Talk:Neotame

Discussion

I have removed one of the links on the main page because it's simply horrible from a scientific standpoint, but left the other because it's at least a little more reasonable and I do support a diverse range of viewpoints.

However, I believe the whole glutamate argument is pretty flimsy against neotame. Yes, some people are glutamate sensitive, but it seems like everybody forgets that free glutamate is found pretty much anywhere there's protein! Neotame is both substantially more potent than aspartame (usage levels are measured in ppm - about 97% lower than aspartame) and substantially more stable. This means the risk for side effects is dramatically reduced.

Comparing neotame to aspartame straight away is not really very fair either. They are similar compounds, but even subtle differences can take a substance from deadly to life giving.

Citing reports of headaches associated with neotame is another difficult thing. Neotame is so sweet, some people develop a sensory overload from too much sweetness. There's nothing mysterious about being overstimulated and developing a headache.

I have personally worked with a glutamate sensitive individual and experimented with neotame ingestion. There were no side effects. This individual is so hyper-sensitive that she has issues eating meat, cheese, dairy products, etc. Even miso and other fermented products trigger a reaction. I was not able to determine any threshold that she could ingest in food and drink that evoked any reaction. I suppose I could have administered neotame in capsule form, but why? I mean... many vitamins are essential nutrients, but you could easily kill yourself with an overdose of those same vitamins.

And before you ask, no, I do not work for the producers of neotame. I am simply a health-concerned individual who is giving this serious scientific scrutiny. Blueandwhiteg3 23:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I took away the other anti-neotame link, because most of it makes no sense, either. Comparing neotame and MSG is really quite stupid, because although they share a structural similarity, neotame is not metabolized to glutamate or glutamic acid, and therefore will interact with the body very differently. Likeitsmyjob 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks like it was written by a PR person from Monsanto. Maybe the article should be modified to seem less biased towards the product? User:AaronProot 12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not work for Monsanto, and if you read Likeitsmyjob's profile, it seems unlikely he's employed by Monsanto. I articles should reflect the current scientifically supported status without undue bias. In accordance with that, I have modified the article so that it is unbiased in terms of how it is worded. If you wish to express concerns associated with the consumption of neotame, please cite valid studies or other substantiated scientific claims - that how a page like this can be "balanced" - changing the tone of the article to be skeptical is not really very fair, especially in the absence of any scientific data to the contrary. For example, the moderate heat stability of neotame is pretty clear if you ever work with the stuff. 67.168.9.80 22:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that link was even more terrible than the last one. It'd be nice to find a relatively unbiased external link relating to neotame, but they don't seem to be out there. This doesn't justify putting junk science in the article. Jesse 04:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the history, I see that this link has been posted twice before. Please, whoever is putting this ridiculous link here, stop. Jesse 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Likeitsmyjob - Thank you for also patrolling this page! I've looked into all of this stuff and I really can't find any evidence with merit for problems with neotame, not even anecdotal evidence that I can demonstrate. Neotame is used in such tiny quantities and is even more stable than aspartame, in some ingredients there are higher levels of known toxins than neotame - and this is completely safe. With people who bring up junk science, it is like beating my head against concrete sometimes... for people who buy into extreme scare sites with no science, I love to point them to http://www.dhmo.org/ and then have a discussion after that. Unless they're really stupid, it usually forces them to think a little more... Blueandwhiteg3 19:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice corporate propaganda! Why is it, that neurotoxic chemicals at wiki are usually been presented like they were safe, while pages about herbals and vitams are full of warnings? Aspartame and other poisons are safe? Neotame is out to become the next poison from zion. BakuninXL 08:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to call into question the neutrality of this article. I agree that www.holisticmed.com/neotame/ is crap; but this articles writing style is not that of an encylcopedia format for informing, but rather an advertising format for selling. Furthermore it's likely that this product has been edited by individuals hired by Nutrasweet, as has become a practice by other companies such as Microsoft; thus I ask only that a warning label "the neutrality of this article is disputed" be placed upon this article. Because I am at least one who disputes it, and the argument above this one seems to second that (or perhaps, more appropriately, I am seconding it).

Removed "In other words, the NutraSweet company assures you that neotame is perfectly safe, while at the same time they manufacture neotame through a chemical reaction between aspartame and a substance that is highly flammable and a skin, eye and respiratory irritant (that must be handled with extreme caution by anyone involved in the manufacturing process)." --wiley14 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that there is no information on research into Neotame's safety available online that was not funded by Monsanto. The studies cited were not produced by unbiased scientific/medical teams, but instead by labs specifically funded by the company. It's even more suspicious that any information which isn't cited from those sources is continually removed from this article by a collection of individuals who do not give reasonable explanations for their actions, and perform this vandalism under the banner of victimhood (i.e. claiming that those who present differing points of view are the vandals, and they are the poor victims removing this horrible mess from Wikipedia). This article is completely, unequivocally biased towards the manufacturer, and I will not rest until the user Six Words--and others like him/her--acknowledge the bias and act like responsible Internet citizens and not like mouthpieces for so-called “scientists” who cite a list of over 68 articles which are also corporately funded, and have never been published in a scientific journal or elsewhere, all claiming that Neotame is completely safe. Ridiculous! Wikipedia was not designed to be a mouthpiece for Monsanto or anyone else, and users who abuse the system and continually bias articles in the name of fake "science" and criticize those of us who have differing viewpoints, like Six Words, need to be disciplined and banned from making alterations from Wikipedia. Thinkingman (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If you question my conduct you're free contact any of the appropriate noticeboards like the neutral point of view noticeboard, the reliable source noticeboard, Wikiquette assistance or even the admin noticeboard (that would be the appropriate one if you want to get me banned - but you'll need more than "Six words keeps deleting my inappropriately sourced material"). I explained to you why I removed your edit, and if you reinstate it without appropriate sourcing I'll to revert you again. Either find reliable sources for your changes or leave the article alone. If you want to make medical claims, you'll need to provide sources that comply with an even higher standard. It's not my fault the producers seem to be the only ones interested in conducting studies; it would be undue to juxtapose scientific sources with the private opinions of “someone on the internet”. --Six words (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Caloric content

Is neotame a zero-calorie sweetener? This would be relevant information to the low-carb articles... 63.96.196.190

Considering it's 6,000 times sweeter than sugar, the necessary amount required to make something equivalently sweet is unlikely to result in anything more than 5 kcal/serving unit, which means in the USA it can be labeled as zero-calorie. (Yes, that's seriously true, check out the Sucralose article) --Puellanivis 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV template

According to WP:NPOV, “neutral” means representing the views of available reliable sources fairly and with due weight. Are there views of reliable sources that aren't in the article now? Links would be nice. --Six words (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I added the template back to the page. IMO, the introduction of the article is phrased to subtly support one view of the safety of Neotame. For example, "while also benefitting the consumer by providing fewer "empty" sugar calories and a lower impact on blood sugar". The use of references is also questionable. For example, reference 3 focuses only on natural methanol levels in orange juice, which clearly states the concentration range. However, the reference is used to indicate that neotame is metabolized to lower levels of methanol in the body. There is no mention of it in the reference. I could understand if it was used as a reference point to compare to the concentration of methanol produced from methanol in the body, but that is not mentioned in this article. Yet the article states "the amount of methanol derived from neotame is much lower than that found in common foods". The previous reference, ref #2, does not mention the concentration of methanol produced. As another example, the references in ref #2 are all corporate-sponsored. While the ref does not explicitly state whether it is corporate-sponsored, such a list of references would implicate the ref is also a corporate-sponsored study. The introduction should be re-written to balance the bias to present all views on Neotame, or rephrased to only state data from peer-reviewed studies. Finally, beyond the introduction, the entire article seems to only present one side of the debate regarding Neotame's safety. A debate of aspartame is mentioned, but nothing is specific to Neotame. Nitroblu (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference 2 can only cite sources that exist - that doesn't disqualify the source. It is from IPCS so I think we can safely assume it isn't corporate sponsored. I agree that since ref 3 isn't about neotame it should be replaced, but the statement itself is quite trivial and could be sourced using ref 2 or ref 5 (trivial because neotame is 30 to 60 times sweeter than aspartame hence it is used at much lower concentrations; aspartame sweetened beverages provide less methanol than fruit juices - see this source - so basic math tells us that the methanol level neotame provides is even lower). While reference 2 doesn't mention the concentration, it states that “The amounts of [methanol and phenylalanin] contributed by consumption of neotame are insignificant compared to the amounts found normally in food.” - that should be good enough, right?
What sources do you think are missing for a balanced article? Please cite them. --Six words (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent research raises questions about Neotame's safety. This info should be added to the article:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6282467/ Boydstra (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's over a week now - are there reliable sources not yet mentioned in the article? If not, it's time to get rid of the template. --Six words (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Four weeks, I'm removing the template. --Six words (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm late to this party (sorry) but the CSPI is hardly a reliable source of information... 82.29.204.131 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Label Notification

The real question about Neotame is. Is it listed on the label? If so I have not been abel to find any food that uses it. Perhaps because of the low quantities needed it is not listed. I would really like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Who uses Neotame

I don’t understand how Neotame is made, distributed and used when I cannot find it listed on any foods. It has been on the market since 2002 yet it is never mentioned in the news. Yes I know Walgreens is listed as using it to sweeten a few drinks drinks but i can never find these drinks on the shelves at Walgreens. or anywhere else. As it is about 10,000 times sweeter then sugar is it possible that because of the very tiny amounts required no label is necessary? Who is buying Neotame? Arydberg (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)