Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Moved from top of page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

NPOV Policy has been adequately explained

---

This article and talk page have been overrun with absolutely unwavering bias. It is entirely evident that the editors on this page should be suspended as their own opinion's have allowed them to silence discussion on a clearly incomplete article. One editor even directly stated that "only one report of one unpublished study" concluded that it was unsafe which is absolutely, blatantly false. There are several studies showing that Aspartame is not safe.

"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

You have failed at your duty. You have only presented one side of the argument and tried to state that you do not have to present the other side "because you are right and only your opinion is verified." That is immensely far from truth. Never have I seen such a poorly research, biased Wikipedia page. A true embarrassment, even silencing further discussion on it? Unbelievable. There is not only just cause for deletion and suspension of editors here, but a review of potential vested interest as no alternative view is being truly presented here.

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view."

"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."

You must follow this, not "according to your opinion of what is true" but, what is factually presented on both sides. The neutrality of this article must be HEAVILY EXAMINED and not by any of the original editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The part of what you quoted that you seem to be ignoring is "published in reliable sources." Present reliable WP:SECONDARY sources that meet WP:MEDRS guidelines for medical sourcing and we'll have something to talk about. All that's been posted here since inception of this article are anomalous WP:PRIMARY studies of poor design that attempt to contradict the foremost accepted metastudies available. Neutral means representing reliable sources from the mainstream of scientific thought. So far all of that seems to be well accounted for here. N^oformation ^Talk 08:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

"Neutral means representing reliable sources from the mainstream of scientific thought"

This is a misinterpretation of neutrality based on the logical fallacy that the "mainstream of scientific thought" constitutes neutrality in itself which therefore discredits other reliable resources and information. It is not so. The neutrality comes in presenting mainstream scientific thought and putting forth the general consensus with a tone that neutrally describe and interprets said consensus. Interpreting mainstream consensus to mean truth in itself and that it can, not by nature of it's merit of evidence yet, simply by the nature of it being said consensus, is not a legitimate retort in itself. Alternative takes from reputable sources should be sourced and the existence of the aforementioned, presented, mainstream consensus should not be simply asserted to instantly retort any further evidence on the grounds of it simply being said consensus. Yet again, state that a scientific consensus (which truly, there is not a proven one here but, a disputed one) is the predominant thinking on the issue, do not assert that it is either the only thinking or that any other take is then wrong because it is not in line with that.

Neutrality means validity of evidence. While the consensus must be represented as such, the reliable evidence must come from a valid source, not a "mainstream source."

I hereby conclude that you have not correctly identified neutrality the lack of such is shown in both the article and this talk page.

The statement of critique of the Ramazzini studies on this page also does not draw logical conclusions. It makes no mention of the critique of the FDA's studies which lacked a large sample size and displayed an arbitrary cut-off date that was flawed as it did not study long-term affects beyond the most predominant cancer-development period (75% of cancer is developed past the area of life-span that these rats were allotted).

"These conclusions are also contradicted by other carcinogenicity studies which found no significant danger."

Studies published previously that have been contradicted by this newer data, especially ones which were funded by companies with proven conflicts of interest, do not constitute a valid rebuttal in the dismissive tone in which this is written. Studies contradicting each other create dispute. This article does not display that but, takes a non-neutral dismissive tone because "a review found flaws" (which doesn't explain anything).

"This review therefore concluded this research did not constitute credible evidence for the carcinogenicity of aspartame."

You absolutely CANNOT claim that because previous studies have suggested otherwise, that this study is therefore invalid when it possibly creates invalidity in previous studies. It is acceptable to state the conclusion of the review, but an alternative position (which does exist) is simply not given.

"Another review criticized the Ramazzini Foundation for relying on "science by press conference" with its release of results through the media before being published in a proper peer-reviewed journal, thus helping fuel the controversy and publicity about the study in the media."

Publishing results to the media when said results were still published in a journal does not constitute a rebuttal of scientific evidence either. No response to this was given and said article is no more reputable than any other. Review policy for reputable sources and neutrality and stop interpreting neutrality in a way that only fits your point of view because that is then therefore not neutral!

It must be said that the neutrality of this article is absolutely disputed! Otherwise, dishonesty has occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 08:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"While there will be occassional studies that conflict with consensus views, you need to show that they have been recognized"

This was not a response to me but, I will address it anyway. Studies do not have to become to new consensus view to be accepted, unless they are to be accepted as said consensus view. Again, faulty logic is being used to justify pseudo-neutrality. This article is simply not neutral. Studies that prove potential hazards that are not accepted by every review (just as many of the FDA's findings are disputed and not accepted) does not make them invalid as sources. When they are valid sources that outline alternatives to mainstream thought, they, in any neutral article, would be presented as such. Period.

Yet again, please stop violating the rules both by interpreting neutrality in a self-serving manner and by refusing to list that the neutrality of this article is heavily disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 08:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You are heavily mistaken. "Neutrality" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia and it doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the evidence. As I said before, it has to do with reliable sources. If you think our neutrality policy is wrong then you are welcome to take that up at the WP:NPOV talk page, but until that policy changes it's irrelevant over here. Another policy you might want to see is WP:V, where you will read that the standard of wikipedia is verifiability, not WP:TRUTH. Lastly, WP:TLDR. I'm not going to read more than a paragraph or two into your long posts so if you want any specific points to be acknowledged I suggest you include them towards the beginning of your post. N^oformation ^Talk 09:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, unless you can offer the sources of the quality I specified there's no point to this conversation. I won't debate the merits of Wikipedia policy with you; if you have no sources to present there's nothing to talk about. N^oformation ^Talk 09:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Typical of someone without the attention span to form a proper interpretation of policy. "Wikipedia and it doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the evidence. As I said before, it has to do with reliable sources"

Reliable sources and valuable evidence are being proposed as entirely different things? You need to refamiliarize with what both of these things mean. You are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 00:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is a place to right great wrongs. If you have no specific suggestions, cited to specific reliable sources for medical claims, then further attempts to misuse the talkpage will be removed or hatted. Yobol (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The nature of your comment is biased and dismissive of a very legitimate argument against the neutrality of this article.

Also, upon reading a given response, the statement "the fact that a study was funded by an industry does not detract from its credibility provided it has been accepted by the academic community" is not encompassing or necessarily even neutral. Certain members of a supposed "academic community" have accepted certain studies without knowledge of said funding, while others have not. To the turn and say that because their opinion now differs from "conventional thinking" that they are "no longer part of conventional thinking" and therefore no longer reliable, is a brutally incoherent philosophy and noted logical fallacy. Also, If the study was designed to get particular results and had errors, the errors were cited by the FDA (such as the Searle's study) yet then the FDA uses said study to establish it's standards, fundamentally biased interpretations of future studies inherently incur.

The note about the Ramazzini studies from 2010 must be examined as it uses essentially an argument (biased) that because previous studies suggest otherwise, that is discredits more recent findings.

Also, there were errors in the Searle's study as it should be mentioned (in the interest of neutrality) that said study was used to form standardized testing for safety, which in itself has been claimed to create a notable conflict of interest, when the standards set or those run by admittedly flawed testing, done by patent holders for a product. If this page is to be proven, please look into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 01:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

One last time: make specific suggestions for changes cited to specific reliable sources. This talk page is for discussing specific changes to the article, not for general discussion about the topic. Yobol (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS WP:TRUTH WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. Your analysis, and mine, are entirely worthless. We go by sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."

I am not discussing my personal views, I am stating directly that changes need be made to make this article a lot more fair in it's presentation of facts, which is clearly biased and an attempt by specific editors to push the idea that conventional ideas are necessarily true, which as Wikipedia's own policy states in establishing said consensus presenting, is not necessarily the case.

Calling this an abuse of a talk page is in bad faith and against Wikipedia's policy on civility, as it directly attempts to stifle a legitimate discussion on an article's neutrality by discrediting one person making the argument, through accusation. Please review these policies before attempting to abuse editing power.

"Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article."

You have not fully covered the sources at hand so stating that you go by sources is inaccurate. The section of the Ramazzini studies should be expanded to include the arguments made by said studies to begin with, not simply state that those studies are disputed without giving them the same length as studies suggesting that it is safe, is getting.

Stop threatening (which is against policy) with phrases such as "one more time" and stop quoting policy you are not familiar with. MattisOne (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Your analysis, and mine, are entirely worthless. We go by sources."

You are going by interpretation of sources rather than neutrally presenting the criticism outlined in sources. Each source should be given due time and if there are more sources supporting one claim, the amount in itself can be viewed as such, it need not then create a biased view in the tone of the article to begin with. Trying to refute this discussion by saying that this is "not about my opinion" is in bad faith as it falsely assumes this is anything other than a discussion on improvements to the current neutrality of this article which has been disputed by very many people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going by well established policy, as the rest are, you are not. This is going nowhere. Go try to change the policy, but we don't do that here. Oh and please learn how to sign your posts, there was a message left on your talk page about how to do it. Finally, remember this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You are in fact, not going by established policy. Your small gang of editors, taking condescending tones (please review Wikipedia's policy on civility) are going on your interpretations of policy, not policy itself. Your interpretations are biased. I already explained how I in now way was discussing this in a forum like manner yet you still dispute that, needlessly.

This argument must be reviewed and not dismissed based on preferential bias:

"Another carcinogenicity study in rodents published by this foundation in 2010 was evaluated by the EFSA and was found to have multiple significant design flaws and could not be interpreted. The EFSA therefore concluded this study did not provide enough evidence to reconsider previous evaluation of aspartame safety.[72]

A review of the literature concurred with these evaluations, finding many possible flaws in the study's design and conclusions. These conclusions are also contradicted by other carcinogenicity studies which found no significant danger. This review therefore concluded this research did not constitute credible evidence for the carcinogenicity of aspartame.[8]"

There is a massive sequential error here. Link cited as "[8]" refers to a review from 2007, which is being used as evidence to state that a "review concurred with a finding of a study in 2010." This is sequentially impossible.

A review from years before 2010 can not conclude that the research from 2010 did not constitute credible evidence. Please review policy in citing sources sequentially. You can cite a source from a previous year that sources a statement that isn't dependent on sequential timelines, but in this case it is. Reviews publish before studies occurred can not be used and applied to said studies. MattisOne (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see why the old review is being challenged. The new EFSA review says essentially the same thing. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to address the new material properly for a few days.

Abstract Statement News story —Novangelis (talk) 04:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is acceptable on this specific aspect for the time being. After said few days, when being addressed, I will review what you have written and it's source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattisOne (talk • contribs) 04:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

MattisOne, NPOV says neutrality requires the representation of "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". The viewpoint about aspartame that you feel is neglected is fringe, and we cannot give it equivalency to mainstream science. TFD (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Useless, biased argument. You obviously haven't informed yourself on this topic or NPOV properly. This view is FAR from fringe as 1. So many people are aware of legitimate information regarding this subject that companies are trying to rebrand, relabel and rename aspartame to save declining profits. Also, a massive amount of doctors concur that it poses potential risks. The "mainstream science" you are referring to is the FDA (which is engrossed in conflicts of interest) stating that it is safe and a couple review journals, using standards set by the FDA (which were based off a flawed Searle [a patent holder in the sweetener industry!] study that they even admitted had issues at the time) declared studies proving it's dangers "insufficient" in their opinions. That isn't reliable evidence to state that it isn't.

I understand Wikipedia's policy on TRUTH vs consensus, but to try to convey this opinion as "fringe" is to misrepresent both public and medical opinion across the land, which is unacceptable. If the claim of this being a "fringe view" is not simply made in bad faith, then please review more information from medical professionals on this subject. MattisOne (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If the FDA says it's safe, then that is basically end of story. If you disagree with them, then take it somewhere else. TFD (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is a WP:DEADHORSE. The accepted scientific view is against yours MattisOne. We should really move on now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatting this per numerous suggestions about the inappropriateness of this thread. MattisOne, a newbie, needs to learn policy/change first. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I am more knowledgeable of the policy you are ruthlessly violating than you are, but honestly because of the gang-style attack of any dissenters here, there is no avenue for legitimate evidence to be displayed. Wikipedia is now officially just another opinionated website and nothing more, because it's editors have abused their power overwhelmingly. "If the FDA says it's safe, then that is basically end of story" is a despicable fallacy, given the many times the FDA has been directly proven wrong and allowed unsafe substances it repeatedly has had to recall despite supposed "strong science to support it's safety beforehand." So you refuse any independent sources but, only accept sources riddled with conflicts of interest.

Again, Wikipedia is now a page of opinion, with specific agenda's from people pretending to be aligned with scientific research when they are not informed on the subject. The subjectivity of editors and eventual "page regular" has ruined this site.

I quote myself to you: "yet again, please stop violating the rules both by interpreting neutrality in a self-serving manner" as well as clearly promoting censorship. You are in violation of the rules, not I.

What about the below part of the page's "please note" section stating "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view" do you people not understand?— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:MattisOne}|MattisOne}]] ([[User talk:MattisOne}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MattisOne}|contribs]]) 13:04, 1 February 2012

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.

Recent edits adding a primary study

I have twice reverted the addition of data from a primary study [[1]] was my second. I think this is being given undue weight under WP:MEDRS. I reverted it per WP:BRD and hope for discussion here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The source, Activist Post is not reliable. Notice that it does not even mention a control population for the rat experiment. TFD (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, I did not look that closely, thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested in details on this "study" - the "researcher" kindly provides a summary (pdf) online, for more detail one needs to buy her e-book ... As a self-published source this isn't an acceptable source. More than that, it's not even a study. Let me just say that there's a reason why people conducting animal tests need to go through some training. --Six words (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not giving this mentality undue weight when a large amount of reputable medical doctors see Aspartame as at the very least, a "concern" if not something people would be far better off avoiding. The FDA has stated it's opinion but, that is not the consensus opinion among scientists or doctors necessarily. It's potential danger is certainly not a "fringe" view among the public, but it isn't even among professionals. Also, as the top section notes there are several issues relating to conflicts of interest, giving very strong indications that the FDA itself, is not an independent nor reliable source, though appropriate weight should be given to it's stated opinion as it is prominent.

That being said, this source is indeed not reliable. Unfortunately, sources like this end up giving more weight to people's feelings who think ALL sources showing Aspartame's tumor growth culpability are unreliable, which isn't really the case. While selling a book or an E-book doesn't automatically disqualify someone from reliability, it raises the question of why someone serious about people's safety would willingly withhold any information prior to a purchase, when if said person has the money to do the "study" they shouldn't need financial gain from it's information. It seems disingenuous.

So the danger of Aspartame is not an opinion of "undue weight" but, studies such as this are. It should be certain that one does not use a discrediting of false evidence as a discrediting of a legitimate opinion.

It would be like discrediting certain natural foods as being helpful in treating disease or the FDA's bias because Kevin Trudeau (known scammer) said they are. Someone trying to profit off of (at times, little known)truth's does not discredit opinions or give valid recourse to be against them. So this study does not discredit anything, but is simply another example of poor-"proof" and unreliability. MattisOne (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, we go by sources. Not by vague statements about 'reputable medical doctors' . This source is no good. We go by the weight of published, peer reviewed, preferably secondary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Testimonials regarding health affects

The documentary 'Sweet Misery, a Poisoned World' is a thorough analysis of Aspertame's controversial approval. I personally have immediate side effects from Aspartame, including headaches, irritability, and hyperactivity. I avoid it at all costs. This occured with my first drink of Diet Sprite in the 1980's. I find it incredible that it is still purported by regulating agencies to be a safe food ingredient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayakr01 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The movie does not meet our requirements for a reliable source for medical claims, and we do not make our article about what you or I personally think about the substance, but what the reliable sources say. Yobol (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Testimonial evidence is not of use to Wikipedia because it is not subject to editorial review by a reliable publisher. The same can be said for the documentary you mentioned. The material is covered based on reliable sources. Medical claims are held to a higher standard. Thank you for your efforts, but all these issues have already been discussed numerous times.Novangelis (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look in the archives of the talk page you can see that this has been brought up before as well. Oh and yes, WP:MEDRS is our rule on such things. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that this is a personal issue of importance for you, but think about this. I personally have immediate side effects from shrimp, including nausea, vomiting, skin rash, and occasional cessation of breathing. I avoid it at all costs, and it occurred from my first taste of shrimp in the early 1990s. That does not mean, however, that I'm going to go to Shrimp and make claims about its lack of food safety, or provide personal testimonials that it's unsafe. It's unsafe for me because I'm allergic to it, but most other people can eat it with absolutely no problem at all. I'm reliably informed they even like it. That's why we need medical studies, not testimonials. Kate (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Collapse conspiracy theory-driven WP:SOAPBOXing

There have been many like you that have reported that aspartame causes them ill effects. They have all been discarded. The truth is that if the aspartame lobby can buy the FDA ( as they have) then they are able to manuliplate the good people of Wikipedia to their will. Untill Wikipedia takes it upon themselves to do a proven independent study of the safty of this stuff they risk getting caught up and even being accused of being complecent when the truth about aspartame finally does come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsam123 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is an issue that the article as it is seems to dismiss all issues with aspertame to be conspiracy theories and hoaxes. While it has had more than it's share of hoaxes, there is a large portion of the medical community that is convinced that a small portion of the population is sensitive to aspertame. Migrains are fairly well documented, Seizures are proven on one sensitivity type, others are fairly well documented in others. However, finding anything has been made impossible due to all the conspiracy theories. To be clear, aspertame is safe for the majority of the population. I would put it in the same class as MSGs on that issue, which is far from what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe, but the marketers of Aspertame seem to want to deny even that much, which is where the real contravercy lies. I'm trying to avoid soapboxing, but it is a socio-political situation, as are all controversies; so I'll wrap it up with a completely non-biased solution. We need someone with the ability to do good searches of medical documents to find medical documents referencing studies relating to sesitivity to migrains from aspertame. Unfortunately I've tried and all I can find are studies funded by the makers and marketers of aspertame, conspiracy theories, and summaries by government agencies (which seemed to run into the same issue we are having here.) All of which you have references for already. There isn't a complete study by an independent group that was not already on one side of the debate before the study began (even if they claim otherwise.) Unless we can find a NPOV study we won't be able to write an NPOV article.--184.58.97.253 (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't apply to sources or to content, only to editorial behavior and editing style. Otherwise any sources for medical information that pass our WP:MEDRS guideline are worth considering for use here. If there are any that document sensitivities, allergies, headaches, etc., let's see them and possibly use them. That would be reviews, not single studies. If these are real problems actually caused by use of Aspartame, it will be such studies that prove it to be the case. Until then they are either caused by something else (but blamed on Aspartame), or such a rare condition that they aren't properly documented. That leaves the matter in the area of conjecture, anecdote and/or conspiracy theory. We already document in the article that many conditions are attributed to Aspartame, but we lack proof that it's true. If the documentation ever comes forward, the article will be updated to show that to be the case. It's rather telling that the one serious problem that is proven happens to be universally ignored by conspiracy theorists, and that is what's covered in this section: Aspartame_controversy#Phenylalanine. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

safety of aspartame

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed for fringe advocacy and personal attacks with no effort towards article improvement. Novangelis (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

---

This webpage is a disgrace. Many Many people have tried to correct glaring errors. ie: it is impossible to prove the safety of a substance. All you can do is to show it does no harm given certin doses and times of application. This has never been done with regard to long term exposures like 20 years.

A bare minuimal investigation would turn up evedence that many people after using this stuff for extended times years are suffering all sourts of disabilites. 70% of all complaints to the FDA are due to aspartame. Wikipedia simpley refuses to even investigate the charges. They are either controlled by the aspartame industry or too busy to care about the quality of their articles which in this case contribute to a major poison in our food supply.

The outright lies and distortions go way beyond what words can express. A jail term would be more approiate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsam123 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yet another violation of WP:NPA by someone quoting, but not citing WP:FRINGE websites. WP:Conspiracy theory accusations are highly inappropriate. This talk page is for discussion of the article, not a soapbox for wild unsubstantiated accusations. Please do not post again unless you can behave civilly and contribute constructively to building a fact-based encyclopedia.Novangelis (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The article reflects the mainstream view of the industry only. There is more and more indepdant research questioning the safety and value of aspartame. Even to the point that it causes weight gain. You ignore it. As you are not able to point to any reseach I will there the study where 6 monkeys were tested for tollarence of aspartame. 5 had seizures and one died. You will not print it. If i looked it up and tried to post it would not be allowed. All this has been re-occuring over and over. Wikipedia should join Fox news as organization dedicated to promoting lies.

I have been monitoring this page for a long time. Many others have tried to promote a side that points to people being physicaly damaged due to the effects of aspartame. They all as a group are routienely ignored, caught up in an endless array of WP:BlahBlah I will turn it back to you. What research can you point to that says a 20 year exposure to aspartame is harmless? Do you even see that it is addicitve? Probably not because all you know is the industry sponsored view. Look at the people around you. ( and the research) Wikipedia has a responsibelity to investigate this issue given the tremoundous outpouring of disaggrement and yet it refuses. If my previous commints were too strong it is because of the real human suffering that this page has caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsam123 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Two words: "reliable sources". If you have no reliable sources sources to discuss (and you don't), stop posting on this page, and if you are going to persist in unfounded accusations, do not post anywhere on Wikipedia at all.Novangelis (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Where is the research you talk about? A pubmed search yields 3 hits on "aspartame addictive", all of them are false positives (one is about caffeine, one about tobacco and the third is about ethanol). To my knowledge there's zero scientific evidence that aspartame is addictive, which means the WP:DUE amount of space dedicated to that viewpoint is about the same - zero. --Six words (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you please answer my question. What research can you point to that says a 20 year exposure to Aspartame is harmless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsam123 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is not a forum for loaded rhetorical questions; if you want to know, ask the WP:Reference desk as you have been advised. The article is based on high quality reviews published in the medical literature; it is the responsibility of editors to base their edits upon what is stated in high quality sources. If you have nothing to contribute, then you are long past done here.Novangelis (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, not a venue for general discussion, let alone a venue for promoting individual's theories. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Bigsam123, the article is supposed to reflect mainstream views as expressed in scientific literature. Whether or not the scientists are correct is not something we may second guess. TFD (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This article reflects the mainstream view of the aspartame industry. There is a wealth of reseach finding aspartame is not only unsafe but that it causes weight gain. You consistantely refuse to cite it. You need to join Fox news as publishers of lies. (sorry but that really is the way it is)

I think it's time to close down this discussion as it appears this editor is here only for soapboxing rather than providing sources. Yobol (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 DoneNovangelis (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2012 (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.

This article (and the main Aspartame article) must be being manipulated by the aspartame industry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Bullshit is bullshit. It is abundantly clear that this thread is not going to produce any more discussion leading to article improvement. This is not an appropriate venue for conflict of interest accusations (see WP:COIN).Novangelis (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

---

How can these articles claim that there has been no evidence against aspartame when this is clearly not true?

There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers showing direct correlation between aspartame use and a myriad of health disorders (migraine headaches, nausea, seizures, etc). These cannot all just be dismissed.

If these can all be passed off as some sort of "food allergy", then this is still not a reason to try and sweep it under the rug. Let it be known that a certain percentage of the population may have severe reactions to this chemical, and we should encourage manufactures of products containing it to clearly mark it as such, and also not to frivolously include it in products without good reason.

Why do so many manufacturers include artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and/or sucralose in their products unnecessarily and without clear marking?

Trident gum existed for many years doing perfectly fine using xylitol. There was no need to add aspartame to the mix when the end result is only that some people will have a bad reaction to it. It didn't need to be any sweeter.

• http://jeffreydach.com/files/80618-70584/Direct_indirect_cellular_effects_aspartame_brain_Humphries_European_Journal_Clinical_Nutrition_2008.pdf
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9439090
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474447/
• http://journals.lww.com/jneuropath/Abstract/1996/11000/Increasing_Brain_Tumor_Rates__Is_There_a_Link_to.2.aspx
• http://www.mpwhi.com/92_aspartame_symptoms.pdf

--Thoric (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• http://jeffreydach.com/files/80618-70584/Direct_indirect_cellular_effects_aspartame_brain_Humphries_European_Journal_Clinical_Nutrition_2008.pdf This source is probably fine depending of course on what text it would be supporting
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9439090 Primary source, pretty much worthless. See WP:PRIMARY
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474447/ Another primary source
• http://journals.lww.com/jneuropath/Abstract/1996/11000/Increasing_Brain_Tumor_Rates__Is_There_a_Link_to.2.aspx I'm not sure about this source as I'm not familiar with the journal. Any idea of its impact score?
• http://www.mpwhi.com/92_aspartame_symptoms.pdf Old Martini stuff, not so much

SÆdon^talk 23:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is not the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If you wish to raise the issue there, it is appropriate. Here, it is just an ad hominem attack.

"How can these articles claim that there has been no evidence against aspartame when this is clearly not true?" This is a straw man argument. Nowhere does either claim that there is "no evidence". The issues which have been raised (by both credible scientists and fringe elements) are discussed, based on sources weighted appropriately.

The Olney article is already discussed in the second paragraph of Aspartame controversy#Cancer. There is nothing wrong with linking to the primary source in the discussion. The problem remains that the trend he discussed started before aspartame was approved and had already leveled before it was published. Despite Diet Coke becoming the second most popular soda brand (an indirect measure of aspartame consumption), brain tumor incidence remains level.

While the EJCN review is an appropriate source in that it is a published review, it offers mostly speculative mechanisms, rather than observational studies. The link to the article is inappropriate since the website appears to violate article copyright.Novangelis (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The EJCN review is already cited in the article (I added it when I re-wrote the Neurology section); the others do not appear to be appropriate for inclusion. Yobol (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right on but the Wikipedia People have no interest in public health. They are single minded, Most likely they are being lead by a very rich industry, and refuse to consider any other opinions regardless of the source. The fact that they do this by invoking health issues to block sources that question aspartame is shamefull.Quione (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have ANY evidence of this then take it to the proper noticeboard. If not, stop this bullshit now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I had to sign to write this but 1) the user is correct. 2) try not to swear 3) You should present both sides. thankx threePictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreePictures (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

1)No evidence has been presented that anyone here is being 'lead by the industry' 2) I am quite sick and tired of this bullshit, as I think others are 3) read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (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.

Needs to be redone

This article seems to be very poorly written, and should probably better reflect a non-biased viewpoint. Phrases such as "[i]n spite of this" and others should be deleted or rewritten so this page doesn't smack of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.3.160 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We follow sources. NPOV does not mean we give all sides equal weight. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we try to have a neutral point of view (NPOV). This means we try to represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Do you have any reliable sources that should be included but aren't right now? Please read WP:MEDRS, it explains how to identify reliable sources about medicine related topics. Arcandam (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dbrodbeck and Arcandam. TFD (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Very well put. Please read the links that have been provided. If you have reliable sources to use here, please suggest them here and we'll be happy to take a look at them. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Aspartame and Weight gain.

I propose this section be replaced with the following:

Weight Gain and Hunger

Since the caloric contribution of aspartame is negligible, it has been used as a means for weight loss through its role as a sugar substitute. Although there have been claims that aspartame contributes to weight gain and obesity as well as increased hunger,[55] a comprehensive review on this subject concluded there is currently inconclusive data to support the assertion that aspartame contributes to weight gain. The review notes that additional research may be warranted. [55]

Rationale:

1) The title of this section should be weight "gain," not "change." This is a page about aspartame controversy. It is only the notion of weight gain which is controversial.

2) There is a difference between concerns about the safety of aspartame, and claims about its potential effects on satiety and weight gain. As such, references that focus exclusively on the safety of aspartame should not be used to dismiss concerns about weight gain. I believe references 8 and 57 should be removed from this section because their abstracts do not mention satiety or weight gain specifically.

Reference 55 does address satiety and weight gain. It states "The National Experts conclude that there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake. A study focusing on aspartame, such as that performed by Just et al. (2008) which looked at cephalic insulin response in healthy fasting volunteers after taste stimulation, comparing sucrose, starch and saccharin, may warrant further consideration. However at this point in time such considerations do not form the basis for recommending a re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannet3 (talk • contribs)

Disagree, weight change is appropriate (and neutral) since it is used for weight loss, but claims are that it causes weight gain, making that it causes weight loss by implication controversial. Refs 8 and 57 discuss hunger and weight gain in the body of the article, so are appropriate. I have added "or hunger" to text to clarify what part ref 55 is citing. Yobol (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

To say there is "little to no data to support the assertion..." goes further than the EFSA article, which acknowledges some level of uncertainty in this area. There have been several studies published after these reviews were completed. I believe the last two sentences of my edited version above are more accurate than the current text.Leannet3 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The EFSA specifically concludes "there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake" while suggesting possible areas of future research. I see no ambiguity there as to the conclusion. Newer studies have to appear in high quality reviews before they can be incorporated into this article, per WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT. Yobol (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but EFSA also suggests there is a need for further research, a concept not reflected in the wiki page at all. Can you see a way to be transparent to the reader that there is a degree of uncertainty in the conclusions of the review? That is all I am attempting to do here.

There is no uncertainty. They suggested future avenues for research, should someone want to do it. None of the two other reviews cited had uncertainty either, so neither should we. We are very closely paraphrasing the EFSA source here, so I find the suggestion we are misrepresenting the EFSA somewhat puzzling. Yobol (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Any fruitful research will by it's nature state that future research is needed and provide some context for the directions of that research. It's not worth noting unless the direction is substantially different from the published research in question. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

EFSA says "Interpreting the data to answer the specific question regarding whether aspartame has a direct effect on appetite is difficult, as this was not the hypothesis of the identified studies. Whilst it is encouraging that no trend of increasing appetite has been observed, the question is still largely unanswered, but remains an important one." On the wiki page, the notion that this question remains unanswered is absent. We state there have been compresensive reviews on this subject, when that is not the case. Those comprehensive reviews were on the safey of aspartame. We leave the reader with the feeling this issue is closed, when in fact it is under ongoing investigation. I am merely seeking a way to give the reader a more accurate sense of the current status.Leannet3 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What about this "Comprehensive reviews of aspartame safety have also examined research conducted between 2002 and 2009 on the effects of aspartame on hunger and weight gain. Little to know evidence was found, but reviewers acknowledged that the question remains unanswered and additional research may be warranted."Leannet3 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring the two other reviews and focusing on the EFSA, for some unknown reason. I also do not think any more time or effort should be spent on this subject. There does not appear to be any significant evidence to show that it does cause problems with hunger, as noted in the reviews, which is exactly what our article states. We should not try to suggest that there is controversy about that when our reviews do not suggest there is one. Yobol (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to create a false controversy, or give weight to junk science. I am attempting to provide accurate information about the level of uncertainty on this issue, using acceptable sources.Leannet3 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The accurate information is that, per the conclusion of our source, "there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake". This is what we state in the article. Claims about hunger need to be substantiated by evidence, and in this case they are not. We are not here to fuel conspiracy theories about the substance that is not supported by evidence. Yobol (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My concern remains that this section does not provide all relevant information. I'll make one more attempt to propose wording we can agree is accurate, based on acceptable sources.

"Since the caloric contribution of aspartame is negligible, it has been used to aid in weight loss through its role as a sugar substitute. Although correlations between the use of non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame and weight gain have been observed, little to no data to support a biological basis for these observations has been published. However, reviewers have stated that ongoing research is warranted.

Additional references would include this review paper from Mattes and Popkin in 2009. It concludes "There are long-standing and recent concerns that inclusion of NNS in the diet promotes energy intake and contributes to obesity. Most of the purported mechanisms by which this occurs are not supported by the available evidence, although some warrant further consideration." This Quin Yang 2010 mini-review in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, and this this 2010 review paper, which reports an association between artificially-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannet3 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You are, once again, ignoring the high quality secondary reviews already in the article (the Butchko and Magnuson reviews). Also, the new reviews you present are more appropriate in the sugar substitute article, as they do not come to any conclusions about aspartame specifically, but about the class as a whole (and as an aside, the last review specifically cautions against using correlation as direct evidence of causation between sugar substitutes and weight gain). You are, once again, ignoring the plain reading of the conclusion of the EFSA review stating there is little to no evidence supporting the claim. At this point, I am finding it hard to assume good faith when you seem to deliberately misreading the conclusions of the sources. Yobol (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Those reviews were published in 2002 and 2007. It seems to me that a legitimate scientific discussion on this issue has advanced since those reviews were published. Although I absolutely respect your dedication to making sure good science is used here, I can't help but feel you are going too far in this case. I also note that Wikipedia policies do not absolutely exclude the use of individual research studies,including animal studies, provided they are placed in appropriate context and their relative weight is made clear to the reader. The new sources I suggest are all review papers publishing since 2010. On what basis do you consider them unacceptable? WP:WEIGHT suggests using reviews published in the last 5 years, perhaps the 2002 reference has become a bit dated?Leannet3 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Any objection to a "see also" for sugar substitutes? It seems to me some of the references I suggest could be added to that topic, as you suggest.Leannet3 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources about health of aspartame need to comply with WP:MEDRS (which specifically cautions against primary studies and animal studies), and need to specifically make conclusions about aspartame. The sources you are trying to use are not appropriate here as they make conclusions about the general class of sugar substitutes, which contains a number of other artificial sweeteners other than aspartame. Artificial sweetener redirects to sugar substitute so there is no need for a see also as it is linked in the first sentence of the article. Yobol (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you perhaps interpreting WP:MEDRS too narrowly? For example, it directs us to "make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." and "it may be helpful temporarily to cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published." By the way, I completely agree that correlation should not be used as direct evidence of causation. My proposed text above does not do this - it simply informs the reader that a correlation exists, which is true. WP:MEDRS also suggests using Pubmed to find reliable sources, which is exactly how I found the references I proposed to add here, by using aspartame specifically as a search criteria.Leannet3 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a narrow reading, but the consensus of the editors who edit medical articles. If you want to add a source, it has to make conclusions about aspartame, not sugar substitutes in general. If it makes conclusions about sugar substitutes in general, it belongs on the sugar substitute page, not here. I don't know how else to say it, and will not address this topic further until you directly address this standard. Yobol (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I have two questions. 1) the EFSA source, which is specific to aspartame, acknowledges that "Interpreting the data to answer the specific question regarding whether aspartame has a direct effect on appetite is difficult, as this was not the hypothesis of the identified studies. Whilst it is encouraging that no trend of increasing appetite has been observed, the question is still largely unanswered, but remains an important one." why cannot wikipedia readers be made aware of the nature of this comment? It would seem to be in accordance with the spirit of WP:MEDRS and 2) could I trouble you to point me to the location in WP:MEDRS which indicates only sources specific to asparatme, and not sources which apply to asparatame as well as other sugar substitutes, may be used? Thanks.Leannet3 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

1) I have updated the article to reflect the above material from the EFSA. 2) That sources belong to the article in which they are most relevant would seem to be a common sense approach to editing. Because the conclusions about sugar substitutes in general are confounded by the presence of other sugar substitutes, we cannot know how much, if any, effects found are due to aspartame (as opposed to the other sugar substitutes also studied), unless the source specifies it. WP:OR would be the overriding policy here; implying that results about sugar substitutes in general necessarily apply to aspartame (as you would be implying by placing said material in this article) is your own conclusion, not the conclusion of the source. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would hold off accusing me of behaviours that I haven't exhibited. Nowhere in my proposed text, placed here in good faith for discussion and review, have I attempted to portray results of research on sugar substitutes as results of research on asparatame specifically. Whether such studies could be mentioned in this article, provided proper context is given, may be worthy of further discussion. However, I would personally be satisfied if we add a "see also" link to sugar substitutes. You had previously argued this was not necessary, because there is already a link in the first line of the article. With respect, I suggest a "see also" link is also warranted, because it indicates to the reader that additional relevant information may be found there. Would you agree to that?Leannet3 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No, per WP:SEEALSO. "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Yobol (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I plan to update the sugar substitute page with those reviews when I have time. At that point, perhaps we could re-evalute if the simple link in the text is sufficient, or if a see also, with an explanatory note might be most useful to the reader. Leannet3 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The sugar substitute link is the first link in the article, and the 2nd and 3rd words in the entire article. I don't know how much more prominent you can make it, and I do not think putting a See Also is appropriate given its already significant prominence in this article. At some point, editors should consider actually following the guidelines of the website instead of substituting their own opinions for them. Yobol (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am following the policy, which states "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" (e.g. if research on sugar substitutes is described there, but not mentioned on the asparatame page) and "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Perhaps you should re-read WP:LAWYER.Leannet3 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Leannet3, what's the common sense reason to include a “see also” link to an article that is already linked in the first sentence of both the 'aspartame' and the 'aspartame controversy' article? The guideline tells us that the “see also” section shouldn't include links that are already in the article or its navbox, so you're not following a policy, you're argueing for an exception. It's possible to make exceptions, but I think there should be good reasons for that, and so far I haven't seen any. --Six words (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Six Words and Yobol are correct it seems to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks to a few new voices for weighing in. Let me explain that I first came to the aspartame article hoping to find a useful summary of the science that would shed some light on the media stories I had heard about aspartame possibly causing weight gain. A researcher I know had also told me that when he needed his lab rats to fatten up quickly, he intentionally added some asparatame to their feed. I was *extremely* skeptical about all of this, and I hoped what I would find on wikipedia was a reasonable summary of the issue and a rebuttal. Instead I found next to nothing. Sources from 2002 and 2007 before this issue really showed up in the media, and no acknowledgement of any of the work (and its limitations) that triggered the media coverage. I imagine I am not the only person coming to this page to find out what is up with these allegations around weight gain. Burying the issue creates an information vacuum and leaves curious people like with the media reports only. The absence of info on wikipedia does nothing to assure me that these claims are false, I just assume that wikipedia hasn't been updated yet. It is for that reason that I think either we should include some of the newer reference articles I mentioned above, and clearly explain what they do and do not say about asparatame and weight gain/hunger, or we should supply a "see also" with a note so that someone seeking this type of info gets a hint that it is located on the sugar substitutes page, not the asparatame page (of course, they haven't been added yet to my knowledge). Usefulness of the page and transparency, gentlemen, is what I am arguing for. Leannet3 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this though is that media reports are routinely sensationalized or blown out of proportion - it's not that information is hidden, it's that media reports have made it out to be more than it is. The fact is that by the editorial guidelines we follow here, including WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE, we can't really make more out of the weight gain issue than there is in the reviews. We've got three reviews, two of which says "no link" and one of which says "no link" and includes some standard boilerplate at the end about "more research is needed." Media sources aren't bound by these rules, and so frequently report on much less reliable studies, but this doesn't mean that we need to fall to their level. The question is asked and answered in this page, and I don't think anything further is needed. Kate (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If we were discussing the apartame article itself I would fully agree. Given that we are on the aspartame controversy page, I would have thought that WP:UNDUE allows for more flexibility. Above, I had provided links to three review papers that summarized individual research reports on aspartame as well other artificial sweeteners. I honestly don't understand the resistence to adding some text along the lines of "Epidemiological data have demonstrated an association between artificial sweetener use (aspartame and others) and weight gain. See also - artifical sweeteners." I think my suggestion does the greatest service to wikipedia readers. However, if none of the more experience editors here are convinced, I am satisfied to end the discussion here. My intention is still to update the sugar substitute page with those references when I have time to give it some attention - so please keep an eye out there if you wish. Thank you all for your time. Leannet3 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Collapse trolling/soapboxing
Wikipedia is an encylopedia . As long as the prepondrence of litatuare - even if it is published by the industry- says aspartame is safe than it is safe. Our principles are more important than peoples health. Quione (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Another opinion on a lack of Neutral Point of View

This article reads like a one-sided polemic on why aspartame is perfectly safe. Here are my specific concerns.

(1) The article states that the "FDA approval of aspartame was highly contested" and later that an FDA commissioner found the scientific integrity of the supporting studies to be suspect. Yet the article mentions nothing about the specific concerns expressed by presumably well-informed critics.

(2) The article attempts to imply that a GAO analysis that states that approval protocol had been followed somehow implies that conclusions of the original studies were correct and the the critics are wrong. Although the article does not overtly say that, it seems to lead the reader in that direction.

(3) The USFDA approval section states that the GAO review "included a survey of scientists who had conducted safety reviews; of the 67 scientists who responded to a questionnaire, 12 had major concerns about aspartame's safety, 26 were somewhat concerned but generally confident in aspartame safety, and 29 were very confident in aspartame safety." I find this very odd. This says that 12 qualified scientist had serious reservations about the safety of aspartame. This is a huge red flag to me. Valid science is not done my majority rule. Yet, the author seems to imply that since 29 of 67 scientists were confident in aspartame safety, well...that is good enough, and we should all also be confident. That is specious argumentation. Why are the concerns of these 18 scientist not characterized? Surely they were not victims of the hoax letters.

(4) Under government actions, there appeared to be several institutions seriously questioning aspartame. Yet, again, no explanation is given why they drew the conclusions they did. Clearly there is some significant concern that these organizations felt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssaydjari (talk • contribs) 04:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Before tagging an article like this you might want to read the talk archives, these things have been discussed, most of them, ad nauseum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The supposed safety concerns are extensively discussed (and debunked) in the Safety section. I see no reason for the NPOV tag, and would support its removal. Yobol (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Same here, there is no reason for the tag. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read them. My believe that the article has the flaws that I have described, irrespective of your viewpoint that it has been discussed ad nauseum. The points that I made regarding flaws in the reasoning are correct and they stand. Nothing in the archives changes my opinion on that. I am not saying I agree or disagree with the assertions in the article. I am concerned that sound objections and concerns are dismissed with accusations that the person objecting has not read the talk logs. I think this defeats the purpose of community review.Ssaydjari (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The objections have been rejected by science. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The points made here are well taken. I fully agree. We need more people to look at some of these issues. Also many people have posted similar comments. Quione (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)— Quione (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've looked. They appear to be calls for more prominence without sources demonstrating they deserve such prominence, ignoring the past discussions as well as the relevant policies and guildeines, especially WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Point by point:

1. Searle's testing protocols and record keeping were shown to be lax, which prompted an outside review of the tests, as discussed in the article. If you want additional clarification, you could use the talk page to discuss specific problems of language or propose alternatives. This is not enough of a basis for an NPOV tag.

You missed the point. A neutral article would represent the full span of objections and concerns regarding the safety of the additive. Lax procedures is not the only issue. Yet, you narrow all of the issues to one and then argue against that one issue and then try to draw a general conclusion about the entirety of the issue. This is an argument fallacy.Ssaydjari (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not at all how NPOV works. We don't do fair and balanced, we say what the consensus is in the scientific community. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

2. The GAO concluding that the FDA followed its procedures in deciding if aspartame was safe for use as a food additive implies that the FDA followed its procedures when determining that aspartame was safe as a food additive. The outside review of the original results was part of the process, as noted in the report. That is not a basis for an NPOV tag.

Once again, you miss the point. That the GAO believes that the FDA protocol was followed does not make nay guarantee about the validity of the conclusions. This is again another argument fallacy.Ssaydjari (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, once again, you don't know how wikipedia works. Our opinions are unimportant. The sources are what is important. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

3. The science was never up for vote, but the experts make recommendations to decide if the scientific evidence meets a qualitative standard: "proof of a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the proposed use of an additive" (Food Additives Amendment of 1958). Wikipedia is not here to manufacture a controversy by reinterpreting "generally confident" to mean "not confident" and "very confident" to mean "confident". What I or anyone finds odd (for example, setting twelve equal to eighteen) is original research and of no concern in a Wikipedia article. As of 1987, aspartame was "one of the most tested food additives in U.S. history" (GAO report). Since the famous hoax occurred more than a decade following the GAO report, that specious argument is no basis for an NPOV tag.

This is yet another argument fallacy...argument by ridicule of a simple typographical error (which I just fixed, change 18 to 12)...and minor error that is irrelevant to the point I was making. This also includes an argument fallacy of shift the focus of the point to something minor and then trying to argue against that and try to draw a conclusion about the original point. The point was that 12 scientists expressed serious concerns regarding the safety of this additive in the food supply, yet no characterization of the concerns is offered. This smacks of bias.Ssaydjari (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What "smacks of bias" is exaggerating numbers and altering definitions of categories to make an argument that a minority position is underrepresented. An editor who cannot characterize the article accurately, does not have any business placing a POV tag. The controversy of the FDA approval process was the FDA approval process. Other countries had approved aspartame after the testing issues had been discovered and reviewed, but before the FDA's final approval. The goal of this article is not to document the degree of surety, decade by decade, but to discuss the actual controversies: things that generated real controversy in public opinion or major deliberative bodies as opposed to dust-filled corners of the internet. While you might have a point for article improvement, there is no basis for a POV tag.Novangelis (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

4. The sources indicate that the only government action in the section (as opposed to meetings, dead bills, or classification) was the 1997 law requiring labels bear the words "with sweeteners" and that was impacted by public perception about both aspartame and saccharine. There is nothing to suggest that this section is out of the range of due weight in the direction you are suggesting—in other words, no basis for an NPOV tag.

The point was that several institutions expressed serious concerns about the safety of the additive, yet, not basis is offered. This indicates bias. There is no doubt in my mind that the article is seriously biased. Ssaydjari (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose someone could look into why the legislature in Hawaii (a sugar-producing state[2], not that it is the reason) sent a letter, but sound third-party sources would be needed, and there is none that I know of. The paucity of news coverage means that the legislature's actions did not raise the level of controversy much, so it is given due weight. The first reason given in the concurrent resolution was "aspartame was originally developed as a drug to treat peptic ulcers". Of course, aspartame was not developed as a drug; it was an intermediate in the synthesis of a four-peptide analog of gastrin for use in drug assays. Trying to tie the letter to any one study is wildly original research.Novangelis (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In the listed concerns, I see no basis for sustaining an NPOV tag that had been placed and removed following extensive discussion in the past, especially when the content has not significantly changed.Novangelis (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Aspartame is the most tested food additive ever, and no harmful effects have been proved. The "controversy" comes from a small but vocal group of laymen. TFD (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree !Knorrepoes (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened to my posting of Aug 20.  ??? Quione (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed it as a violation of our talk page guidelines. We are here to improve the article, not for you to pontificate about how you feel aspartame is dangerous. Yobol (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I demand that you replace it. This is a discussion! Quione (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. It appears to me that the portion of this discussion that was removed was indeed more "pontificating" rather than proper use of an article talk page; but wasn't overtly off-topic. It's probably in a gray area whether comments like that should be removed or not and I don't think any administrative action is needed here. In any case, I recommend that you focus on specific suggestions for improving this article rather than complaining about the industry that produces aspartame. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing and the Dean Edell section

Do we really need to put a highly subjective opinion of an irrelevant radio host who studied zoology in the 1960s in this article? And do we really need to justify this by the argument that when two editors agree with it, it's all good? Immortale (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

From the article on him "Edell has won media awards for his work, including the C. Everett Koop Media Award, the Edward R. Murrow Award, a national Emmy, the American Cancer Society Recognition Award, and the American Heart Association Award. In August 2011 Dr. Edell was honored by The Independent Investigations Group with an 'Iggie' award for promoting science and critical thinking in mainstream media. [4]" Seems to me that Edell has been recognized as an authority. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, his opinion, especially as it relates to a hoax e-mail about medical issues, seems relevant here. Yobol (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to the fact that a few awards (some totally unknown) are now allowed to be used as a credential for inclusion of a scientific article? Quoted by some dubious website? Because if this is allowed, I have a long list of award-winning critics of aspartame... Immortale (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If a source receives recognition from multiple large, independent medical associations, you can certainly present them as a source for discussion here. Yobol (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Newton reference

Why is the opinion of this insignificant author quoted in the lead, and presented as a fact? According to his website http://michaelnewton.homestead.com/Referencebooks.html, besides many pulp novels, his non-fictional books are no where near the expertise on the sweetener aspartame or food in general. And besides that, the target group for his books are young adults. Why is he quoted as an expert in a real scientific controversy? To quote Wikipedia guidelines: "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." And another reminder: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..." The lead is far from being neutral because every time an editor puts in a more balanced view, the pro-aspartame editors (and they do exist), remove them. Immortale (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

According to the author's website, "he is best known for nonfiction, primarily true crime and reference books".[3] His book Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida won the Florida Historical Society's 2002 Rembert Patrick Award for Best Book on Florida History. The book used as a source in the article, The encyclopedia of high-tech crime and crime-fighting, was published by Infobase Publishing, which publishes reference book titles and textbooks geared towards the North American library, secondary school, and university-level curriculum markets. The book is used as a source only for e-mail hoaxes, not "sweetener aspartame or food in general". TFD (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

THERE ARE NO PRO ASPARTAME EDITORS. There is no conspiracy. But, there is policy and there are policy following editors. I am so god damned tired of this bullshit, this constant POV pushing really has to stop. As well, the COI accusations ('pro aspartame editors') have to end. Such accusations are a gross violation of AGF. One would think that after all of your time here and the notes on your talk page you would have figured that out. The source, by the way, seems fine with me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course the source seems fine with you regular police editors. I didn't expect anything else. Your language "god damned tired of this bullshit" is a violation of "assume good faith" policy, which contradicts your "policy following editors". I do agree with you that there's no conspiracy. The facts are clear that there are legitimate health hazards with the artificial sweetener aspartame, just like there are with tobacco. A majority of the scientists who are actually knowledgeable about it, agree with this. Nevertheless, this whole article has a very strong POV towards the safety of it. And you make this every time very clear. Immortale (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If my response to you violates AGF take me to a noticeboard, seriously. I welcome it. Oh, what the hell does police editor mean? The facts are quite clear, read the science, read the article and stop pushing your freaking POV, this is so damned tiring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Further attempts by this WP:SPA to POV push should be taken to WP:AE. Yobol (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I dropped a note on Future Perfect's talk asking that he check out this section since he has previously dealt with this user. In case anyone hasn't noticed, this user has been topic banned from aspartame related articles in the past and has been wanred about WP:ARBPS. Sædon^talk 01:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's always interesting to see how fast you all leave the discussion of this article and feel like you have to attack me instead. I present arguments to improve the article, almost always first in the Talk page, and soon enough it's about me. If you read the messages on my Talk page, you see that I was cleared of all accusations, except the last time when I violated the temporarily ban due to a 4th edit and was topic banned for 3 months. I haven't been around for a year and a half and you all immediately start attacking ME again. I also see a very vicious attitude towards any other editor who wants a more balanced article. Wikipedia states: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process." WITHOUT A DOUBT, this is a hard fact that many scientists have stated negative health effects due to aspartame. Again the old question from before comes back: what POV am I pushing? Now that you read my rights, am I under arrest? Immortale (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You ought to know perfectly well what POV you're pushing. Your very first comment in this thread was an attack on every editor that agrees with the scientific view that aspartame is perfectly safe if used in sensible amounts (and as studies have shown, even "heavy users" usually don't exceed the EU's ADI, let alone the US's), so it shouldn't be a surprise to you that others aren't very enthusiastic to “discuss” with you. Newton isn't used to verify scientific facts, so there's no need for him to be an expert in aspartame (and if he was, chances are you'd aleady have attacked the source for it). Do you have any new reliable sources that merit discussion? If you don't, then there's nothing here to talk about. --Six words (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"the scientific view that aspartame is perfectly safe if used in sensible amounts". This is not mentioned in the article. Please add "used in sensible amounts". But there are many scientists with many credentials who oppose this opinion, through science. To find a person (Newton) somewhere in the world who opinionated something negative about one other person (Betty Martini) as a source to ridicule the scientific health hazards, is quite a leap to good journalism. And children cross the ADI very often, as discussed earlier in Talk. Immortale (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

ADI is already mentioned in the article. Care to provide a source for your assertions? Last time I checked, except for very few scientists, there was no opposition to this view (actually “the dose makes the poison” is true for every substance, but I guess you know that), and there was no indication whatsoever that “children cross the ADI very often”. --Six words (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Those anti-aspartame activist scientists are very few and fringe. They are generally only known in alternative medicine, conspiracy theory, circles. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You are allowed to use a made-up phrase like "anti-aspartame activist scientists" while I am supposed to push a POV if I would start using the label "pro-aspartame industry scientists"? The scientists at the prestigious Ramazzini Institute are far from fringe. They have recently been accredited GLP (good laboratory practices). This year, the federal scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) found good agreement with the Ramazzini scientists. Now who is pushing POV? Immortale (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's news to me. Ramazzini was in trouble back when they did their shoddy research. Please provide references for this news, and also references for the NIEHS. I'd like to read this for myself. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ramazzini never did shoddy research. Just because the industry wasn't happy with their devastating results, doesn't mean their research was shoddy. It was scrutinized. Source for GLP: http://www.ramazzini.it/centro_di_saggio/index.asp The Source for NIEHS, which demonstrates that the Ramazzini Institute is not a bunch of fringe scientists: http://www.epa.gov/iris/ramazzini.htm Immortale (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In the NIEHS link, is there some mention of aspartame research? I seem to be missing it. My vision is not that great, so maybe I missed it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A good sign of a fringe POV would be quote mining. While the EPA specifies that they had "good agreement" on solid tumors, RI (which does not stand for respiratory infection although it would be fitting) couldn't diagnose leukemia/lymphoma (1 for 23 on one the reviews) in any way that could be considered reliable ("EPA has decided not to rely on data from the RI on lymphomas and leukemias"). An organization described "prestigious" by fringe proponents is described as "something of a joke in European and American science" by non-fringe sources. While none of the NIEHS/EPA-reviewed studies were related to aspartame, they did bring to light the general shortcomings addressed in the FDA and EFSA reviews related to aspartame. The only difference is that the aspartame-related slides were not allowed to be reviewed.Novangelis (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said they were in total agreement but there was some important agreement. If it was fringe, there would be none. Again, EPA said: "There was good agreement between the RI and PWG scientists in diagnosing solid tumors such as liver tumors from the RI study on vinyl chloride. EPA has therefore decided to continue to consider RI solid tumor data in IRIS assessments. RI solid tumor findings will be reviewed along with other data in determining the overall weight of evidence of carcinogenicity for substances on which EPA is conducting IRIS assessments." This is not directly related to aspartame, but about the credibility of the Ramazzini Institute in some other governmental scientific bodies. Referring to someone's op/ed to come up with a POV statement "An organization described "prestigious" by fringe proponents is described as "something of a joke in European and American science"", is trying again to ridicule any valid criticism on aspartame. Immortale (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

1) "This is not directly related to aspartame" 2) Even fringe scientists agree with real scientists now and then. 3) This whole discussion has been a giant waste of time. 4) Nobody is trying to ridicule valid criticism, it is just that there really is not any (as has been explained to you on a number of occasions). I suggest we close this now, nothing is being done or proposed to improve the article. All we have here is disruptive editing by a POV pusher, let's move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you actually use arguments, not a straw man. "Even Fringe scientists agree with real scientists"? I mentioned EPA scientists being in agreement with the scientists at the Ramazzini Institute. I suggest you take a good look at the scientists at Ramazzini, and see for yourself that these scientists are REAL scientists: http://www.collegiumramazzini.org/about01.asp I think you are very disruptive by the language you use to ridicule any form of critical fact of aspartame in this article. Always claiming that it's "a waste of time", always claiming that every critic is a POV pusher or a nut case. Immortale (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Collegium Ramazzini is not the same as the institute and they have made publications (http://www.collegiumramazzini.org/publications.asp), but nothing about aspartame. The Ramzzini institute does do the research, including also quite good research. The aspartame research, however, has been found flawed on multiple accounts on methodological issues. That sometimes happens, also at other institutions, but somehow in this case unduly weight is placed on a single flawed study.Knorrepoes (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Collegium Ramazzini is comprised of 180 internationally renowned experts in the fields of occupational and environmental health. They work for the Ramazzini Institute, which is located in Italy. I think it's a gross insult to label all these scientists as "fringe scientists". Immortale (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

We can discuss this as long as you want, the fact that both FDA and ESA decided to dismiss the institute's aspartame studies won't go away. If their study on VC was good that's great for the VC article, but it doesn't change the quality of the studies relevant to this article. As an aside I might add that getting one out of five right (their results on methanol, MTBE, ETBE and acrylonitirle were disregarded) isn't very impressive. --Six words (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware that the discussions here go around in circles, but again, I want to emphasize that this article isn't about Aspartame. There's another article about that. This is supposed to be about the aspartame CONTROVERSY. And there's a significant disagreement within the scientific community and in the media. If the governmental agencies hadn't allowed it, there wouldn't be a controversy. That's the whole point of the controversy: conflict of opinions and findings. If aspartame was so safe and clear-cut as the industry claims it to be, why do they keep on pumping millions and millions in it to "prove" it every time? Immortale (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, the article is about the ASPARTAME controversy. Both ‘the industry’ and governmental agencies keep conducting studies to show their willingness to investigate if there are people who react to aspartame - so far it looks like the only group that is affected is those suffering from PKU. They're taking the aspartame-opponents' concerns seriously because they think all that is needed to resolve all doubt about aspartame's safety are more studies, but unfortunately there are some people that won't be convinded by any amount of high quality studies. Is there new material to add to this article? If not I agree with Dbrodbeck that we should close this section. --Six words (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Aspartame altering flavor of food products

It has been alleged by numerous [WP:RS] sources, and even possibly acknowledged by the FDA, that Aspartame, when added to food products, has been known to effect the subjective taste of such food items, generally causing them to taste "sweeter" than if aspartame were not added to them. I feel this is a significant effect of the chemical and deserves coverage in this article. Snertking (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since aspartame is a sweetener, that it would make foods taste sweeter is kinda the point. Are you asserting that aspartame alters the perception of the sweet taste in a manner independent of TAS1R2/TAS1R3 activation? Can you provide some clarification and the the sources you're talking about? — Scientizzle 13:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits today by 175.139.0.188

I have hit 2RR and will not go any further, but I was wondering if others could take a look at the poorly worded and as far as I can tell, UNDUE material that was recently added. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all I would appreciate a much better tone of reference. Wikipedia is for everyone and edit bullying doesn't fly well. If you have problems with the "wording", then show us please the better style or the grammatical errors that need to be corrected. As for "Undue", that is hardly a credible claim considering the Talk page is littered with so many people complaining about how a few editors are trying to promote a specific angle that Aspartame is safe.

Poorly worded is what I would describe taking a description from a study and putting it in as a direct stated fact, even though it is contradicted by other studies. No one ever claims that "evidence of safety is clear cut", that is an absolute oxymoron in a constantly evolving science where only evidence of harm can be shown, and safety is determined only by lack of finding harmful effects, which could change any day. So safety can never be "clear cut". Yet, I respect other people's choices, even though they needed fair conditioning.

Claiming aspartame, or any product for that matter, is "absolutely safe" is what company execs tell marketers to push, not researchers or people helping each other find out information. The list of countries that ban the product, prevent its inclusion in children consumables, limit its dosage, or releasing statements that they are banning it, is information that is necessary for a neutral POV to balance out the statement of "Aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide". Without such input, it would appear that the motivation behind the statement or paragraph is to skew people's perception towards thinking that ALL controversy on Aspartame is nonsense. 175.139.0.188 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont see how the comments above justify the attempts at changing the content and pov of the lede.

It probably would be best to just talk about specific information you want to change and your rationale for changing it.

Familiarity with WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS will almost certainly be helpful. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ex fracking scuse me? Where the hell did I bully anyone? Redact that now 175, that is a personal attack. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You bully everyone who does not aggree with your views you also work to get them banned. (sorry but it really is true) Quione (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

REDACT THAT NOW. It is a personal attack, Stop this crap now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The National Health Federation is not a reliable source. The IP's edits detract from the neutrality of the article by casting doubt on the mainstream assessment of the health risks of aspartame. TFD (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Banned in some countries?

If it is banned in some countries, and this information isn't included in another article directly linked from this, it might be appropriate to include in this article which countries it is banned with the reason for it being banned in each case. Presenting just the names of countries without the reasons for the ban seems misleading at best when included in this article. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know it is not banned anywhere.Knorrepoes (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The page put up by coke says it is sold in 200 countries. Aspartame is sold in from 90 to 100 countries thus there appear to be 100 countries that do not sell aspartame. The principles on wikipedia have access to tools much more powerfull than we do they should be able to answer this more fully. Quione (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC) — Quione (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

When you say "The principles on wikipedia", who are you thinking of? bobrayner (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

["one asp-containing product is not sold somewhere" = "...because asp itself is banned there"] includes at least two separate fundamental errors of logic. That sort of nonsense is exactly why WP:V is policy and editors are forbidden from making their own leaps of logic beyond what WP:RS state explicitly. DMacks (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This article seems biased. (I am 76.171.244.110)

for example here's an opinionated statement: "These health risk claims have been examined and debunked by numerous scientific research projects" [debunked- (verb) Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief)] Rather then saying "this is fact" please present the facts or word it more appropriately like, "These health risks claims have been examined by numerous scientific research projects, the majority of which concluded these claims to be false." but please take into account valid evidence when deciding upon the majority: http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm#aspartame The center of science for the public interest, a reputable non-profit organization concluded that aspartame is one of the few food additives that should be completely avoided due with the following statement relevant to their decision: "The bottom line is that three independent studies have found that consumption of aspartame causes cancer in rodents. However, the questions raised by government and industry reviewers about this important food additive can only be solved by new reliable, high-quality studies by other independent scientists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.177.144 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively in the past. There have been isolated studies that showed aspartame might cause cancer in rodents, but they have not been replicated and are ignored by the scientific community, so we cannot give any credence to claims based on their results. TFD (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"discussed extensively in the past" is not on the talk page, why don't you provide some references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.177.144 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The first discussion thread on this page is about POV issues and if you go to the top of the page you can read through 9 pages of archived discussions mostly raising the same issues. TFD (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, I missed that because it was titled "michael newton reference". I would still like to see more information in this article though, particularly links to the data used in the ramazzini studies (the data that was provided). I have to wonder where the rise in carcinogenesis came from in the rats used in the ramazzini studies, even though they used some flawed practices that doesn't seem like it's basis enough to throw their entire study out the window, I think the data should be linked to in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.177.144 (talk • contribs)

Did they release data to the public? I'm not aware of any. --Six words (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if the raw data are out there I don't think linking to them is a good idea without expert commentary. I think it would violate WP:OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I was just curious. I think they didn't even give EFSA and FDA all their data so the suggestion that they released data to the public was surprising. --Six words (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. In my profession you are supposed to keep your raw data for 7 years, and give them to anyone who asks, not sure how it works in other sciences. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

EFSA re-evaluation: draft scientific opinion published

Last week, EFSA published a draft report as part of a call for public consultation. From what I see (haven't had the time to read the whole report) they're going to reconfirm EU's ADI of 40 mg/kg bw per day. --Six words (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

in spite of this

You say,

"In 1987, the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that the food additive approval process had been followed properly for aspartame.[2][5] In spite of this, critics such as activist Betty Martini have promoted claims, undocumented in the medical literature,"

Your statement "in spite of this" is illogical. The Government Accountability Office never ruled on the health of aspartame. They never ruled even on the creditability of the data presented They only said proper procedures had been followed.

If i follow proper procedures to buy a gun and then shoot someone should i be let off because I "followed proper procedures"

You should correct this. Arydberg (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fine the way it is. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

BLPN thread started by a frequent contributor to this talk page

Some editors here might find this thread of interest (I follow BLPN, though some of you may not). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#aspartame_controversy Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nancy Markle emails

In the lead it states: "The unsubstantiated claims are still repeated by thousands of self-published Web sites." This is unsourced. No one knows what is still repeated on the Internet. My guess is that someone used Google (which is against Wikipedia's rules). I get 590 actual hits of links that contain the name Nancy Markle and "aspartame". This is not thousands if one even used this. These are all sites, pro and con, self-published and not self-published. Please remove this sentence. Immortale (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

good point.

Arydberg (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The Aspartame Controversy article isn't about the controversy

To quote WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". A mainstream source saying something is verifiable. We can document what is said, and readers can verify it. It's up to the readers to decide who to believe. The mass media reports the controversy since the time Aspartame came on the market. There is still independent research being done, that shows time after time negative findings. Then the article is full of weasel words and other unsupported attributions Wikipedia:ALLEGED. To me it seems that a small but dedicated group of hostile editors refuse to report the controversy because of their original belief that it was a hoax. Instead of admitting a mistake, they keep protecting it like their personal pride is at stake. No neutral wikipedia editor would find this article balanced. Then there's the matter that it is a real controversy, so the industry needs to protect itself in order to avoid a massive scandal. Propaganda is a very powerful tool and the presentation and misinterpretation of information is an important key in that. Immortale (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I shall shortly be raising this clear violation of WP:NPA at WP:ANI, and calling for the person responsible to be topic banned from any subject matter (including talk pages) relating to artificial sweeteners, for this attack, and for the tendentious editing demonstrated in the previous thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have had enough of these conspiracy theory allegations. This bullshit has to stop now, I am tired of being called a corporate shill. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Damn Immortale. Now you have done it! You have told the truth! Now we will both surely be banned. Arydberg (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The article covers things adequately, and, 'the industry' has no editors here that I can see. There is no evidence of a conspiracy, this HAS TO STOP NOW. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Cherry Picking

Interesting that my latest edit of a quote of the team leader of the 1977 FDA Task Force, Jerome Bressler, from a 1999 interview conducted by the FDA, from the official website of the FDA, is labelled as cherry-picking a quote, while there's no objection of cherry-picking a quote from John Henkel who was a staff writer for a small digital publication of FDA Consumer, in which he expressed an opinion of "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"" and to put this cherry-picked quote without mentioning the source in the lead, pretending it's a general fact. If that is not bias and POV pushing, then I don't know what is. Really. Immortale (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You follow a statement "although minor inconsistencies were found [by an FDA task force], they would not have affected the studies' conclusions" with Bressler saying "We discovered some major discrepancies in the rat study." I suppose your intention is to cast doubt on the task force, but the reasonable approach would be to discuss the findings of the 1999 FDA investigation. Was his statement accurate, did it mean the studies' conclusions would have been different, what does the FDA say? You are using a primary source to prove a theory which is OR. TFD (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. Yobol (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Same here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not just any FDA official, it was the team leader and FDA veteran inspector of the 1977 FDA Task Force who wrote in the Bressler Report devastating facts regarding the research of Searle. This Bressler report is OR, so I cannot quote it, but I can surely quote him from an interview, from a reliable source. This is called: reporting the controversy of the time when Aspartame was admitted onto the market due to political powers, that caused controversy. Immortale (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is 1) the quote is chosen by a Wikipedia editor out of an interview with a primary source - someone directly involved with the testing - instead of being used carefully alongside a secondary source to interpret it, as we need to, otherwise we run into problems with WP:OR, and 2) the quote chosen "We compared the available raw data at the firm with the submission to FDA. We discovered some major discrepancies in the rat study." is too vague to really be meaningful--what were the discrepancies? Were they really important? What's the context - were there other studies that did not have discrepancy problems? A reliable secondary source interpreting the primary source is required here. Zad68 20:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

On Betty Martini's "Conspiracy Theory"

This article states that "critics such as activist Betty Martini have promoted claims, undocumented in the medical literature, that numerous health risks (such as multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, methanol toxicity, blindness, spasms, shooting pains, seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects and death) are associated with the consumption of aspartame in normal doses. ... Betty Martini's widely circulated conspiracy theory. Her undocumented claims are still repeated by thousands of self-published Web sites." This is a false claim. Her claims come from FOIA requests like the following: 1) The following FDA report received via FOIA request on aspartame symptoms - cynically, on the upper right hand corner of the fourth page, it states, "92 documented symptoms on the FDA report - from coma and seizures to blindness and death": http://www.mpwhi.com/92_aspartame_symptoms.pdf

2) The following FDA report showing aspartame toxicity, including data omitted from the standard rhetoric that pushed the product into the market, the last part beginning at p. 81, the result of a FOIA request by Dr. John Olney, is important, as it shows discrepancies between stated and actual data, and obfuscation on the part of Searle (and poor quality controls), and how this was kept under wraps by the FDA: http://www.dorway.com/bresslercomplete.pdf

Many studies also show toxic effects from Aspartame. From them we find that:

Artificial sweetener consumption is associated with urinary tract tumors: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18495230

Aspartame may be linked to increasing brain cancer rates: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8939194

Consumption of greater than 2 servings per day of artificially sweetened soda is associated with a 2-fold increased odds for kidney function decline in women: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20884773

In men, greater than 1 daily serving of diet soda increased risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myleoma: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097267

The elimination of MSG and Aspartame from the diets of patients with fibromyalgia is a successful treatment option: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11408989

Aspartame administered in feed, beginning prenatally through life span, induces cancers of the liver and lung in male Swiss mice: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20886530

Aspartame affects genes associated with cancer and may increase gene expression in organs with a high proliferation rate (even at the recommended daily maximum dose): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17354619

Aspartame appears to adversely affect spatial cognition and insulin sensitivity, especially in males:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22509243

Aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9714421

Aspartame intake corresponding to common doses results in signs of neurotoxicity in rats:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18343556

Aspartame is associated with neurological dysfunction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17673349

Aspartame produces methanol as a metabolite, which can be converted into the cytotoxic chemicals formaledhyde and formate: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11991085

This important one - Chronic exposure to aspartame results in oxidative stress in the brain of albino rats, as well as methanol formation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22922192

Life-span exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases leukemia and lymphoma rates in rats: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418

Long term consumption of aspartame causes liver injury and oxidative stress in the rat liver:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21376768

Aspartame and L-glutamic acid work synergistically with food coloring agents to induce neurotoxicity:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16352620

Saccharin and aspartame, compared with sucrose, induce greater weight gain in adult Wistar rats, at similar total caloric intake levels: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23088901

Aspartame contains 11% methanol by weight, which converts to formaldehyde in organs other than the liver: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896282

Aspartame is broken down into formaldehyde in various tissues and may contribute to migraines: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18627677

Aspartame may be associated with certain mental disorders, compromised learning and emotional functioning: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524

Aspartame metabolites have an adverse effect on human red blood cell enzyme activity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16129618

Aspartame bioassay findings portend human cancer hazards: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18085058

Individuals with mood disorders are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of aspartame: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935

The consumption of aspartame is associated with higher serum levels of a benzene metabolite associated with blood disorders and leukemia: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484134

Among other things. Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If you check the archives you will see that dorway is not a reliable source, I am pretty sure mpwhi.com would not be an RS either. The article is well sourced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The two items I linked to contain the scanned copies of articles from FOIA requests that refute the notion that Martini's claims are undocumented. Those websites are used for no other purpose. Those scanned copies substantiate the claims of the person being critiqued.Pottinger's cats (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Pottinger - no historian worth his or her salt would accept a pdf posted on an activist organization website as reliable. Maybe a historian would use that as a basis to make his or her own FOIA request. But it is laughably unreliable on its own.Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Cherry picking individual primary studies won't be of much use either. (Some of which don't even mention aspartame, but instead mention just 'artificial sweeteners') Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The two items linked to above, from dorway and Martini's site, show that her claims are documented, and thus refute the claim in this article. If you critique a person for having a view contrary to mainstream institutions, but will not allow that person's documentation substantiating that view to be reproduced, then that is hardly neutral. This is not any article from those sites - it is clear FOIA scanned request copies substantiating the claims of the promoter of the idea, who is attacked. The urinary tract tumor artificial sweetener study mentions Cyclamate, Saccharin, Aspartame, and Acesulfame-K. Aspartame is the artificial sweetener of choice for diet sodas, hence the second study.Pottinger's cats (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, I understand wikipedia's policy on primary sources vs. secondary sources, but the point of that was to show that there are more then a few studies that come up with adverse effects, hence this is not an anomaly. My main point though relates to the two items of Martini substantiating her claims.Pottinger's cats (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide review studies that look at all studies and determine whether the findings above have been repeated in other studies. Many adverse studies have been found to have poor methodology. Statistically, there is a high probability that if thousands and thousands of studies are conducted with small populations that some will provide adverse results. The FDA report btw "documents" the 7,232 reports of adverse reactions to apartame received between 1980 and 1995, of which 92 were of the serious nature you mentioned. Compare that with 6,000 UFO sightings in 2011.[4] TFD (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The number 92, as it pertains to the FDA report, documents a list of symptoms, not the number of people with those symptoms, which is spread across the symptoms listed.Pottinger's cats (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:MEDRS. None of these sources qualify for inclusion in this article. There is a clear scientific consensus that aspartame is safe for consumption at current doses, you will need more than individual primary studies to overturn this; if you find secondary reviews that state otherwise, we can consider, otherwise we are spinning our wheels here. Yobol (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The number of symptoms is meaningless. When something is associated with 92 or 10,000 symptoms in a few individuals each, it is meaningless from an epidemiological standpoint. The CDC investigation of the complaints turned up nothing. That is the content of the medical literature.

Willful misinterpretation of the medical literature is not documentation. Take the study that shows "aspartame may be linked to increasing brain cancer rates"; that one was debunked years ago. The trend started before aspartame was introduced and was already leveling off. Despite increased consumption, the incidence of brain tumors has been tailing off since 1987[5]. In a study of pediatric brain tumors, controls were more likely to drink diet soda more than weekly and maternal consumption was higher in the control group (although neither at a statistically significant level).[6] Anyone making the claim that the medical literature supports the notion of an association with brain tumors is not using the medical literature. Or take the claim that "in men, greater than 1 daily serving of diet soda increased risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myleoma". That was a negative study. There was a control for lifestyle: regular soda consumption. While there was a slight increase in risk in the group consuming diet soda, barely over the threshold of statistical significance, the regular soda group showed a higher risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Calling this an adverse effect is not supported by the medical literature. What you are describing is a WP:FRINGE interpretation of the medical literature, the cherry-picking of tidbits and passages to create an illusion, not documentation in the medical literature.Novangelis (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me the original source this comes from?: http://img.medscape.com/fullsize/migrated/540/146/nf540146.fig3.gif

Here. The brain tumor opinion piece was problematic from the day it was published (that whole effect-preceding-cause thing). The fringe theorists cling to it, even though the medical literature has dismissed it.Novangelis (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

And with the exception of what you pointed out, which did show adverse effects from aspartame (though it also noted adverse effects with the soda), what was described was pretty consistent with the abstracts. (I find this one interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17354619)Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

An association is not an effect. That conflation of correlation and causation is the stock and trade of fringe advocates. An extremely weak association between diet soda and a condition is not a demonstration that aspartame causes the condition, especially when the condition appears at a higher rate in a group not receiving aspartame. This disconnect between the activists and the medical literature has been well demonstrated in this thread. You don't have to make that point any more times. This article and its talk page are not the place for trying to interpret animal studies which may or may not have physiological significance; this article (and the rest of Wikipedia) uses high-quality reviews to interpret that data.Novangelis (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The high quality reviews you mention are industry funded, with conflict of interest. The following echoes my concerns PMID 18085058 The statement "especially when the condition appears at a higher rate in a group not receiving aspartame" is incorrect - the abstract states, comparing it to the group that did not receive diet soda "in men, ≥1 daily serving of diet soda increased risks of NHL (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.72) and multiple myeloma (RR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.20, 3.40) in comparison with men who did not consume diet soda." Here are independent human studies showing negative effect, where this is clear from the abstract - PMID 8373935, PMID 7936222, PMID 1579221, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2524.1988.hed2801010.x/abstract I have highlighted many others. Of these, the most interesting to me is the following - PMID 11408989 Independent studies keep coming up, year after year, showing problems - like this most recent one, which is not at all ambiguous PMID 23280025 Now, where Betty Martini comes in is that she has done the work in obtaining the copies of the congressional documents and FDA investigations noting that during the approval process, toxicity was known, and obfuscated. How the CDC put up a summary on the report that contradicted the investigation, then left the investigation off their web site, etc. I do not have the time to engage in a further in depth debate on this. Obviously, somebody like her would have to take up the mantle.Pottinger's cats (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter whether studies are industry funded, but the degree of acceptance they have obtained in academic writing. Companies often fund studies outside academic research that are published by thinktanks, which are not reliable. TFD (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If I have one item that controverts established notions on aspartame, it is this - the contents of the CDC report go against their stated recommendations, and the summary on their website: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000426.htm

Is modified from the original, more condemnatory investigation: http://ia801602.us.archive.org/28/items/OnAspartameMsg/1994_cdc_report_on_aspartame.pdfPottinger's cats (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying. What are the differences? TFD (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said overview. A plethora of negative symptoms are described in the investigation, and do not fit in with the "mild nature" described in the CDC summary. See paragraph 2 p. 127Pottinger's cats (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretations, or mine, or anyone else's, of the CDC final report are not important. Please see WP:OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A Critical Report on EFSA

The Corporate Europe Observatory has released a report about the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) with a special chapter on Aspartame. http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/conflicts_on_the_menu_final_0.pdf I would like to see their conclusions represented in the article, to balance out the controversial decisions of EFSA regarding the recent research of the Ramazinni Institute. Does anyone agree with this? Immortale (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure they meet WP:RS. Who are they? The About Us page makes them sound like a lobbying group with various axes to grind. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

At http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/consultation/displaylobbyist.do?id=5353162366-85 there's more information about Corporate_Europe_Observatory and their report seems to be well-sourced. Immortale (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You would need to show that this group has the relevant scientific expertise to make generalized, detailed assessment of specifics of carcinogenicity testing protocols in rodents for us to use to rebut a highly reliable source like the EFSA. Yobol (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

But it's not our job to prove anything, but to report the controversy if the source is valid and it has weight. The Corporate_Europe_Observatory shows that the EFSA is not a "highly reliable source" by their own investigation. Their report contains footnotes that the reader can check up. Why would we withhold this information to explain what the controversy about Aspartame is all about? We might as well reduce the article to one sentence: Aspartame is safe, because the government says so. Immortale (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The government is a reliable source to make that distinction, and random advocacy groups are not reliable to make that distinction. If that advocacy group does not have the relevant expertise to rebut a reliable source, it is not a reliable source itself. We report relevant, notable controversies as documented in reliable sources, not any and every controversy from every self published source in the world. Yobol (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Yobol Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the title of this page contains the word "controversy" it seems to me that this source should be included. Arydberg (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS applies to all articles and while the question "can this be considered a reliable source" can't be answered properly without knowing what exactly one wants to use a given source for I think it's unlikely that this would be considered a reliable source. What Immortale linked to is a self-published report by an almost invisible campaign group. There's a Wikipedia article, but I doubt they even pass WP:GNG. --Six words (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV

I think it would be useful if a previously uninvolved user considered the neutrality of this article. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be useful if we used consensus. I also think just adding a tag without an explanation of what the problem is is the oppisite of useful. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You should not add POV tags to an article without explaining why you think it is POV. From your comments, it appears you are not saying the article is POV, just saying it should be checked. TFD (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sample and external link

I have added "aspartamekills.com" to the external links as it has been used an example in multiple published in third-party publications discussing the medical misinformation on the internet—sufficient for mention in text. Limited use of examples was recommended in Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive 7#This whole article should be reviewed. Basis: [7][8][9]. In order to avoid the risk of WP:Example cruft, all proposed samples should be brought to discussion with evidence of notability.Novangelis (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

brave move and well executed. i agree!Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

birth defects

I suggest the words "birth defects" be removed from the following line "In spite of this, rumors, unsupported by medical evidence, propagate that numerous health conditions (such as multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, methanol toxicity, blindness, spasms, shooting pains, seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects and death" be removed. The following link shows there was medical research devoted to birth defects.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/health/article-1293495/Do-sweeteners-bring-early-birth-How-fizzy-drinks-harm-unborn-child.html

Arydberg (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The MailOnline Website isn't remotely a reliable source per WP:MEDRS, and even if it was, it doesn't say anything about birth defects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The author writes, "we urge cautious interpretation until further studies have been conducted. Indeed, as with any other observational study, we cannot exclude the role of bias or unadjusted confounding. This is why we encourage replication of our findings."[10] TFD (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct on the Daily Mail here is the real link, http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/3/626.full[[11]] Also your statement implies there exists no research on birth defects. You state, in effect, that rumors are unsupported by ANY medical evidence. This is not true regardless of wether the study is replicated.

Arydberg (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but you see, there is no evidence, the authors practically admit that. You have been grasping at straws for years now, you might consider moving on. Seriously. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And this is no small study either. Almost 60,000 pregnant women took part. Interesting that they write: "the safety of artificial sweeteners has been disputed". According to the Wikipedia Controversy article, it's undisputed. No evidence? The researchers came to this conclusion: "Daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery." We are not looking for evidence, we are simply here to report the controversy. Why are you attacking anyone who tries to make the article more neutral? Immortale (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

'May' is not 'does' Please also see the quote from TFD above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Preterm delivery is not a birth defect.--Six words (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

On a pack of cigarettes, it says: Tobacco MAY harm your health. Are you going to hide behind legal terms now? We are here to report the controversy, nothing else. Leave the rest to lawyers. This is getting too ridiculous again. Immortale (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, it is getting ridiculous. Please move on. This is the longest case I have ever seen of WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If there's a request that says "Please remove birth defects because this study says there's a correlation between premature birth and diet soda consumption", how is it "ridiculous" or "hiding behind legal terms" if I point out that premature birth is not a birth defect? --Six words (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Please stop wasting our time with this pointless nonsense. If people can't be bothered to read the article (which doesn't say what the OP claims), the sources they link, or the Wikipedia policies - which make entirely clear that rubbish like Mail Online isn't a reliable source anyway - why the heck should we bother responding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand. This is what the journal article says. "Results: There was an association between intake of artificially sweetened carbonated and noncarbonated soft drinks and an increased risk of preterm delivery (P for trend: le 0.001, both variables). In comparison with women with no intake of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks, the adjusted odds ratio for women who consumed ge 1 serving of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks/d was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.65). The corresponding odds ratio for women who consumed ge 4 servings of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks/d was 1.78 (95% CI: 1.19, 2.66). The association was observed for normal-weight and overweight women. A stronger increase in risk was observed for early preterm and moderately preterm delivery than with late-preterm delivery. No association was observed for sugar-sweetened carbonated soft drinks (P for trend: 0.29) or for sugar-sweetened noncarbonated soft drinks (P for trend: 0.93).

Conclusions: Daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery. Further studies are needed to reject or confirm these findings."

Please tell me why this is ridiculous Arydberg (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Because studies may produce all kinds of finds, but require interpretation, replication of findings and acceptance in the academic community. BTW the U.S. stopped saying that smoking may be hazardous to health in 1970. TFD (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Arydberg, you do not understand how science works. Many things are found, once, they have to be replicated. That is precisely why 'Further studies are needed to reject or confirm these findings' is in the paper. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not looking for proof, only to point out that your statement "rumors, unsupported by medical evidence, propagate…… birth defects….. are caused by the consumption of aspartame in normal doses." Is false . There is medical evidence even if it is non conclusive. The line "unsupported by medical evidence should be removed. Arydberg (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you completely out of your mind? You have offered no source whatsoever stating that medical evidence suggests that Aspartame may cause birth defects. How many fucking times do we have to tell you that premature births are not birth defects? Spread your lies somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is ridiculous because preterm delivery is not a birth defect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a fair and balanced source: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/08/30/sweetened-drinks-may-be-linked-to-premature-births/ Now you can add this somewhere in the article because it's another controversy... BTW, governments know that tobacco DOES harm, but the Industry keeps claiming it MAY. Immortale (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Was this comment meant to be ironic? Fox News, really? Sædon^talk 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Tobacco is irrelevant here. And, see above re preterm delivery is not a birth defect. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that "artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks" is not the same thing as aspartame, firstly. Secondly, I'm pretty sure that this is a primary study (haven't read it, just basing this on the language above) and so as Arydberg knows, it's completely worthless for our purposes. Lastly, I'm pretty sure Arydberg brought up the same or a similar source that discussed soft drinks and not aspartame specifically in the past and so this looks to be another WP:IDHT moment. Nothing has changed, it seems, since his last topic ban and I think it's time to make it permanent. Sædon^talk 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but to me the important point is the harm. I will not use these terms again. btw almost all diet soft drinks in cans are sweetened with aspartame. Also http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20886530 Arydberg (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A study that has been soundly rejected by the EFSA. Really, this is getting tiring, actually, it already is tiring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Arydberg and Immortale, you have both read WP:MEDRS. You both know that we do not consider single primary sourcestudies as valid material to counter-pose against the scientific consensus as expressed in secondary sources, and on that basis you know that the links you have posted are inadmissible. This has been explained multiple times. It is therefore only reasonable to assume that your persistent posting of such sources is done with the intent to either force through material against policy, or as a means to antagonise those who wish to see that this article complies with policy. This is not going to work. The next time such irrelevant material is posted by either of you, I intend to call for the person posting to be topic banned for violations of Wikipedia policy - specifically that described under Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I like new primary studies, and I think we should cover them in Wikipedia. That said, it is absolutely too far of a stretch for this application. You have a correlation between consumption of soft drinks and premature birth that I would guess is probably because a woman about to give birth needs to have "water" to break. Maybe I'm wrong, but you're guessing if you say the drinks cause it, and the sources assiduously avoid saying that. Next, you assume that's due to aspartame, neglecting that the sweetened drinks had a greater correlation, that not every diet drink was aspartame, etc. Now you could still get this in, IMHO, if you have good sources about the social phenomenon, i.e. saying that many people have stopped consuming aspartame out of fear of premature birth, whether or not it is founded. But you're not there either. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, nothing that Wnt proposes here is of the slightest bit of relevance, given that it violates multiple policies (and posting it is itself a policy violation, per WP:NOTFORUM). Wnt, troll elsewhere. We have enough problems with this article already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Wnt does have a valid point in there. While interpretation of primary research studies (WP:MEDRS) is inappropriate (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), if a primary study becomes genuinely controversial, as demonstrated by secondary sources discussing the consequences, the impact of the study is appropriate material for the article. The assessment of the science remains an issue for scientific reviews. If there is an observed broad, aspartame-specific social reaction to the publication of primary research, and the response is discussed in secondary sources, the social phenomenon is valid as a controversy. That said, public reactions to long-term health claims are generally The Markle letter, which created a reported ongoing increase in inquiries, qualifies as a broad-based social phenomenon, and its controversial nature can be established by its non-immediate coverage. The Markle letter probably had more of a social impact than all real announcements of aspartame-related research, combined. Coca-cola being sold in white cans[12] probably did, as well. A few sensational headlines when a study is published on a slow news day do not qualify, and a few conspiracy theorists high-fiving each other virtually do not, either. A fringe group leaping to irrational conclusions is not an impact; if there is a controversy and almost no one cares, it isn't really a controversy. If a recent study has an established response and ongoing reporting, it is possible to state: "study X raised the issue of [brief, conservative statement of the controversial finding(s), preferably from a high-quality science-reporting source] and there was a [specific reaction (e.g. increased medical inquiries, decreased sales, riots, etc.)]; the findings are being evaluated by [major organizations will announce plans to investigate a truly controversial result]".Novangelis (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We do not have any reliable secondary sources saying that this report has fueled the controversy. TFD (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone outside of this should rule on the words "Unsupportrd by medical evidence" Evidence does exist. To say it does not is not true. You should say the existing evidence does not support the claims

Quione (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Administrator help is not what's needed here; admins don't make rulings on content. If you wish to draw outside editors to the article, the thing to do is start a WP:RFC. -- Dianna (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

perhaps this will help Again could someone outside this page rule on the phrase "Unsupported by medical evidence" used in this page while evidence may not be conclusive it does exist. Quione (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Please could someone anyone unconnected with this webpage look at the pharse " unsupported by medical evidence" It is misleading evidence does exist even if it is not accepted ... WP:RFC Quione (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC) — Quione (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. We don't need some admin to make a decision, we have made one. 16:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)