themselves were intended to fight".

And then of course Nature is accepted a being a very reputable journal.

With all due respect I ask simply that this information be included in your article. Claustro123 (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wait, they used saccharin for most of the mouse study, and in the seven (seven!) humans. Why are you even trying to add this to aspartame? --tronvillain (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes they did use Saccharin for the human study but you are wrong about using it for most of the mouse study. Also the mouse study showed the similarity of all the NAS. Claustro123 (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh, "As saccharin exerted the most pronounced effect, we further studied its role as a prototypical artificial sweetener." Aspartame is literally in one paragraph at the beginning. --tronvillain (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Tronvillain You are beating a dead horse. You need to bring this topic into today's age. Many many people regard aspartame as a poison. The studies that find fault with it MUST be brought to the attention of the public. Your refusal to do so only leaves me to assume that either you are addicted to aspartame (as many people are) or that you work for the people that produce aspartame. You should reread the article and judge it with an open mind. Quione (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh... no? That's not how any of this works. But feel free to suggest improvements consistent with MEDRS. --tronvillain (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Tronvillan Too many sources are from the wayback machine. Also it seems you are outnumbered. The consensus seems to be against you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quione (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "too many sources from the Wayback Machine" - archived sources are sources. Also, what are you even talking about? That's the first time it's even been mentioned. And no, the consensus doesn't seem to be against me - two people without policy based arguments and statements like "Many many people regard aspartame as a poison" versus a pretty clear application of MEDRS does not a valid consensus make. Even if it did, Jytdog already agreed with me, which would make it "no consensus." --tronvillain (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MEDRS refs on microbiome

Just did a pubmed search (sorry about the link - the software here doesn't handle long/complex URLs like this well)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(("aspartame"%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D%20OR%20"aspartame"%5BAll%20Fields%5D)%20AND%20("microbiota"%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D%20OR%20"microbiota"%5BAll%20Fields%5D))%20AND%20Review%5Bptyp%5D&cmd=DetailsSearch

and there are some reviews. It will take me some time to read them to figure out how to summarize what 'accepted knowledge" is in the field, at this time. I will propose something here. I suggest others do the same. I can send refs to anybody who doesn't have access. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Reshaping the gut microbiota: Impact of low calorie sweeteners and the link to insulin resistance?" concludes "Accumulating evidence suggests that low calorie sweetener consumption perturbs the gut microbiota and disrupts metabolic health in susceptible individuals", and "Nevertheless, there is no defined gut microbiota signature since the results from each study differ in terms of the microbes that are affected by low calorie sweetener consumption. This lack of consensus may be a result of individual variability, unique chemical composition and metabolism of each sweetener and the dose that is consumed. Therefore, studies investigating the role of each sweetener type and dose and its metabolic impacts are needed." In their "Low Calorie Sweeteners and the Gut Microbiota" section they cover a 1980 rat saccharin study, a rat sucralose study, the above Nature study which was almost entirely on saccharin, an aspartame rat study, and a cross sectional human study (with 7 "consumers" and 24 "non-consumers" of mostly aspartame and acessulfame-potassium based on a four day food intake journal) which found a small difference in microbial diversity. --tronvillain (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

So just based on those quotes, these refs could be used to support something like: One line of research as of 2017, was the question of whether artificial sweeteners including aspartame might affect human health via the gut microbiome, and if so how." Something like that? Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I'll have to look more closely at the other refs tomorrow. --tronvillain (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The "Revisiting the safety of aspartame" references two studies, the Nature study from above and the aspartame rat study, "Low-dose aspartame consumption differentially affects gut microbiota-host metabolic interactions in the diet-induced obese rat", saying "Non-nutritive sweeteners (including aspartame) may influence gut metabolism by changing the host metabolic phenotype, ultimately affecting the gut microbiota." --tronvillain (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Biological fate of low-calorie sweeteners" says "The role of the gut microflora in human health is currently an area of extensive research for many different health endpoints and dietary components. This research has recently included LCNSs." and mentions Palmnas: "Notably, rats given aspartame-containing water consumed 17% to 25% fewer calories from consumption of their diets, resulting in significantly less fat, protein, fiber, and other nutrients, which are well known to alter gut microflora.", and Suez (the Nature study): "Nonetheless, up to a 50% reduction in food intake in mice given drinking water containing LNCSs, including aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin, is evident in graphs provided in the supplemental data." They seem to conclude that ...as such dramatic reductions in food intake do not occur in humans consuming LNCSs, the significance of such studies to human health is limited." --tronvillain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I did a pubmed search on the terms microbiome and aspartame. One of the results was "Revisiting the safety of aspartame". Here is the abstract.

Aspartame is a synthetic dipeptide artificial sweetener, frequently used in foods, medications, and beverages, notably carbonated and powdered soft drinks. Since 1981, when aspartame was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, researchers have debated both its recommended safe dosage (40 mg/kg/d) and its general safety to organ systems. This review examines papers published between 2000 and 2016 on both the safe dosage and higher-than-recommended dosages and presents a concise synthesis of current trends. Data on the safe aspartame dosage are controversial, and the literature suggests there are potential side effects associated with aspartame consumption. Since aspartame consumption is on the rise, the safety of this sweetener should be revisited. Most of the literature available on the safety of aspartame is included in this review. Safety studies are based primarily on animal models, as data from human studies are limited. The existing animal studies and the limited human studies suggest that aspartame and its metabolites, whether consumed in quantities significantly higher than the recommended safe dosage or within recommended safe levels, may disrupt the oxidant/antioxidant balance, induce oxidative stress, and damage cell membrane integrity, potentially affecting a variety of cells and tissues and causing a deregulation of cellular function, ultimately leading to systemic inflammation.

I hope this helps. Claustro123 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was in the search as well - I mentioned it above. --tronvillain (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I did this -- are we good for now? Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, Could you please add my link too. It is here and meets your standards, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28938797

Thank you Claustro123 (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's already there. --tronvillain (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok sorry Claustro123 (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent paper in Molecules

Don't all jump on me at once, I don't have a link and I can't easily get one because this popped up on Apple News from UK tabloid.

A study published in the Open Access journal, Molecules (IF >2 if I'm getting this right) by Professor Ariel Kushmaro and colleagues has determined that aspartame/neotame and several other unrelated sweeteners are "toxic" to gut bacteria even at fairly low concentrations. Given the watering down necessary for a tabloid there are no links and there's no way for me to get access to the study. However, it sounds like it was done in vivo - and didn't observe the effects (if any) on gut bacteria actually living in a human being. This sort thing should be beneath good science so it might be something more experienced editors would chose to include (or not).

This has all the stench of poor science to me, but I'm not sufficiently qualified to make that determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Here's a link to the original publication: https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23102454 It looks like an in vitro experiment performed using genetically modified bioluminescent bacteria. So it doesn't involve humans or even natural bacteria that might be found in the human gut. Deli nk (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like this study, and as far as I can tell, aspartame had [no effect] except for inducing luminescence in the DPD2794 strain at the 1.0 mg/mL level. Anyway, this kind of primary research probably isn't suitable for inclusion under MEDRS. --tronvillain (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

beta-aspartame

If the structure of beta-aspartame is shown in the article, shouldn't there be some discussion of beta-aspartame in the text of the article? Why is beta-aspartame of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8200:79A1:7474:4E96:4A94:E5EC (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the § Chemistry section ("the bitter-tasting β-form"). I moved the image there. We should probably have an image of the synthetic route, not just the problematic byproduct. DMacks (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

chemistry typo

I ain't no chemistry smarty-pants, but it seems to me that there's a missing word in the chemistry section, particularly:

"..., and the amino group is protected with as the formamide, ..."

Protected with what? 2600:1700:9850:3BE0:F98B:AC03:4359:6345 (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Three words: "a formyl group". Good eye. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Bias

Why is this article so biased towards pro-aspartame views?

This page contains over 40 credible sources and cites real studies that were done that link Aspartame to several health risks. Why is none of this mentioned, and just blatantly waved off? I for one take a fact-based approach to writing, while the editors of this page clearly show where their loyalties lie. Christiaanp (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed other sources, along with some of the sources from the link you listed, and there is credible scientific proof that goes against the claims made in this article (most notably "Reviews have found no association between aspartame and cancer", which isn't true). I think this should be included in the article and the lead section should be revised. This makes me think of Atrazine. Brytonsf (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Any sourcing that is compliant with WP:MEDRS? VQuakr (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

POV tag

The article seems unprofessionally inclined towards pro-Aspartame pov. Refer to "Bias" Please do not remove tag before this discussion is settled. SepehrAln (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

From an encyclopedic standpoint, I see no article-wide bias that justifies the tag. Neutrality is not a process of saying that systematic reviews should be tempered by vague media reports. This article appears to be consistent with the highest quality data. To quote a recent (2019) assessment: "a conclusion that aspartame is not carcinogenic is supported".[7] Non-specific complaints are not a basis for a tag and it should be removed promptly. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Introducing a pov tag was unjustified and unexplained. I have removed it. If SepehrAln has specific issues or source criticisms, then raise them here first and get consensus, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

user:Zefr It would have been fair to give the other side a chance of defense, before removing the tag. Thanks for providing a reference for the claim, Aspartame might be carcinogenic, and it might not be, just one article (even when published in reputable journals) won't prove anything. Also, we are not trying to reach a certain, predetermined conclusion here, we have to represent the consensus as is, nothing more, which seems to defer from what this article solely claims, hence the tag. One more thing, please refer to the "declaration of interest" of the ref you kindly provided; "The Calorie Control Council provided funding for this evaluation. The Calorie Control Council is an international association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry."

I am reinstating the tag. Please do not remove it until more people join the discussion and a conclusive plan to mend the article is reached. SepehrAln (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SepehrAln - the problem with your pov tag is that you have no history of trying to improve the article or its references - editing content with better sources, if warranted, is how the Wikipedia process is supposed to work. If your edit is challenged in the article, you bring the issue to the talk page. Your pov tag is sometimes called a "drive-by drop" because you have dropped a tag without attempting to edit or raise specific issues on the talk page where WP:CON can be built. Without first having talk page discussion or honest work to improve article clarity or provide new reputable sources, the tag isn't justified, so don't reinsert it. Bring your issues here and discuss them with other editors.

Regarding sources present in the article, we use many national and international regulatory agencies which attest to safety when consumed in typical amounts - EFSA, UK FSA, FDA, NCI, Health Canada, NZFSA. Your question about "professional" or "fair" content/sources is unfounded. To state it simply as the FDA said in 2018, "Aspartame is one of the most exhaustively studied substances in the human food supply, with more than 100 studies supporting its safety." Zefr (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Other mammals

The general rule is that aspatartame is tasted by Catarrhini.[8] I do not know how many species have been examined, so it may not be a blanket rule. The notable outlier is the red panda which has an aspartame receptor.[9] I have not seen a review article that sums up the extent of research. Any statements about species that taste aspartame should be appropriate to the limited extent of variation. For example a study might say which animals appear to have receptors, but taste-preference studies may not have been performed. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

saccharide link leading to wrong page

It should lead to the page on saccharine, instead it leads to the page of carbohydrates (which saccharine is not...)

The page for Saccharide has changed, but it is essentially synonymous with carbohydrate. Aspartame is a non-saccharide, unlike sucralose, a disaccharide. Saccharin, also a non-saccharide, is linked in the "Uses" section. BiologicalMe (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Health Effects

This article reads like it is rigorously edited by Coca Cola/Pepsi Co. to emphatically declare that their diet soda is safe. It is not being written from an unbiased point of view. Any potentially concerning health side effect, which is supported by scientific studies/analyses, are always followed up by the boilerplate “aspartame is one of the most rigorously tested chemicals and has been deemed safe,” creating the illusion of objectivity, but the reality is that the SCIENTIFIC consensus on this issue is much less unified than this article suggests.

I quote,

“ Aspartame, an artificial sweetening agent belongs to dipeptide chemical category with a very strong sweetening potential. Although research findings in humans and non-human primates have demonstrated numerous negative effects of aspartame (biochemical, histological, neurological, behavioral, genetic etc)., the status of aspartame is still debatable.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30187722/

This article makes it seem like the issue is NOT debatable.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.219.144.27 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to add some scientific information regarding the evidence for aspartame causing cancer in rats and user Unbh decided to revert because?? Why?? And then he decided he didn't like other edits I made that substantially improved the article and makes it read less like a commercial, and he reverted all of them without comment. Dear user Unbh, please cease the edit warring and lay out here your problems with each of my improvements to the article, and let an Administrator decide. Narc (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not about letting "an administrator decide". Articles are built by consensus, and when you've been reverted by two editors you need to discuss and find consensus before restoring. You are removing an extensive amount of sourced material and adding stuff which doesn't obviously pass WP:MEDRS. other readability issues are secondary to these.Unbh (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Cancer

The recent additions don't seem to pass WP:MEDRS or the weight of previous discussion. THis has been discussed extensively before and the consensus seems well established.Unbh (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Which articles don't pass WP:MEDRS? I added 6 or 7 sources. None of them do? Please be specific. Moreover, if you look at the references for the Cancer section before I edited it, most or all of them are primary sources. So according to your standard, most of this section should be deleted.Narc (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

(1) Where/when was this consensus, please link to it; (2) If so, that is a valid reason to undo that single addition but what does that have to do with all of my other improvements to the article (see above)? That's not how we edit like dropping a nuclear bomb - you correct what you think is wrong, not a blanket undo of 9 edits.Narc (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The nine edits are pretty much all on the same content. You're removing sourced content, and the consensus on this topic in the talk archives is clear. By all means have the discussion here again, but you cannot keep resotring your edits until there's wider support. I will look at your sources in more depth in the meantime.Unbh (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As of this edit at 13:34, December 16, 2021, and the rejection of all of Narcissus14's edits, we're back to the consensus version, so don't add anymore Soffritti/Ramazzinni junk science again. We have rejected it many times because RS which pass muster as MEDRS do so.

We've dealt with this subject for years, and this is not the article for such content. We deal with it at Aspartame controversy#Ramazzini studies. Don't try to add more of this junk there either.

Narcissus14, if you edit war like that again, we'll have to seek to keep you from disrupting it. -- Valjean (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect ball-and-stick model

The original version from 2008 showed a zwitterion, but was correct. The current version shows a negatively charged incorrect version of aspartame which is missing one of its hydrogens. Since I cannot undo a file being replaced by an incorrect one, I have temporarily removed the incorrect ball-and-stick model from the article page. --46.114.3.22 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Good eye! I undid the change of the file's image and re-added it to the article. DMacks (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you kindly! --178.202.157.255 (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

4th Reference Link

Hi! Reference link number four seems to be outdated, it now goes to a 404 page. Tysm! 174.112.253.102 (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. With this edit, I replaced the old FDA approval link with an archived PDF from the Aspartame controversy article. Zefr (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Mention of Phenylalanine

@149.97.134.93 The sentence which you are removing, "aspartame contains a small amount of phenylalanine", is relevant to the topic. Nythar (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)