Talk:Aspartame/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Working subpage

I have created a working subpage at User:TickleMeister/Aspartame per the allowed policies at wp:WORP and wp:SP.

In it I have stored the version of the page as I last left it. I am happy to go on editing it there for a while to get my act in order and so some of the suspicious editors here, who seem to be wary of my motives, can understand the sort of balance and NPOV I am striving for.

Tip: it can be useful to load the live article into one tab of your browser, and the temp article into another tab, then press Ctrl+Tab to flip back and forth between the two, to see the changes.

Please do not edit war the temp page. In fact, let it be my version, if you like, and make comments on it here. Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's time to close that subpage. There is some useful material on it, mostly the content on stability and a few good sources. There were too many insinuations, innuendos, syntheses, and other POV edits. For example, this edit takes a phrase preceded by "although" and uses it in numerous misleading aspects:

it describes the survey as being conducted by the FDA, suggesting the agency went against majority opinion, when the survey was conducted by the GAO;

it does not specify anything about the time frame of the survey, which was taken a decade after the FDA report mentioned in the previous sentence;

it ignores the remainder of the paragraph from which it was extracted and which the phase was qualifying—future research should provide answers (again, written in 1987);

the conclusion of the study cited was deleted along with large amounts of sourced material; and

it was needlessly placed in the lead.

One edit summary was merely innuendo. Here we see a description of E. coli, that while factual, is not informative and carries negative connotations with regards to food products. Describing something by where it is found is not as informative as how it is used. Describing it as "a bacterium widely used in biotechnology" is more useful than "a bacterium commonly found in the lower intestine of warm-blooded organisms".Novangelis (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't demand a subpage be closed; rather discuss the edits, as you go on to, and thank you for that (feedback is most welcome). Let me answer each one of your points:

1. I took the inserted text from page 74 of the report, from a paragraph that reads: "Although over half of the researchers we surveyed expressed some concerns over aspartame’s safety, we believe the research underway or planned by FDA and the scientists surveyed and FDA'S monitoring of adverse reactions should help provide answers on aspartame’s effects on certain subpopulations and neurological behavior. We believe such efforts should give FDA a basis for determining what future actions, if any, are needed on aspartame." I do not think the text I extracted (highlighted) is misleading, or makes out the survey was conducted by some other body, or is a "synthesis", or is deliberately misleading or POV in any way. If you'd like it more fully described, or additional wording to be added, that's fine. I didn't think the part of the sentence starting with the nebulous "we believe..." was encyclopedic, and so I simply extracted the one fact in the paragraph. (Your complete unwillingness to AGF needs attention.)
2. "Needlessly placed in lead" -- I disagree. If scientists expressed concerns then, how do we know they are not concerned now? And if they are concerned now, it's extremely lead-worthy, I would have thought. And it appears, looking at the numerous studies that raise questions about aspartame published since the GAO report, that there are concerned scientists. (No, it's not all a hoax by Ms Martini).
3. The big deletion you point out was explained in the summary, namely that this material is duplicated from the other page. Why do we need it on 2 pages?
4. E.coli is a bacterium from the colon. That's what they use to produce aspartame. Why would you want to suppress this simple statement of fact, unless you had some pro-aspartame POV? The average reader may not know where E.coli comes from. I have no objection to adding your phrase "a bacterium widely used in biotechnology"(do you have a source?)
5. "Innuendo in edit summary" -- now you're critiquing the edit summaries as if they are article content? My meaning in that summary is that the GAO report is an eye opener as to the awful quality of the Searle studies. I'd ask you to look at the article content, and stop critiquing edit summaries to a temporary talk page. Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The subpage is unlikely to gain support. You should propose and discuss the changes you wish to make here, and get consensus for them first (as you've been asked from the start). Verbal chat 07:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There are over 50 changes, and a lot of new material. It would take more than this talk page could handle, to enumerate them all. Novangelis made a specific comment, why don't you? TickleMeister (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The subpage may be useful for you to work through changes, but I doubt anyone would consent to changes that aren't individually considered. I highly doubt anyone would endorse so many changes en masse.Yobol (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not ignore the discussion and act on your own. That is not within the scope of WP:Be bold.Novangelis (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes, in brief

Very well, here are the changes in brief:

1. Remove from lead the industry funded study (alternatively, call it such)
2. Add some details about Ajinomoto, including court case over aspartame
3. Add descriptive phrase about what e. coli is (gut bacteria)
4. Add detail on aspartame's shelf life
5. Restore the Rumsfeld-->Searle-->Hayes nexus (documented in many RSes, BTW)
6. Remove tag on formaldehyde by inserting requested details
7. Remove paragraph in safety section that is repeated on the controversy page. TickleMeister (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Safety controversy

Sorry if I've stumbled in a bit of a hornet's nest here in this article. I wrote a paragraph that included some highly relevant information regarding a relationship between consumption of diet soft drinks and a serious degradation of kidney function. The paragraph was deleted because the data pertained to diet soft drinks in general, not exclusively diet soft drinks containing aspartame. The study was based on data from the Nurses' Health Study. The study uses questionnaires to gather data on participants' beverage consumption, among many other things. Obviously participants are not required or able to list every ingredient in every product they consume. But it is well-known that the artificial sweetener used in most, if not all, diet soft drinks in the United States is aspartame. (I checked Sprite Zero and Diet 7-Up that I have at hand, and they both include aspartame. I have never seen a diet soft drink ingredient list in the United States which does not include aspartame. There might be some, but they are not likely to be the market leaders such as Diet Coke.) While the study did not specifically name aspartame, it is, for all intents and purposes, synonymous with "artificial sweetener" in the U.S. soft drink market. (According to the Diet Soda article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diet_soda#Aspartame "Today, at least in the United States, "diet" is nearly synonymous with the use of aspartame in beverages.") The heading of the section is "Safety Controversy" so, for completeness, current scientific studies which may still be regarded as controversial by some, should be included in the section. If we wait until a causal relationship is fully verified, then it will no longer be controversial, will it? If we wait ten years until several studies confirm that hundreds of thousands of people have suffered kidney damage, we do our readers a disservice. Wikipedia exists to provide useful, accurate, relevant information. If it exists only to provide a historical after-the-fact of record of accumulated knowledge, ten years after it initially became known, then it serves no purpose.

I also don't think it is the best approach for one member to immediately delete a new contribution, unless it is factually wrong. It would be better to begin a discussion and see what the consensus is among informed participants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetsuo (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You will be referred to wp:CRYSTAL in short order, so I may as well do it first. TickleMeister (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that there is a section about Safety Controversy. Verifiability, as I read it, means that the source of the information can be verified, and the source is reliable. The relationship between heavy consumption of diet soft drinks and kidney function is a statistical fact uncovered by a Harvard researcher. This is not some crackpot's wild speculation. However, at this stage, it may be controversial, because a study has not been conducted to prove a causal relationship. Therefore, this information belongs in the section, "Safety Controversy". Perhaps we should just delete the entire section, "Safety Controversy" if we think the public needs to be shielded from information that has not been proven beyond any possible doubt.Tetsuo (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the WP:CRYSTAL policy sited above, there are other problems with your analysis. The first is that it is an analysis which violates the principle of no original research. I'm sure that one other artificial sweetner appeared in your two labels: acesulfame. There could also be problems related to the other components of the formulation, or it could be a characteristic of the people who drink diet soda. Also,Wikipedia is not a source for itself. I am quite comfortable pulling text when the dots aren't connected. If I thought it could have been saved, I would have made an effort. I almost suggested moving it to diet sodas, myself, but although potentially relevant, the reports are also highly preliminary. I am quite familiar with the Nurses' Health Study, and I am also familiar with the pitfalls of epidemiological research. Correlation does not equate to causation. The connection to aspartame is too tenuous. Your connection is not verifiable. That is why it was pulled.

As for the "hornet's nest", this isn't one if you don't make it one. If you follow the guidelines regarding civility, express your case by the facts, avoid taking and making things personal, and listen to the reasoning of experienced editors, you may be frustrated because Wikipedia is not what you want it to be, but you will be satisfied when you need Wikipedia for what it is. You made a bold edit. It was reverted. Now it is being discussed. That is one of the ways Wikipedia works.Novangelis (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-NPOV synthesis

Metabolism and phenylketonuria

Including non-metabolic chemistry studies as metabolic is an improper synthesis. Describing a rat study that shows weight loss and describing it as elevating a hormone that causes weight gain without mentioning rats, other hormones, or weight loss is a selective interpretation of the literature. Describing an in vitro effect without evidence of clinical effect does not belong in a section called metabolism, especially when unqualified.Novangelis (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But we know ASP does break down into DKP. Now the article has lost that fact. TickleMeister (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to another section. It's interesting that at cooking temperatures, ASP converts to DKP, which is called a carcinogen in some studies, eg PMID 17684524 TickleMeister (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It also stops being sweet. No one cooks with aspartame. --King Öomie 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A temperature of 180°C might be an oven setting, but it is not a cooking temperature. Sugar stops being sweet at that temperature; it has burned.Novangelis (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

180°C is only 356°F, normal fare for baking cookies. Aspartame products, though, are generally marked as non-baking products. --King Öomie 18:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re proposed link

Ticklemeister, I don't see any way that we can include that link at the moment, as you have shown sourcewatch is a wiki. The page constitutes writings by an entity that is not demonstrably a notable commentator nor expert in the field. What you can do, is add a Aspartame/Sources page and list sources which you might feel could be valuable to future editors. This would also allow more tempered discussions on their relative utility - kept for future reference. Unomi (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For editors looking for information that has been removed from the article or refused entry on thin grounds:

1. look up aspartame at the SourceWatch site,
2. use my workpage on Aspartame
3. use my workpage on Aspartame controversy
4. use my workpage on Aspartame sources TickleMeister (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I don't think that this is what Unomi had in mind.
You can do whatever you want at SourceWatch (or rather whatever the community there lets you do); what you do here has to be in accordance with our policies and guidelines (regarding "workpages" you might want to read WP:POVFORK). To mention the SourceWatch article here once is OK in my eyes, but you shouldn't think you can add it over and over again once this discussion has been archived, or permanently keep those "workpages" - Wikipedia is neither a SourceWatch mirror nor is it webspace provider. --Six words (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

POVFORK is about 2 related articles in article space, not a record of deleted or refused, but well-cited material kept in a work area in user space. I have no wish to "add [the link] over and over", but BTW I cannot see why it can't be linked in the external links section, since the SourceWatch article gives a completely different view of the problems with aspartame to what the WP article does. I can keep the workpages for an indeterminate time. For instance, there may soon be a finding made against aspartame by the British food authorities, and if that happens the material on my workpages has renewed relevance. The drive to expunge my work on aspartame from any corner of wikipedia denotes a very strong and highly questionable POV push by some of the editors here. I notice that these editors are also putting "collapse" templates around text they want hidden, just before it gets archived. This is very worrying stuff. This is not the behaviour of uninvolved citizens of the world, intent on building an informative encyclopedia. This is the sort of thing you'd expect from an agent with commercial motives. TickleMeister (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, people can disagree with you TM without being corporate shills. I do not agree with you, and I do with Six Words. Again, I am not an agent of any industry, this is getting beyond tiring. Please stop assuming people that disagree with you are somehow working for the man. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so when I say the fact that every single one of my numerous cited edits were rejected on weight grounds, or on a mangled interpretation of MEDRS, and that I suspect that this is because aspartame is a key $1B/yr product for numerous companies, it's me being paranoid and overly suspicious? I'll allow that some people here are taking sides against me for other reasons, but I am quite sure that there is a corporate element to it.

I'm prepared to pack this in and go away of I can get agreement here to put the SourceWatch page into the EL section. Any takers? TickleMeister (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That is extremely unlikely to happen. I would suggest that you take a deep breath and try again. Avoid casting aspersions regarding the motivations of others, if you see questionable behavior then simply collect the diff, keep calm and carry on. I would suggest that you start by avoiding edits regarding the 'hoax' and questions of funding altogether and focus on purging fluff and engaging in discussions on same. I know it is a tedious, frustrating business, but you are headed straight for a topic ban if you continue in the manner that you have recently taken to. Unomi (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I won't waste my time trying to edit the aspartame articles again after what I've experienced here. I'm not paid to do this work, so I have limited time and energy, and I find the agressive, combative atmosphere on these pages highly distasteful. As for the the EL suggestion you reject: external links are there to allow readers to get information not carried at the wikipedia page, which in this case would be correct, so I'm not sure why you are so sure an EL entry is unlikely. I'm only really back here at the moment to make sure that the functionaries do not remove all trace of the work I put into this, by collapsing and deleting text and links from the Talk pages & their archives. If they hadn't started doing that, I'd leave the topic alone. TickleMeister (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Discovery and approval

This section needs some work:

1. The 1980 PBOI section starts very abruptly due to the missing 1974 back story.
2. The sentence: A U.S. FDA task force team investigated allegations of errors in the preapproval research conducted by the manufacturer, and found only minor discrepancies that did not affect the study outcomes. is somewhat misleading:

• In 1975 the FDA appointed a task force due to problems found with other Searle studies(p.28)

This task force investigated 11 aspartame studies (see ch. 3) and uncovered “serious deficiencies in Searle’ operations and practices which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’ integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine or characterize the toxic potential of its products.”(GAO HRD-87-46 p.83)

The task force report issued in 1976 recommended that *the Department of Justice institute grand jury proceedings against Searle, *FDA establish regulations outlining good laboratory practice,3 and FDA centers determine whether to take administrative and/or regulatory actions on each of the Searle products investigated.(p.30)

This is the only task force that is mentioned in the literature, and they certainly did not find only minor problems.

Indeed - one outcome of the investigation was "FDA issued good laboratory practice regulations on December 22,1978, which set standards for conducting animal studies." (p.30)

• There was an FDA team in 1977 which sought to authenticate 3 studies, and Universities Associated for Research and Education in Pathology, Inc. (UAREP) which sought to authenticate another 12.

UAREP is cited in HRD-87-46 p.89 with: Although UAREP noted “a substantial number of minor and inconsequential discrepancies” during its review, it found “few, if any, discrepancies which would produce a change of greater than five percent in the final numerical data being compared.”

An example of such a discrepancy is illustrated with "For example, in one study, this resulted because Hazleton killed animals in the high dose group 2 weeks earlier than animals in other groups and omitted 10 of these survivors in computing the average survival time."(p.90)

and: UAREP noted “the consumption of aspartame was from 25 to 38 percent lower than planned at certain stages of the study.” However, UAREP found “fewer discrepancies or problems in this study than in most of the other studies [it] reviewed.”

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) was the entity that interpreted the findings of the 1975 task force, UAREP and the 1977 FDA team - and in 1979 proclaimed that the 15 studies were authentic. This then sets the stage for the 1980 PBOI on the study findings.(p.36)

Lets start with this before we move on, here is a proposed edit:

Schlatter discovery.

In February 1973, G.D. Searle filed a food additive petition for aspartame's use in all foods. The FDA approved the use of aspartame in only dry foods on July, 1974. In August 1974 John Olney and James Turner formally objected to the approval asserting that aspartame might cause neurological damage and put the phenylketonuria population at risk. In response FDA Commissioner Alexander Shchmidt appointed a task force to investigate discrepancies in G.D. Searle's animal studies in July 1975.

In November 1975 the parties waived their right to a full evidentiary hearing in preference to a hearing before a Public Board of Inquiry(PBOI), G.D. Searle agreed to delay marketing of aspartame pending resolution of the safety issues. December 1975 the FDA stayed the approval of aspartame as the FDA task force found irregularities in Searle's studies and the PBOI was delayed pending further investigation of Searle's studies.

The FDA found deficiencies with the studies but in March 1979 concludes that the data can be used for a determination of safety and the PBOI holds hearings in January 1980. In October 1980 the PBOI rules that aspartame did not pose an increased risk of brain or endocrine dysfunction, but citing unanswered questions about cancer it revoked the 1974 approval concluding that more studies were needed.

Citing data from a study by Ajinomoto, the Japanese licensee of Searle's aspartame patent, that had not been available to the members of the PBOI,[19] and after seeking advice from an expert panel that found fault with statistical analyses underlying the PBOI's hesitation,[20] newly appointed FDA commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes approved aspartame for use in dry goods.

...

As you can see I am no wordsmith and I invite collaboration on the final phrasing, but I believe that the article would be served well by having a bit more and more accurate information as I believe the above to constitute.

Best, Unomi (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Unomi's recent edit, the FDA found that despite minor problems and discrepancies, the data held. Quote mining for the most negative sentence we can find does not change this conclusion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because you are erroneously attributing CFSANs position to the Task Force. My edit introduces the verbatim conclusion for the Task Force, feel free to add more of the leadup to the PBOI for balance. Unomi (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Searle's worst practices did not apply to aspartame, so an unqualified quote about the quality of Searle's practices is improper. It is fair to say that Searle had a poor animal testing practices as the time aspartame was tested, initially, and that they were not confined to aspartame. Not introducing the breadth of the problem or mentioning that the worst examples do not pertain to the subject of this article is a quote out of context.

As for your sample text, I agree that the proposed language can use some clean up (e.g. commas after dates in propositional phases and past tense throughout), but that's a minor issue. As for issues of substance:

• you should identify who John Olney and James Turner are;
• I'd have to review again, but I believe that the sole issue in 1980 was brain tumors, not cancer in general.

As an addition, it might be worth mentioning that the GAO reviewed the approval process and found that it appeared to have been followed. As a side issue, major non-US approvals might be worth mentioning, but under separate headers, and should not impact or delay this text under development.Novangelis (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I was not aware that the most egregious issues pertained to other products, if that is the case, the GAO report did not indicate it. I realize that the 1975 task force investigation was prompted by issues raised with other products.

Yeah, it is a bit messy, initially I thought it best to do a simple line by line timeline akin to what is in the GAO report, but was concerned about the vertical space. You are more than welcome to have at it.

From my reading, there were 3 core concerns, neurological damage (brain and endocrine) per Olneys work with excitotoxins, PKU, and oncogenic effects, I believe that the concerns were regarding cancer 'in general' as the Rat DKP study found a "significant incidence of uterine polyps". Unomi (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right about the uterine polyp association. I think it was ultimately determined not to be neoplastic, but not at the time being discussed. As I recall, I have a good source on that somewhere. When I get a chance I'll track it down. One of us should read over the GAO report. I'm pretty sure they mention the extent of Searle's practices in the early sections. I'd do it now, but I'm in the middle of too many other things. I'll be more focused later.Novangelis (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I found the portion on the GAO report discussing the other drugs (Flagyl which remains a therapeutic mainstay, out of patent, and Aldactone) on report page 28 (PDF page 30). That is what triggered the grand jury proceedings and review of aspartame. The anti-aspartame fringe likes to link the two by omitting details to create an implication. On page 25(27), the report does mention that the uterine polyps were not deemed "cancerous, precancerous or potentially cancerous", in 1975 and I'm not sure they were an issue in 1980. I still think the brain tumors were the last hold-up issue in the process, but I have to keep looking through notes. I have taken the liberty of block-quoting your proposed text.Novangelis (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right about the brain tumors, at least that's what a 1988 article from the Annals of Allergy says.--Six words (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Re brain cancer vs cancer, I am fine with either, I had simply retained the wording from before my edit, there is certainly support the wording of 'brain cancer/tumors' : on page 52-53 of the document regarding the commissioners panel: Also, some panel members raised new issues not discussed at the PBOI and concluded that aspartame’ safety was not shown. Three of the five panel members reviewing the brain tumor issue did not believe Searle’ studies conclusively showed that aspartame did not cause brain tumors.

And as you point out, the uterine polyps were not found to be 'cancerous, precancerous or potentially cancerous'.

Re the task force quote, on page 83 of the document, appendix III starts with: The 1975 task force investigated 11 aspartame studies (see ch. 3) and uncovered “serious deficiencies in Searle’s operations and practices which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’s integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine or characterize the toxic potential of its products.” - this gives the very strong impression that the quote stems from the 11 investigated studies, and is not dependent on the 14 investigated studies of other products. Unomi (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was there an investigation? There is a sequence, problems are identified with animal studies on other drugs, the preliminary review of 11 studies, and the two detailed reviews. Unless it becomes impossibly tricky, the reason for an investigation should be mentioned, even if it were a random audit. "When it was discovered that there were problems in the animal studies in drug trials for Flagyl and Aldactone, investigations Searle's practices in the approval process were launched for several compounds. Because of its potential for widespread long-term use, aspartame received strong scrutiny."

It was not the FDA, but the FDA and UAREP (probably best described as contracted university pathologists) that performed the detailed study. As the GAO report mentions, there was an additional objection by Quaker Oats, but that was a labeling, not a safety issue. I don't think it needs a mention in approval process, but we have always have to qualify objections as safety objections. James Turner represented the Community Nutrition Institute. Olney is tougher to describe. An expert in neuropsychopharmacology (source needed) or something of the like would be appropriate. He does not lend himself to concise description.Novangelis (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets back up for a second, there was, as I understand it, an employee at Searle who voiced concerns and presented evidence to the FDA, which caused them to instantiate a Task Force to investigate 25(afair) studies, according to the GAO wording they investigated 11 Aspartame studies and uncovered "serious deficiencies" .... Considering the considerable care that GAO writers seem to be applying in their wording there doesn't seem to be cause to believe that this "serious deficiencies.." quote concerns itself with anything but the Aspartame report.

Olney is described as an MD and neuropathologist in our, exceedingly brief, John Olney article, that might be fine here as well and let the user click the link to find out more, as it were. Unomi (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall that there was any whistleblower and from what I've read, the FDA detected the Flagyl/Aldactone discrepancies. You are correct in that the GAO report is on aspartame alone and does not discuss the results of the other six compounds tested, either favorably or negatively. I'm trying to find the report and a good synopsis. I found one from the NYT Magazine, but it only focuses on pharmaceuticals and ignores aspartame.Novangelis (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoax

Using the word "hoax" diminishes the credibility of the claims that aspartame is unhealthy. There are some serious questions about the safety of aspartame. It is likely that aspartame stimulates appetite through the production of more insulin and actually has the opposite effect that it is supposed to. The food lobby may be suppressing studies about the real effects of aspartame because it is such a cheap sweetener. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajhendel (talk • contribs) 18:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The article must reflect what is found in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There are several legitimate hoaxes related to the topic, as well, the best known being the Nancy Markle email (which was about as legitimate as any other chain email telling you to be afraid of something). The language in the article doesn't attempt to paint the entire issue as a hoax. --King Öomie 14:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for alternative viewpoint

The write up of the TWA 800 accident includes a reference to a section called " TWA Flight 800 alternative theories" I suggest you do the same here. There are accepted facts that suggest aspartame is not safe. They include:

1) For 8 years the FDA refused to allow aspartame.

2) 75 % of all complaints received by the FDA cite aspartame as a cause of some type of ailment.

3) Generally speaking industry funded studies find aspartame to be safe but independently funded studies find it not safe. Some people would call this a red flag. Arydberg (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned under "Safety controversy" and there is a link to an article about it. TFD (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Question, is the following a part of the "anti-aspartame fringe"?

Science 6 July 2007: Vol. 317. no. 5834, p. 29 DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5834.29c Prev | Table of Contents | Next SCIENCESCOPE Fearful it causes cancer, 12 U.S. environmental health experts and activists last week asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review the potential health risks of the artificial sweetener aspartame, which appears in everything from medicines to diet sodas. A study published last month in Environmental Health Perspectives found somewhat more leukemias and lymphomas in male rats receiving less aspartame than the recommended maximum for humans; at higher doses, the rats had a marked increase in cancers throughout the body. Pregnant rats were fed the sweetener, and animals received it once they'd been weaned. The work, by scientists at the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Bologna, Italy, is "more sensitive and more realistic" than earlier aspartame studies, says James Huff of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who signed onto the FDA letter drafted by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest. But because the study conflicts with earlier work, FDA spokesperson Michael Herndon says that the agency finds the study unpersuasive and that "aspartame is safe." FDA's European counterpart has not responded publicly to the study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As you correctly point out the FDA considers aspartame to be safe and that is scientific consensus. Until these alternative studies gain scientific acceptance then the conclusions reached are fringe. See Aspartame controversy: The Ramazzini studies have been discredited. TFD (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You forget to mention that the EFSA has evaluated Ramazzini's study since then (press release available here), so this information is a bit outdated. btw: even though it is just a short notice in "SCIENCESCOPE" rather than an article in SCIENCE, it's still copyrighted material, so I'm not sure it's a good idea to reproduce the full text here, especially when you don't attribute it to its author (Jennifer Couzin). --Six words (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And for how many years did the government and the medical establishment consider smoking was safe and even promoted smoking ? Arydberg (talk) 02:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. But we follow what the mainstream views are and leave it to others to challenge accepted beliefs. TFD (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

We're an encyclopaedia, not a research institute: we summarise and report knowledge already accumulated elsewhere, not try to further knowledge. Aspartame has been extensively tested and found to be safe; we can't second-guess that research. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No you can’t second guess research. But using terms like “hoax” or “anti-aspartame fringe” is inflammatory . Many people question the safety of this substance and most of those have had very negative reactions to it. To include a unbiased section about the controversy surrounding this product is also part of your responsibility. Arydberg (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There have been hoaxes related to aspartame and the article does not use the word "anti-aspartame fringe". However we cannot give parity to views outside the scientific consensus. TFD (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Call it what you will. The hard truth is that there is a tremendous amount of real life people out there that have been “healed” by giving up aspartame after exhausting many other methods of cure.

That our medical establishment chooses to ignore all of these experience as well as those of respected researchers that question the safety of aspartame only increases my bewilderment with a society that has lost the ability to reason from presented facts and chooses instead to align itself with conclusions promoted by FDA operatives.

It may very well be that the same government that gave us a war based on weapons of mass destruction, cigarettes as a method too relax and the Tuskegee experiments has another disaster on it’s horizon. Arydberg (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

a tremendous amount of real life people out there that have been “healed” by giving up aspartame after exhausting many other methods of cure Overwhelming scientific evidence, demonstrated by sources in this article, demonstrate that aspartame is safe for consumption. We're interested in what's verifiable in reliable mainstream sources, not unscientific fringe theories which do nothing but accuse try to challenge scientific evidence with "personal experience". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Metabolism and phenylketonuria

Firstly, a citation is needed RE "Human studies show that formic acid is excreted faster than it is formed after ingestion of aspartate." as there is no source cited to reference this, the sweeping statement cannot be verified. Secondly, I expanded and put this potentially misleading statement "In some fruit juices, higher concentrations of methanol can be found than the amount produced from aspartame in beverages." into context, supported by the facts from reliable sources, such as the BMJ, and various other academic websites. You have no grounds to undo the work I put into improving the NPOV of this article, it is notable, factual and verifiable.КĐ^♥ 21:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

All you have to do is read to the next footnote. You are the editor who has put the paragraph break between the sentence and the source, not once, but twice. I'll make it easy for you: page 207 towards the end of the first full paragraph. You have created original research by implying that the quantities of ethanol in fruit juice are protective against methanol toxicity, a fact found in none of your sources.Novangelis (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine, that was my mistake- it doesn't require a reference, I take that back. I did not imply anything (you are misrepresenting my edit by putting words in my mouth). I stated the verifiable fact that fruit juices may contain naturally-occuring volumes of ethanol (at higher quantites than that of methanol), and the verifiable fact that ethanol is an antidote for methanol poisoning.КĐ^♥ 21:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: to clarify (as the paragraph break does tend to suggest that the inline citation doesn't cover the last part of the previous paragraph), I've placed the same reference where the citation needed template was previously. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

One should not add information about fruit juice when the sources do not mention aspartame at all. TFD (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The content I added is necessary to clarify the original point about fruit juices, which is clearly misleading and one-sided by itself. To provide a NPOV it should either have the full facts, or the original point about fruit juices should be removed.КĐ^♥ 21:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds like synthesis. Both facts on their own are verifiable, but what makes you think that in amounts as small as those coming from either aspartame or fruit juices your body would not have enough alcohol dehydrogenase to metabolize both at the same time? The antidote thing only works if there's an excess so the enzyme will metabolize the one it “prefers”.--Six words (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here; yes, fruit juices may contain a small quantity of ethanol. Yes, ethanol may be used to treat methanol toxicity. But implying that fruit juices may therefore inhibit the methanol activity is both original research, and vanishingly unlikely, given the doses of ethanol and methanol we're talking about here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this presents a small problem with the content: though assumptions are not made and there is no original research, the implications of the facts presented speak for themselves. I will keep looking for sources so as to avoid 'synthesis' over that point, though the paragraph may require rephrasing/editing. I do not think it warrents the complete removal of my edits as they still clarify the original statement and improve on the NPOV, plus the facts still stand! Although not relevant enough, after a bit of initial research, there seems to be no record of harm coming to anyone due to methanol poisoning from fruit juice, even when juices potentially contain toxic levels. I have also found many authoritative sources that state that the standard treatment for methanol poisoning is a solution of ethanol diluted in a fruit juice solution.КĐ^♥ 22:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Synthesis is a form of original research. I note you didn't answer my question: what makes you think that when methanol and ethanol are only present in such small amounts they can't be metabolized at the same time? As long as those two reactions don't compete with each other formaldehyde/formic acid will still be produced. The fact that there are no recorded methanol poisoining cases from juices is great, but since there aren't any from aspartame ingestion it doesn't really improve this article which, until you edited it, didn't say there were potentially toxic levels of methanol in fruit juices. BTW: the idea that fruit juices are safe because they contain more ethanol than methanol may seem obvious, but it's wrong - just think of methylated spirits (only about 10% of methanol, still could make you go blind or even kill you if you drank enough). What makes fruit juices safe is that there are only tiny amounts of methanol in them.--Six words (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are your sources? My answer to your question is that I improved the paragraph solely using verifiable, reliable sources, you see I edited using the sources to support every addition I made. By the way, "BTW: the idea that fruit juices are safe because they contain more ethanol than methanol may seem obvious...What makes fruit juices safe is that there are only tiny amounts of methanol in them." is completely wrong, at least according to my BMJ source which states that toxic levels of naturally-occuring methanol have been recorded in fruit juices. КĐ^♥ 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

“Your” BJM source (I think you're talking about the FSA source, BJM is the one about the seaman) states that
“The enzymes [producing methanol in unpastorized orange juice] are likely to remain active in unpasteurised orange juice and this may lead to a build up of potentially toxic levels of methanol.” (emphasis added) and then find that
“Dietary surveys have shown that an extreme consumer of orange juice drinks slightly over 2 litres/day. The estimated maximum intake of methanol based on this consumption would be 455 mg for a 60 kg adult which is below the maximum advisory intake of 600 mg per day for a 60 kg adult, recommended by the Department of Health.”
so it doesn't contradict my comment at all.--Six words (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am not sure what exactly you are trying to prove here, we have digressed considerably from the content of the article in question. What have I added that you have a problem with?КĐ^♥ 01:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

While I think that I have said it before I'll repeat: your edit is synthesis, a form of original research. The problem is that you're trying to “balance” statements that have been made in the context of discussing aspartame with statements that haven't been made in reference to aspartame (or even in reference to each other). The original statement wasn't misleading in any way - juices do sometimes contain more methanol than soft drinks that contain aspartame - so there's no need to balance it. --Six words (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The original statement is misleading, it "synthesizes" the assumption that methanol is safe (fruit juice has always been an incredibly safe product and the comparison projects this impression), wheras whenever methanol occurs in natural consumables it always has a greater presence of natural ethanol, the antidote. If the full picture is not given, the original statement should not be included. Every single thing I have added is accurate, verfiable and not misleading in any way.КĐ^♥ 02:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again: yes, each single statement is verifiable and accurate, however tying them together isn't allowed. Those writing our sources are allowed to synthesise and engage in original research, we even need them to do so - or else we'd have nothing to report. We on the other hand are explicitly forbidden to tie multiple sources together to paint a picture that isn't painted one source alone. --Six words (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously now, how is one supposed to be able to edit wikipedia without tying multiple sources together? I am not painting a picture, I am expanding on the original biased statement (that you didn't mention this time) with facts.КĐ^♥ 03:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with basically everyone other than Killdec that his additions are WP:OR and should be removed. None of the sources talk about aspartame, and placing them together like this is textbooks WP:SYNTH. Yobol (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We do this by saying what is in sources, not by synthesizing things. Please see WP:SYNTH Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Every single thing in my edits was in the sources.КĐ^♥ 03:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly none of my additions are WP:OR if you read through the references, nothing stated is original. My additions improve the WP:NPOV of the original statement "In some fruit juices, higher concentrations of methanol can be found than the amount produced from aspartame in beverages." and cover details about methanol - a notable residual compound of the metabolization of aspartame - in the right section no less.КĐ^♥ 00:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That said, everyone except you seem to think this is WP:SYNTH and I will agree with them. You are synthesizing stuff, that is not what we do here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify what exactly I have synthesized, every single thing I have said is verifiable fact.КĐ^♥ 00:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTH. WP:OR doesn't mean that you made it up out of thin air, it means (in this case) you are putting together several sentences and sources to imply a conclusion or train of thought that no other source has come to. Several editors here agree it violates WP:OR, you might want to take it to the Original Research Noticeboard if you disagree. As the clear consensus this fails WP:OR, I am removing the material until you can convince a consensus it belongs. Yobol (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly did you synthasize "As the clear consensus this fails WP:OR"? And determine that it should be removed? Two people out of 6 in this discussion(one being you) have said they think it should all be removed, and I have refuted your arguments. I'm not afraid to take this to the Original Research Noticeboard if you think you can censor me via undo wars.КĐ^♥ 01:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw this item on WP:ORN. As I commented there, I agree that Killdec's proposed edits constitute synthesis, and are therefore original research and not permissible. Reading this discussion, I agree with the assertion that there is a clear consensus that the edits fail WP:OR. This is not censorship; it is merely abiding by the rules, and it's consistent with what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. This type of synthesis would not be found in the Brittanica or another reputable old-school encyclopedia, either. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I accept that. But I just want to say that this started because of dissatisfaction with the original sentence, as it only gives half of the picture (methonol in fruit juice), and misleads people to the conclusion that methanol is 100% safe, because fruit juice is 100% safe. I think to provide a NPOV the statement either requires clarification, or it should be removed (it is a statement that compares "apples and oranges" - as another poster in the discussion pointed out - and the sources I provided confirm there is really no comparison).КĐ^♥ 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with your NPOV argument. It's argumentum ad populum: you are making an implicit claim, to wit, "everybody knows fruit juice is 100% safe." That's not substantiated, certainly not by the text in question. In fact, the sentence immediately preceding the one you dislike mentions methanol poisoning. Therefore, in context, a reasonable reader would not draw the conclusion that "fruit juice is 100% safe;" they would draw the conclusion that "fruit juice contains a small amount of a substance that could—in sufficient quantities—poison you, but aspartame-sweetened soft drinks contain even less of it." That claim is backed up by reliable sources citing scientific evidence. I just don't see that it rises to the level of a NPOV violation. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article meander on to a discussion on fruit juice? Aspartame is not added to fruit juice, nor is it a naturally occurring component of fruit juice. If methanol from the hydrolysis of aspartame is sufficiently toxic, that should be stated and sourced, as a separate section which stands on its own. If it is not toxic, then that should be stated too. If we don't know, then we should stay silent. Not rehash conjectures. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It was added to balance the original, misleading statement "In some fruit juices, higher concentrations of methanol can be found than the amount produced from aspartame in beverages." with a proper context, supported by verifiable facts.КĐ^♥ 01:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Then let's take both of them out, we're not comparing apples with apples... or fruit juice with aspartame. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but apparantly that is an important fact worth keeping, wheras my facts that expand on this for a NPOV, are "original research", "speculation" and "synthesis".КĐ^♥ 03:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

KD, you are obviously anti-aspartame and want the article to show your POV. Unfortunately the article must represent the scientific consensus that there is no evidence that it is unsafe. In order to represent that POV in the article you must first persuade scientists to change their consensus. Until you do that, the article must reflect current opinion. TFD (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, and please do not resort to personal attacks (assume good faith). I want aspartame to show a NPOV. As the NPOV guidelines under the heading "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" suggest:

"The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly."

Why do you push to delete every word of my edit, even though all of the facts and sources are 100% accurate and verifiable? Even if there is a "consensus", wikipedia is not a democracy and it does not tolerate censorship. If you think there is ever a scientific concensus on anything (especially aspartame) you obviously do not read enough scientific papers.КĐ^♥ 04:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. There is a scientific consensus on this subject and the article must reflect it. The consensus may be wrong and may change but until it does the article must reflect it. Readers expect to find what a science textbook would show, and that is the objective of editors. Incidentally I only use cane sugar, maple sugar and stevia. TFD (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"KD, you are obviously anti-aspartame and want the article to show your POV" is a personal attack...I guess I can forgive you though! I've read at least 10 peer-reviewed articles written in the last few years to the contrary of any sort of "scientific consensus". I do my best to make my edits reflect a science textbook, in the sense that they were 100% sourced, verifiable scientific facts.КĐ^♥ 04:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Am I wrong that you are anti-aspartame and that you would like the article to show an alternative view to the one that there is no evidence that aspartame is unsafe? TFD (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

All I care about are cold, hard facts. I would like the article to reflect this and more of a NPOV. The fact is there is evidence on both sides which deserves to be mentioned, this article is avidly "pro"-aspartame, far from NPOV and far from reality.КĐ^♥ 05:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The cold hard fact is that science is "pro-aspartame" and that is what we report. Aspartame scepticism is a fringe view and must be treated as such. TFD (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, though one problem is that is that none of my edits are fringe, nor do they push "aspartame scepticism", they are just cold, hard verifiable facts.КĐ^♥ 05:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That the earth is round is a fact too but that is no reason to add it to the article. TFD (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Again with the incivility, please be nice. Expanding on a fact about methanol, a notable metabolic product of aspartame, under the metabolism section, is hardly comparable to including "the earth is round" in the article.КĐ^♥ 05:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)