Misplaced Pages

Talk:Aspartame controversy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:36, 22 October 2011 editQuione (talk | contribs)47 edits →Formic acid← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:12, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,135 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(683 intermediate revisions by 94 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid }}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 8 |counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(30d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive index |target=Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive index
Line 16: Line 19:
}} }}
{{Old AfD multi|page=Aspartame controversy|date=20 October 2008|result='''keep'''}} {{Old AfD multi|page=Aspartame controversy|date=20 October 2008|result='''keep'''}}
{{To do|1}}
{{WikiProject Rational Skepticism |class=B |importance=Mid }}
{{Notice|{{find}}
{{WikiProject Medicine |class=B |importance=Mid }}
{{to do|1}}
{{notice|{{find}}
*{{find|aspartame}} *{{find|aspartame}}
*] collected by editors of this article -- of sources, or well-sourced *] collected by editors of this article -- of sources, or well-sourced
}} }}
{{Annual readership}}


== Meta analysis about research outcome related to industry funding ==
== re: Neurological and psychiatric symptoms section ==

From the previous article page- "Numerous allegations have been made on the Internet and in consumer magazines purporting neurotoxic effects of aspartame leading to neurological or psychiatric symptoms such as seizures, headaches, and mood changes.

I do not know about mood changes or seizures, but if i just SIP a diet soda, within a couple minutes a massive migrane behind the eyeball headache hits me. IF I eat something low-cal diet food containing this, i get violently ill and spend the next day ill as well.

A friend thought i was BS'ing and mixed me a drink of diet cola and rum. One sip and I had a massive headache. This is not BS.

I have never heard from or been contacted for any study related to NutraSweet/Aspartame. I have talked to other people who have this same sensitivity or allergy to the neutra sweet. So we read labels to make sure we just AVOID it.

I had to complain to a soft drink manufacturer once because I opened a can of regular soda, took one sip and after a minute the migraine headache started. They confirmed that the diet and regular were bottled on the same line. They sent me a free coupon for a 12 pack, and an apology promising to review their cleaning process between production change over. Since that time I have drank their product and had no further issues.

Why am I writing this? Because the previous article page makes it sound like NOBODY has a problem with this stuff when that is BS. I DO. I welcome anyone to contact me about it. This is not an internet smear campaign. This is a fact of life I have to deal with every day. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:This talk page ], but how to improve the article using ]. Your personal testimonial does not qualify, and any further off-topic discussion should be removed. ] (]) 19:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
::You mean you don't believe in the n=1 research study????? You skeptic you. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
:::"I know a guy" is not a source. ] (]) 20:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Quoting a lone Wikipedian as a source in an article is infinitely different than them raising an issue about the problem on a discussion page. Unless you sit at a computer with a bunch of your friends and type on the same keyboard, you only post as 'a guy' or 'a girl' yourself. The ''only'' point of discussing anything here is to get on the same page with other people and form consensuses so that articles may be created, bettered, refined, etc. If the 'one guy' finds 70 other people have had the same experience, this is a call for ''research'' using reliable and credible sources in the official article. You need to learn to distinguish general discussion from discussion with the purpose of bettering or refining Misplaced Pages. If a discussion post can easily be reworded with phrasing that would have eliminated your criticism, don't make one. ] (]) 21:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
:A number of people do report this type of reaction, but that when they are entered into studies the effects cannot be replicated. They only react if they know or believe they are consuming aspartame. Perhaps the article could explain it better. ] (]) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
::If I recall correctly, the ] is wrapping up a study based on these types of testimonial results. It might be best to wait for the results before commenting. ] (]) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
:::It's like the whole MSG controversy (which, if you just change the names of the chemical, sound very much alike). People complain about effects, yet in a blinded study, the placebo group exhibits the effects at the same rate as the MSG group. People make their decision on anecdote, yet the cause of someone getting headaches or whatever from drinking a soda could result from the carbonation, colorings, sodium content, etc. etc. etc. This is why we should make decisions on what we consume and how we treat our health on solid evidence. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::Today was the first time I ever tried diet coke, and I have never heard of aspertame before. Yet, I mysteriously got a headache right after I drank it. (And no, I have never gotten a headache after drinking regular coke.) I guess my sub-conscious peered into the future and saw me reading about possible side-effects of aspertame, starting off a headache as a result, eh? ] (]) 01:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Add your sarcasm to a diet coke for a delicious cocktail.... As I stated above, 'I know a guy' is not a research study. ] (]) 13:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
::::This subject is about people/s health and laboratory tests have determined that any who professes to be sick from aspartame is faking. The government knows best what is good for you. ] (]) 18:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::It's rhetorical to iterate your opinion with the phrasing "research backs me up; you're wrong". A LOT of the critics of aspartame dive into all sorts of issues of mental health; you can disagree with them and their research, but the sheer ''existence'' of all these claims warrants major inclusion in the article. It's the entire reason this article is here; to put forth information on both sides fairly in a neutral way.

:::::It's incredible that the words "bipolar", "mania", and "psychosis" are not mentioned once in the entire article. It's an absurd huge hole that should be rectified ASAP, as mental health is very important to people. If you have evidence of studies that demonstrate effects of aspartame on mental health are purely placebo (psychological; i.e. are debunked via having no medical evidence), then that's something that should be included in the article. You can't state things like: "there's been controversy on this issue, but it's all been resolved to my knowledge, so there's no need to mention it" and "the people criticizing government on this issue are wrong, because government knows best".

:::::Intrinsic logical absurdity aside, these are still just plain hypocritical, because you're trying to criticize someone else for misusing their own subjective opinions. (FYI, one more thing that reveals your bias is the word "faking". Placebo control is about evaluating someone's unconscious information-filtering processes. You're spinning the very existence of placebo studies negatively, so it's hard to trust your claims of being fully backed factually.) ] (]) 22:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::Squish, if you've got one or more ] to offer regarding aspartame relating to "bipolar", "mania" and "psychosis", please supply them. If not, there's nothing to put in this article. &mdash; ]'']'' 14:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::In Google, searching for "aspartame" plus the first 2 letters of "bipolar", "psychosis" or "adhd" brings these up as suggestions. Read any article that comes up for "aspartame bipolar" to see what I'm talking about. Just because I don't have time to research reliable sources and add a section to the article--partly because I'm still learning how to do so--doesn't mean I can't express concerns about the issue, supplementing what's already been voiced. ] (]) 19:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::mcmanweb.com, rense.com and alternativementalhealth.com are not reliable ] sources. As far as I know, there are no ] sources that make the connection you're making and no medical claims can be made without following this important policy. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 19:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::They're basics are already there, I didn't read the article carefully enough. "Mood changes" and "hallucinations" basically cover bipolar, mania, psychosis, etc. (I thought this was a suggestion to begin a "Neurological and psychiatric symptoms" section.) They still should be there, though. This section seems in stub form, and dodges the facts and truth. You're right, though, I can't prove its deficiency without tangible evidence. What bothers me is it could be an impossible task. What if a million people out there report strong side effects, but official studies have a motive to cover this up? How can one get at the truth if it lies only in the heart of the masses? ] (]) 19:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Personal experience/testimonials is neither a valid source for WP nor a valid criteria upon which to make scientific judgements. WP is about ] not ] and science is about removing subjectivity from the equation so that objective measurement is possible. ] and ] rule the masses and discussion of alleged conspiracy theories have no place in a rational discussion on these talk pages. That you think an entire body of scientists "cover up" evidence demonstrates that you don't really understand how the scientific process, nor the scientific community, work. I don't mean that to be as offensive as it sounds, it's just that that statement did demonstrate a certain level of ignorance. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 20:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

== Misleading claims of the safety of methanol in aspartame ==

The page claims that Aspartame contains less methanol than fruit juice, citrus fruits and fermented drinks. However naturally occuring methanol is always (the mentioned ones are) accompanied by ethanol which is an ] to methanol, as stated on the wiki page. So in my eyes, those claims are wrong and misleading.

Also, even the danger of methanol itself is being downplayed significantly in this article. The wiki article of ] clearly defines it as highly toxic for humans.
] (]) 08:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

:Toxicity is dose dependent - there are trace amounts of arsenic in bottled mineral water, that doesn't mean you'll get arsenic poisoning from drinking it. The article isn't downplaying the danger of methanol poisoning, it is putting things in perspective. That's what we're supposed to do. --] (]) 09:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

::The first result when googling for "bottled water arsenic" actually redirects to a trustful looking that claims 56 million people in the US are consuming water with unsafe levels of arsenic. To include the perspective I can also phrase my argument to something like "The danger of methanol itself, in the concentrations present in most artificially sweetened food products, is being downplayed significantly." - but it doesn't change the fact that there seems to be a clear bias to the safety of aspartame in this article. -] (]) 13:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Whether or not aspartame really is safe is, policy requires that we present mainstream thinking which is that it is safe. Of course readers are free to follow the links to both scientific and anti-Aspartame sites and decide what they wish to believe. ] (]) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

:::{{ec}}Research has shown that in the concentrations that are present in artificially sweetened food products methanol isn't dangerous, which is what I was getting at. So yes, when you're ingesting aspartame, as it is metabolised methanol (and subsequently formaldehyde) is formed, but the concentrations are so low that your body can handle them without any problem. That's not downplaying, that's stating what research tells us. --] (]) 14:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

::::The mere existence of this controversy page is a clear indicator to me that in fact the safety of aspartame is not quite mainstream thinking. If the article already mentions the anti-aspartame sources, shouldn't this controversy also being taken into account for the other parts of the articles? (referring to the paragraph about the safety of methanol in aspartame) - ] (]) 13:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::You have to differentiate between scientific mainstream opinion and public opinion. The existence of this article is due to public opinion. --] (]) 14:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::There are many other articles about non-mainstream thinking, e.g., truthers, birthers, intelligent design, global warming skeptics, etc. While they are legitimate topics, their views do not have parity with mainstream opinion. ] (]) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Scientific mainstream opinion holds that Bigfoot has no zoological or anthropological niche to exist in. The existence of a folk legend of a tall ape with a man-like gait doesn't invalidate that fact. --] 13:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
::::I fail to find any citations on this page claiming that the methanol concentrations are low enough for the body to be handled without problem. In fact, the only justification for the safety of methanol is on the grounds that natural products contain even greater amounts of methanol, which is irrelevant due to the antidote (ethanol) contained as well in these products - as I already mentioned in my first comment. The methanol paragraph should incorporate this. - ] (]) 14:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::"Ingesting aspartame at the 90th percentile of intake would produce 25 times less methanol than would be considered toxic", cited to (currently) footnote#55. That ref looks like a fairly comprehensive review article (secondary/tertiary reference in a reliable-sounding source). ] (]) 14:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::Another review article dealing with aspartame toxicity that has a section on methanol: (the full text can be downloaded as pdf document). --] (]) 15:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you for the article and taking the time to consider my argumentation. Unfortunately the paper does not cover the long term effects of aspartame intake for humans. Let me quote 2 sentences from this article: ''"According to the MRCA (36, 37), an aspartame intake of 34 mg/kg body weight represents the 99th percentile of projected daily ingestion."'' and ''"When ingesting aspartame at 34 mg/kg body weight, blood methanol concentrations were below the limits of detection (0.4 mg/dL)."''. Now, according to the blood methanol chart in the article, the peak level of methanol for an adult having administered 100 mg/kg aspartame was at 1.1 mg/dL. Crudely assuming linearty between the administered aspartame and methanol level in the blood we could say that 34 mg/kg results in approximately 0.36 mg/dL. The average human adult body has 5 litres of blood. So at 0.36mg/dL this means the body contains 18 mg methanol. However, the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY has derived an of 0.5 mg/kg/day, which is 35 mg/day for an average weight adult (70kg) - not far away from the 18mg methanol in human blood we estimated (and the EPA talks about oral intake, so 100% of that would need to go into the blood). However, those average intake estimates are from 1974. Newer sources suggest average aspartame intake may be as high as , and even the wiki page for ] states that it contains 124 mg aspartame per 350ml drink. Something seems really wrong about this. - ] (]) 10:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::There's no reason to expect that the relationship is linear - and even if it was linear, an amount that is half the RfD isn't close to the Rfd (which, by the way, is still considered safe) - that's like saying the distance from London to Cardiff is less than half the distance between London and Edinburgh, therefore London is not far away from Cardiff. <br>200 mg/day means on average, people dring less than two cans of diet pepsi - for a 70 kg adult that would be 2,85 mg/kg/day. I don't see a problem with that, and it's well below the set ADI of 40 mg/kg/day (EU) and 50 mg/kg/day (US).--] (]) 11:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::::: Where did you get the number of 2,85 mg/kg/day? -] (]) 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::: It's basic math: 200mg/day divided by 70kg. ] and conversions are not considered original research.] (]) 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

:Just wanted to point out that to include any medical claims (such as the toxicity of the methanol component of aspartame at the doses used as a sweetener), we would need a ] such as a peer-reviewed medical review. As far as I know, no such source exists (the only sources that do make the claim about methanol do not meed ] and therefore cannot be included in a discussion about true safety). ] (]) 17:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

::Is the reliable enough? The article posted by ''Six words'' states that approximately 10% of aspartame is converted to methanol. - ] (]) 10:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

:::"Crudely assuming linearity" is ]. Stick to MEDRS.] (]) 11:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

::::Your link does not mention aspartame and therefore cannot be used. ] (]) 12:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

:Okay, I see that I lack the evidence to conclude that the methanol levels in APM are unsafe. Thanks for all the provided sources. But so far I still didn't see any evidence that methanol levels in aspartame and the methanol levels in natural products (juice, citrus fruit, fermented products) are compareable. As I mentioned in my first argument, natural products always contain ethanol which is a antidote to methanol. If there is no reliable source proving that these can be compared, I'd like to adjust that paragraph. -] (]) 08:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
::Tyronx, do you have an RS to substancitate your proposed alterations? ] (]) 08:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Do you have any reference wthether there is any ethanol in fruit juices ? Or methanol ? The methanol in fruit is actually formed from pectinin the intestine (just as methanol form aspartame is formed in the intestine). Only when the fruit juice is fermented (yeasted) it may have athenol, unless you can provide a reliable source stating otherwise.] (]) 17:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::There are a variety of sources behind the review and additional sources can be found with ease. Fresh juices contain detectable methanol , and the methanol concentration can increase as it is liberated from the pectins in canned juices. I'll have to check sources in more detail, but to my recollection, it was direct from another reliable source in older versions.] (]) 18:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I linked to a review article comparing the methanol content of aspartame sweetened drinks and fruit juices above: In this article, five sources are given for the methanol content of fruit juices: {{PMID|13382061}}, {{doi|10.1021/jf00104a034}}, {{doi|10.1111/j.1365-2621.1970.tb04799.x}}, {{doi|10.1021/jf60074a004}}, {{doi|10.1111/j.1365-2621.1971.tb04028.x}}.--] (]) 20:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I see, thanks. The article also states that methanol is no problem whatsoever in normal aspartame consumption.] (]) 06:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Ethanol isn't an "antidote" for methanol itself, it simply reduces the toxic effects of its metabolites. And it doesn't really cure or inhibit or detoxify them either, it merely reduces their ''concentration'' by stretching out the time of its metabolism (the total amount of metabolites is about the same, just gives less at a time for longer time). ] (]) 09:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
::::Ethanol as a "magic bullet" cure for Methanol poisoning factored into an episode of House, but like most single-dose miraculous cures on that show, it was only loosely anchored in medicine. --] 13:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:In order to claim that the methanol produced by the breakdown of aspartame is toxic, we need a source that makes that claim. If we want to compare its effects with those of methanol from fruit juice we need a source that makes the comparison. We cannot provide our own speculation on toxicity, because it would be ]. It seems however that if toxicity were a problem, that we would see diet soda drinkers regularly failing breathalyzer tests. ] (]) 13:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
::As an aside, isn't Methanol toxic in levels far below those that would cause BACs above the legal driving limit? --] 13:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

== Removal of information regarding aspartame's safety ==

{{Discussion top|1=Arydberg has been topic banned for 1 year so I'm closing this dicussion ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)}}
Hi, I would like to propose...
Earlier today, I added the following research to the article:
:However, Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, a retired neurosurgeon and author, describes in an interview how aspartame can damage DNA structure. He says that this, in turn, can cause cancer. "We know that when formaldehyde binds to DNA, it's very difficult to remove it. It will stay there for long periods of time. What that means is if you just drink a single diet cola today, or sweeten something with NutraSweet, you're accumulating damage every day. Eventually, you're going to produce this necessary pattern of DNA damage to initiate the cancer, and once you develop the cancer, the aspartic acid component of aspartame will make the cancer grow very rapidly. You've got a double effect; it's causing the cancer, and it's making the cancer multiply very rapidly."

The user ] quickly removed the passage from the article. Novangelis, please explain why you believe the interview was not a reliable source. (Other members of the public, feel free to comment on this issue.)


I would like to add a few meta analysis about aspartame and the research outcome in relation to industry funding. It seems odd to me that nearly every industry funded study is in favor of aspartame while most independently funded studies are not. Any objections to include these meta analysis in the article?
] (]) 00:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
https://lightenyourtoxicload.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Dr-Walton-survey-of-aspartame-studies.pdf
:See ] ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015869/
--] (]) 08:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


:I moved your thread to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads go. It increases the chance other editors will see it. ] (]) 09:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
::Policy is straightforward. There is a high standard for sourcing medical claims. Material should be published in sources with a high degree of medical editorial oversight, typically review articles in journals. This came from a source that is nowhere near satisfying requirements.] (]) 00:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
:{{u|Mikeschaerer}} also, your first link seems incomplete. However, lightenyourtoxicload.com seems unlikely to be a ]. ] (]) 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|Mikeschaerer}} - I made at the Aspartame article. The "lightenyour..." source is not ], and the PMID 27606602 review is ] for aspartame itself, but rather is a review of bias in research. In my opinion, it doesn't meet ] as an "aspartame controversy". ] (]) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
:::{{u|Zefr}} Could you elaborate why the source "lightenyour..." is not compliant with ]. Also what about this review? http://www.laleva.org/it/docs/Millstone_EFSA_Aspartame_9Jan2014.pdf --] (]) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
::::The "lighten..." source has no bibliographic information, such as when/where it was published, whether it was peer-reviewed, etc., so remains without ]. For an encyclopedia, we need high-quality reviews by authoritative sources, ]. - mentioned in the first sentence of the Millstone paper (which also has no bibliographic info) - states, as does the FDA, that there is no concern about the safety of aspartame. These are acceptable ] sources, which confirm there is no scientifically-validated "controversy". --] (]) 14:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
:::::Well, for one, there are at least 17 peer-reviewed citations (in publications considered good enough for Google Scholar) for the Malton study dismissed here as "unlocatable", at least half of which are affirmative citations:


:::::On the other hand, while PMID 27606602 *IS* a general review of sweeteners, this peer-reviewed source (which is ]) also goes into detail on the aspartame controversy, on why the peer-reviewed article considers the methodology of the FDA *AND* the EFSA seriously flawed in regards to aspartame, both in how aspartame was originally introduced and in how studies corroborating harm of aspartame are dismissed as supposedly unsound, and cites a number of scientific and peer-reviewed sources who agree on that both the FDA and the EFSA exhibit gross disregard for proper methodology on the issue.
:This "aspartame controversy" article definitely does not explain why some people believe that aspartame is dangerous. Perhaps ] should be added to this article until its problems are resolved. I would have referenced a particular section that needs work, but the entire article lacks supporting evidence for the other side in this debate. ] (]) 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
::The article has numerous comments explaining potential reasons people may believe the chemical is a problem, all cited and linked, including both chatroom-rumors and hoaxes and also the actual facts that it has potentially harmful metabolites, and so on. That's what's needed for a controversy article: supported statements about the various positions. What the article doesn't include is data or studies demonstrating that it ''is'' harmful (whereas it does include some demonstrating that it is not). Neutrality does not mean 50/50 with comparable amounts of studies on both sides, or even-handed "maybe but maybe not" stance on the issue. Instead ] says we can only say what is supported and we must not omit what is supported if that supported material leads to a certain conclusion or position on which side is more correct. And as others have said, ] is the standard for content that is supportable. ] (]) 21:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


:::::FYI, the EFSA themselves officially consider any critiques of their methodology as entirely irrelevant and not even worthy of serious consideration or any cause for self-criticism, by virtue of simply calling them just "reviews, presenting no new scientific evidence" or mere "opinion pieces": (see ''Appendix 1: Papers considered by the Organising Team but not included in the Report'', pp. 58-62). In other words, the EFSA doesn't give a damn about methodology, they just need an excuse to only support studies funded by aspartame manufacturers and industry utilizers. Their other trick, as openly outlined in the 2009 report, is to declare any peer-reviewed study corroborating harm and its observed biomolecular paths of action which they can't explain away with "flawed methodology" (on which they are critizized by all the above considerable sources as mentioned in the peer-reviewed ''PLUS One'' article) as "just anecdotal", no matter the amount of case studies presented in the given peer-reviewed source or the sound plausability of the biomolecular observations in accordance with what is scientifically known for certain about molecular biology in regards to the aspartame-related components and substances discussed (such as ]s of aspartame after it's been broken down by the human organism, for instance).
::Not sure why you say that. Here's a two examples right from the lead: "with critics alleging that the quality of the initial research supporting its safety was inadequate and flawed and that conflicts of interest marred the approval of aspartame" and "critics like anti-aspartame activist Betty Martini have promoted undocumented claims 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."
::Now if you mean that the anti-aspartame beliefs are not presented as credible, then we're having two different conversations. WP does not present fringe claims as credible and instead reflects the mainstream scientific consensus on the matter (keep in mind that there is no controversy within the scientific community, the controversy is between scientific evidence and those in the public who refuse to accept it). ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


:::::In short, all of this reeks strongly of the grave misconduct in regards to the other industry-sponsored supposed remedy to caries and obesity, which was ] that led to phenomena such as ] (see photos for it in the ] article, namely the "severe" cases), where supposed caries resistance was a trade-in for considerable other damage to human teeth integrity, bone structure, the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, and thyroid (see the general article on ] on that), and where all criticisms of it from within the scientific community and research into it was for a long time considered some laughable "conspiracy theory" supposedly related to the ]. --] (]) 18:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps there is controversy within the scientific community. see: here and here and here and here.


== death ==
] (]) 14:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
:Perhaps you forgot that we already discussed most of them. Let me remind you of ], and let me remind you to read what you link to first. If it doesn't say aspartame is to blame for something, then it doesn't support your position.--] (]) 15:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


Here is a 16 year study reported by the New York Times.
::{{ec}}Non-] advocacy site (health-report.co.uk), 3rd year law school student paper, Daily Fail reporting on PMID 20592133 (Halldorsson), early conference abstract report of what was eventually PMID 18535548 (Fowler), report on as-yet unpublished research, PMID 21138816 (Polyák), non-] advocacy site (dorway.com).
::The ] here--the three PMID cites--discuss associations with aspartame/diet soda intake and preterm delivery (Halldorsson) or obesity (Fowler, Polyák) are not presently cited, however I'd prefer to use reviews for these matters. Reviews that cite Fowler et al include: PMID 20078374, PMID 19778754, PMID 20308626, PMID 20060008. No reviews have cited Halldorsson or Polyák yet, as far as I can tell. Halldorsson is somewhat problematic as the authors can only make inferences as to the relative consumption of aspartame or acesulfame-K, but since it's a large prospective clinical trial, I'd be willing to include it. Polyák is a rodent study behind a paywall (my institution has excellent subscriptions, so this is a bit of a red flag for me; the journal is , too), so I'd be inclined to leave it out at this point.
::So, thanks for pointing out a useful source, Arydberg. In the future, though, please stick to ] and leave dorway.com (and the like) at the doorway. &mdash; ]'']'' 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Follow-up comment: I did not have time yesterday to look in-depth at the reviews I cited in the above comment. Now I'll present some very brief notes on each:
:::*PMID 20078374 - Excellent discussion of pros/cons of artificial sweeteners in beverages. I think the findings can generally be summed up thusly: "Epidemiologic studies of artificial sweetener use in children have generally shown a positive association between artificial sweetener intake (most commonly as diet soda) and weight gain..., causality is far from established with regard to artificial sweetener use and weight gain in children." Aspartame-specific comments are limited, but include: "encapsulated aspartame versus placebo in young people found no differences in blood pressure, glucose, or lipid profiles between groups "; children will more completely calorie compensate for aspartame-sweetened snacks but adults don't.
:::*PMID 19778754 - This contains some discussion about the pros/cons of artificially sweetened beverages, but no specific comments on aspartame.
:::*PMID 20308626 - There is some discussion about the pros/cons of diet soda generally, but the only direct discussion of aspartame follows: "...an increase in blood pressure spanning 10 weeks was found when individuals drank but not aspartame-sweetened beverages..."
:::*PMID 20060008 - not a classical review, but more of an narrative utilizing an animal model. Since it also only discusses saccharin, it doesn't seem like a good candidate for inclusion without running afoul of ].
:::I think the first three are a shoe-in for the ] article (which could use greater attention), but these four reviews may have only limited applications here without tripping over ]. &mdash; ]'']'' 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/health/diet-soda-health-death.html?searchResultPosition=1
So perhaps the last line of the article "comprehensive reviews on this subject have concluded there is little to no data to support the assertion that aspartame adversely affects hunger or obesity." should be changed to include the research of Fowler. ] (]) 23:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
:No, per ] we use scientific reviews. You have been told this many, many times now. Please stop with the tendentious editing, you have already been topic-banned once, don't force us to go that route again. ] (]) 00:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
::Again, read sources carefully before you suggest we change the current wording. Which of the reviews Scientizzle linked to would support changing the last line? And what kind of change would it support?--] (]) 07:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


is a reference to Fowler's Work why is it excluded? ] (]) 14:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC) ] (]) 13:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
: That is hardly usable here. Let's look at the title and a few sentences from the article. They tell us that this is a very general study not applicable to Aspartame specifically.
:How do you suggest to include it? --] (]) 15:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
{{quotebox|
Death by Diet Soda?


A new study that links artificially sweetened beverages to premature death is prompting public angst. Some scientists say it has significant flaws.
::If I suggest an improvement it will be rejected regardless of the source.
::Your article gives the impression that aspartame is perfectly safe and all the people against it are cults or activists. While this may be true there is a wealth of research that indicates it’s use is unsafe.
::In ignoring this research you are promoting a additive that may seriously damage the health of many many people.
::To totally ignore, as you do, a 10 year epidemiological study that indicates use of aspartame causes an increased chance of stroke or the study of 60,000 pregnant women that indicates aspartame use leads to premature birth is unforgivable.
::The bottom line is that you absolutely refuse to publish anything that is negative on the use of aspartame. This is journalism of the worst kind.
::] (]) 13:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::You've been told many times before that we go with what ] say - if you want to change that, you'll have to get the community to change these guidelines (which is unlikely to happen). You've asked why a specific source was excluded. I went through that source and found what it said about aspartame wasn't in any way contrary to our article. Yes, keeping your eating habits and only switching to diet soda will usually not be enough to lose weight, and if you eat more because you misjudge the amount of calories you take in you may even gain weight; using aspartame and cutting calories can lead to weight reduction (which is what the source you suggested said about aspartame; not really a safety issue, and not contrary to what our article says). That's why I asked and since you've already moved on to other sources again, I assume that you didn't find anything either. As Scientizzle already explained, when sources say "artificial sweeteners" without specifying which, it would be ] to claim they were talking about aspartame in particular. It's not my fault you either don't read ] or forget about it again and again - non-reliable sources will be dismissed no matter how often you link to them. --] (]) 13:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Arydberg, could you please back away from the ] and stop this freaking nonsense? This is wasting everyone's time. I am really tiring of this, and it seems others are too. ] (]) 16:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::At the very least, you can cease appealing to consequences or "importance". As far as wikipedia is concerned, "Journalism of the worst kind" is the unreliable kind. The kind you want us to produce, to be "on the safe side". --] 21:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


... a new study that found prodigious consumers of artificially sweetened drinks were 26 percent more likely to die prematurely than those who rarely drank sugar-free beverages.
Kingoomieliiil, Good to hear from you. The entire driving force behind WP:MEDRS is to be on the safe side. If you are comfortable with publishing material as fact that is highly questioned by some very reputable researchers that is your decision. I can only hope you are aware of the consequences. see WP:MEDRS
“Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.”
] (]) 14:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
:Safe side indeed. MEDRS charges us with being EXTREMELY SELECTIVE OF SOURCES. To be on the safe side. As in, "Don't post things from conspiracy sites, even if you think people are at risk without that information". --] 14:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


The study, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, followed 450,000 Europeans over 16 years and tracked mortality among soft-drink consumers of all persuasions — both those with a fondness for sugary beverages and those who favored sugar-free drinks.}}
: The rest of the NYT article also refers to "other research in the United States has found a correlation between artificially sweetened beverages and premature death." Again, not specific to Aspartame and the number of confounders is enormous. The lifestyles of people who tend to drink large amounts of soft drinks, sugary or otherwise, isn't good, so there is no surprise here. Are large quantities of artificial sweeteners not good for our health? Probably. Large quantities of junk food and empty calories are not good. Large quantities of unsweetened fruit juices isn't good either. When free from the slowing effects of their natural fibers, they assault the pancreas and can cause blood sugar spikes. Any diabetic knows this. Too high a percentage of even "natural" sugars in the diet isn't good, and one can get far too much compared to what one would get just eating fruit as is. It's hard to "overdose" on apples or oranges in their natural state. {{;)}} The stomach can only hold so much at a time. -- ] (]) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


== Removal from the alternative medicine navbox ==
Scientizzle,
Thanks for the review of my sources. I would like to point out that it is to be expected that the industry will publish attempts to downplay any article which is critical of aspartame. Thus it is not surprising that reviews can be found that dispute allegations against aspartame.
To be swayed by these reviews runs the risk of ignoring potential harm to public health. Once again if you are comfortable in doing this it is your choice. For me, given the choice between loosing a sweetener vs harming public health I would choose to protect public health. Do you think I am in error here?
Here are some more sources that say aspartame causes a:
The point I am trying to make is that the “aspartame controversy” exists in the research literature as well as in the fringe press. I think this should be reported.
WP:MEDRS, “Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.”
Please be aware of the success the cigarette industry had in promoting the “safety” of smoking for decades before the truth got out.
Also could you please tell me how does one go about finding reviews of an article?
] (]) 13:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
::::For everyone's interest: I @ ] to this message. &mdash; ]'']'' 22:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


@]
:This level of ] may require ] intervention. Thoughts? ] (]) 14:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


The navboxes have long included a variety of topics related to alternative medicine, including general controversies, purported poisons, or related people. ] (]) 13:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:: Not really. If his topic ban has run out, then just reinstate it, and for a much longer time. Very simple. People who can't learn shouldn't be rewarded by more drama than necessary. -- ] (]) 15:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, that would be the place to take this if we wanted a topic ban again, right? ] (]) 15:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


:Possibly. However, given that Misplaced Pages isn't a reliable source, inclusion of an 'alternate medicine' navbox in an article on aspartame would seem to require a better justification than that. Can you point to sources that describe aspartame as an 'alternative medicine'? ] (]) 14:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:::: This has been ] all along. These posts constitute spamming the talk pages with useless links. Refusing to making suggestions to improve the article when one source actually met ] was the clincher. I'm not sure that AE is the venue for expired topic bans, but ] does give administrators broad discretion with regard to pseudoscience. While I'm not sure about the venue, something needs to be done.] (]) 15:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
::Would you then also suggest the removal of ], ], ], ], and ] from ]? Because like ], those articles also don't directly mention "alternative medicine", per-se. ] (]) 14:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:::I would suggest you answer the question I actually asked. Citing external ] sources that describe aspartame as 'alternate medicine'. ] (]) 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Here are a couple: <ref>{{Cite book |last=Leader |first=Dr David |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8z88CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA19&dq=alternative+medicine+aspartame&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVvvj8l4X5AhXEJ0QIHXExDVQ4ChDoAXoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=alternative%20medicine%20aspartame&f=false |title=The Alternative Medicine Cabinet: Your Reference Guide to All-Natural Self Care |date=2015-06-30 |publisher=Lulu.com |isbn=978-1-4834-3257-1 |pages=19-20 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Bowling |first=Allen C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-qt0qjtyzqQC&pg=PA79&dq=alternative+medicine+aspartame&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWn8K6moX5AhWvDkQIHfqzDroQ6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q=alternative%20medicine%20aspartame&f=false |title=Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Multiple Sclerosis |date=2010-04-20 |publisher=ReadHowYouWant.com |isbn=978-1-4587-5343-4 |pages=79-83 |language=en}}</ref> ] (]) 14:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::I asked for ] sources stating that aspartame is an alternative medicine. As far as I can see, neither of the sources you cite states anything of the sort, instead (correctly) describing it as an artificial sweetener. I also doubt either would meet ] criteria anyway. ] (]) 15:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::I think you misunderstand: the ] is about aspartame being called a poison by alternative medicine practitioners. I also don't see why those sources would fail ]. ] (]) 15:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::::No, it is (amongst other things) about aspartame being called a poison by conspiracy theorists. Some may well be alternative medicine practitioners, a great many clearly weren't. And I'm sure, given the scope of 'alternative medicine', there are practitioners who have no opinion about aspartame, one way or another. ] (]) 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::::That's reasonable; so it will stay with conspiracy theories but not alternative medicine. ] (]) 15:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


:::Comment: WP considers (at least atm) altmed and ] to be pretty much the same, so vaccine stuff fits pretty well IMO. Aspartame is less obvious, I think, afaik it isn't used to treat patients. In the past there have been discussions at ] that concluded that the sidebar didn't fit there. ] (]) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
::::: Considering , it's just a matter of having ] carry through with the matter. I'll notify them of this thread. There is no point in more disruptive drama, and going through all the procedure again would indeed be very disruptive. -- ] (]) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Well in this case vaccine hesitancy and aspartame controversy are both recommended by alternative medicine practitioners, so the topics should equally qualify for the navboxes. ] (]) 15:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}


I would like to the take the opportunity and propose the removal of ], ], ], and ] from the alternative medicine navboxes for the same reason as was given aspartame in this discussion. ] (]) 15:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
== Formic acid ==


:This is the talk page for the aspartame article, not the alternate medicine navbox. ] (]) 15:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
:''The methanol produced by the metabolism of aspartame is absorbed and quickly converted into formaldehyde and then completely converted to '''formic acid'''. The methanol from aspartame is unlikely to be a safety concern for several reasons. The amount of methanol in aspartame is less than that found in fruit juices and citrus fruits, and there are other dietary sources for methanol such as fermented beverages. Therefore, the amount of methanol produced from aspartame is likely to be less than that from natural sources. With regards to formaldehyde, it is rapidly converted in the body, and the amounts of formaldehyde from the metabolism of aspartame is trivial when compared to the amounts produced routinely by the human body and from other foods and drugs.''<br />
Methanol's toxicity is due to the formation of formic acid. But the article suggests that while methanol and formaldehyde are toxic, they only exist in the blood for a short period of time before converted to the, one would presume safe, formic acid. ] (]) 10:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)<br />


{{reflist-talk}}
Given the number of edits of the article and the talk page, and the fact that this section hasn't changed at all in the last six months (and maybe much longer, can't be bothered to check frankly), it's safe to conclude that neither side cares much about the article representing the facts, instead it's a mere POV propaganda battle. ] (]) 10:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
:Do you have a suggestion to improve the article? ] (]) 11:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
:<s>Jumping into the talk page and ] everyone in just the second comment. ''Very'' helpful for the collaborative spirit. ] (]) 12:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)</s> Struck own needlessly ] comment. ] (]) 16:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
::You accuse me of ] for commenting on all editors on both sides of the issue? Nice one, especially on a page replete with denigrating comments, insults, references to policies and threats of bans. ] (]) 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


== new link ==
From my reading of that passage, you are inferring something not implied by the text (that formic acid is harmless). The links to ], ] and ] within that section certainly make clear how formic acid is known to be toxic...To assert, based on your particular interpretation of seemingly straightforward (IMO) text, that dozens of other editors do not care "much about the article representing the facts" is hardly collegial. You're welcome to ] the prose to make it clearer. Just leveling accusations is, frankly, boorish. &mdash; ]'']'' 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
:Anyone who wrote that must have known the facts. It's hard to imagine a good reason for writing ''With regards to formaldehyde, it is rapidly converted in the body,..'' without mentioning that this convertion is what kills people with methanol poisoning. ] (]) 15:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
::Well we're in a bit of a quandry if what you say is correct. Firstly, we cannot make a novel conclusion that aspartame is dangerous unless a reliable source specifically says it is. However, if what you're saying is true, then we certainly should not be saying that it's safe because X, when X is a dangerous aspect of methanol metabolism. My understanding is that the amount of aspartame consumed by humans does not lead to dangerous levels, but this problem is more one of phrasing than anything. How about this, can you source the statement that you made regarding the danger of methanol metabolism? If so, we cannot use it in the article unless it talks about aspartame specifically, but what we can do is change the phrasing of that statement if you can provide a good source that lets us verify the statement. ] <font color="black"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


here is an interesting link.
::{{ec}}Again, you're ascribing motivations to others based on...what? Where does this article suggest formic acid is harmless? Since you don't seem interested in altering the text to deal with the perceived issue, . Such an improvement could have been accomplished instead by simply clarifying the text yourself or posting your concern with a collaborative suggestion rather than a caustic rant. &mdash; ]'']'' 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
:::...and I expanded the text with a source already being used. Formic acid (and methanol, and formaldehyde) is not a real concern in aspartame consumption. ] (]) 16:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


::::Also, this article should be about the controversy, not the science, which belongs in the main aspartame article. ] (]) 05:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC) https://www.endalldisease.com/aspartame-linked-to-leukemia-lymphoma-in-groundbreaking-study/ ] (]) 17:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::Well, it should be about the controversies surrounding the science; one of the popular complaints is about methanol toxicity. ] (]) 14:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


:Nothing remotely relevant to article content: see ]. ] (]) 17:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::::We have seen your type before. Please just go away. I love diet coke and do not want to loose because of people like you. If this stuff was bad the Government would not allow it. The articles like this one are all BS. http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_methanol_and_public_health.pdf

Latest revision as of 08:12, 10 July 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSkepticism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

To-do list for Aspartame controversy: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2012-03-11


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : Scientific publications -- weak Gone --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Alleged conflict of intrerest prior to 1996 -- should this be merged into discussion of approval?
  • Expand : Why the US approval process caused controversy
    • Charges of COI in DOJ handling of FDA's Fraud allegations against Searle.
    • Charges of COI in hirings of 6 FDA personnel (described in GAO 86 report to Metzenbaum)
    • Studies by Olney and others dismissed.
    • Expand and integrate the timeline in the article
    • Charges of COI when new FDA commissioner overturned unanimous decision of PBOI
    Senator Metzenbaum's role in returning the controversy to the news. Why the Ramazzinni studies contribute to the controversy
    • Allegations of COI in industry-funded critiques of Soffritti studies
    ...
  • NPOV : Remember that parts of this article that deal with medical safety follow WP:MEDRS and should rely on secondary sources and must reflect the preponderance of medical opinion, while other parts of this article that deal with historical, social, legal, etc. aspects explain the controversy should rely on secondary sources as much as possible but are not subject to WP:MEDRS.
  • Verify : Different types of sources are appropriate to different sections of this article.
Priority 1 (top)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL


Meta analysis about research outcome related to industry funding

I would like to add a few meta analysis about aspartame and the research outcome in relation to industry funding. It seems odd to me that nearly every industry funded study is in favor of aspartame while most independently funded studies are not. Any objections to include these meta analysis in the article? https://lightenyourtoxicload.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Dr-Walton-survey-of-aspartame-studies.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015869/ --Mikeschaerer (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I moved your thread to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads go. It increases the chance other editors will see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Mikeschaerer also, your first link seems incomplete. However, lightenyourtoxicload.com seems unlikely to be a WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Mikeschaerer - I made this revert at the Aspartame article. The "lightenyour..." source is not WP:RS, and the PMID 27606602 review is WP:OFFTOPIC for aspartame itself, but rather is a review of bias in research. In my opinion, it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT as an "aspartame controversy". Zefr (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Zefr Could you elaborate why the source "lightenyour..." is not compliant with WP:RS. Also what about this review? http://www.laleva.org/it/docs/Millstone_EFSA_Aspartame_9Jan2014.pdf --Mikeschaerer (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The "lighten..." source has no bibliographic information, such as when/where it was published, whether it was peer-reviewed, etc., so remains without WP:V. For an encyclopedia, we need high-quality reviews by authoritative sources, WP:MEDASSESS. The 2013 EFSA assessment of aspartame - mentioned in the first sentence of the Millstone paper (which also has no bibliographic info) - states, as does the FDA, that there is no concern about the safety of aspartame. These are acceptable WP:MEDRS sources, which confirm there is no scientifically-validated "controversy". --Zefr (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, for one, there are at least 17 peer-reviewed citations (in publications considered good enough for Google Scholar) for the Malton study dismissed here as "unlocatable", at least half of which are affirmative citations:
On the other hand, while PMID 27606602 *IS* a general review of sweeteners, this peer-reviewed source (which is PLOS One) also goes into detail on the aspartame controversy, on why the peer-reviewed article considers the methodology of the FDA *AND* the EFSA seriously flawed in regards to aspartame, both in how aspartame was originally introduced and in how studies corroborating harm of aspartame are dismissed as supposedly unsound, and cites a number of scientific and peer-reviewed sources who agree on that both the FDA and the EFSA exhibit gross disregard for proper methodology on the issue.
FYI, the EFSA themselves officially consider any critiques of their methodology as entirely irrelevant and not even worthy of serious consideration or any cause for self-criticism, by virtue of simply calling them just "reviews, presenting no new scientific evidence" or mere "opinion pieces": Report on the meetings on aspartame with National Experts, 2009 (see Appendix 1: Papers considered by the Organising Team but not included in the Report, pp. 58-62). In other words, the EFSA doesn't give a damn about methodology, they just need an excuse to only support studies funded by aspartame manufacturers and industry utilizers. Their other trick, as openly outlined in the 2009 report, is to declare any peer-reviewed study corroborating harm and its observed biomolecular paths of action which they can't explain away with "flawed methodology" (on which they are critizized by all the above considerable sources as mentioned in the peer-reviewed PLUS One article) as "just anecdotal", no matter the amount of case studies presented in the given peer-reviewed source or the sound plausability of the biomolecular observations in accordance with what is scientifically known for certain about molecular biology in regards to the aspartame-related components and substances discussed (such as metabolites of aspartame after it's been broken down by the human organism, for instance).
In short, all of this reeks strongly of the grave misconduct in regards to the other industry-sponsored supposed remedy to caries and obesity, which was dental fluorosis that led to phenomena such as Colorado brown stain (see photos for it in the dental fluorosis article, namely the "severe" cases), where supposed caries resistance was a trade-in for considerable other damage to human teeth integrity, bone structure, the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, and thyroid (see the general article on fluoride toxicity on that), and where all criticisms of it from within the scientific community and research into it was for a long time considered some laughable "conspiracy theory" supposedly related to the Red Scare. --46.93.153.58 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

death

Here is a 16 year study reported by the New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/health/diet-soda-health-death.html?searchResultPosition=1

Claustro123 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That is hardly usable here. Let's look at the title and a few sentences from the article. They tell us that this is a very general study not applicable to Aspartame specifically.

Death by Diet Soda?

A new study that links artificially sweetened beverages to premature death is prompting public angst. Some scientists say it has significant flaws.

... a new study that found prodigious consumers of artificially sweetened drinks were 26 percent more likely to die prematurely than those who rarely drank sugar-free beverages.

The study, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, followed 450,000 Europeans over 16 years and tracked mortality among soft-drink consumers of all persuasions — both those with a fondness for sugary beverages and those who favored sugar-free drinks.

The rest of the NYT article also refers to "other research in the United States has found a correlation between artificially sweetened beverages and premature death." Again, not specific to Aspartame and the number of confounders is enormous. The lifestyles of people who tend to drink large amounts of soft drinks, sugary or otherwise, isn't good, so there is no surprise here. Are large quantities of artificial sweeteners not good for our health? Probably. Large quantities of junk food and empty calories are not good. Large quantities of unsweetened fruit juices isn't good either. When free from the slowing effects of their natural fibers, they assault the pancreas and can cause blood sugar spikes. Any diabetic knows this. Too high a percentage of even "natural" sugars in the diet isn't good, and one can get far too much compared to what one would get just eating fruit as is. It's hard to "overdose" on apples or oranges in their natural state. The stomach can only hold so much at a time. -- Valjean (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal from the alternative medicine navbox

@AndyTheGrump

The navboxes have long included a variety of topics related to alternative medicine, including general controversies, purported poisons, or related people. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Possibly. However, given that Misplaced Pages isn't a reliable source, inclusion of an 'alternate medicine' navbox in an article on aspartame would seem to require a better justification than that. Can you point to sources that describe aspartame as an 'alternative medicine'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Would you then also suggest the removal of Big Pharma conspiracy theories, Oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis, Vaccines and autism, MMR vaccine and autism, and GMO conspiracy theories from Template:Alternative medicine sidebar? Because like Aspartame controversy, those articles also don't directly mention "alternative medicine", per-se. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest you answer the question I actually asked. Citing external WP:RS sources that describe aspartame as 'alternate medicine'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Here are a couple: Altanner1991 (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I asked for WP:RS sources stating that aspartame is an alternative medicine. As far as I can see, neither of the sources you cite states anything of the sort, instead (correctly) describing it as an artificial sweetener. I also doubt either would meet WP:RS criteria anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand: the Aspartame controversy is about aspartame being called a poison by alternative medicine practitioners. I also don't see why those sources would fail WP:RS. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
No, it is (amongst other things) about aspartame being called a poison by conspiracy theorists. Some may well be alternative medicine practitioners, a great many clearly weren't. And I'm sure, given the scope of 'alternative medicine', there are practitioners who have no opinion about aspartame, one way or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
That's reasonable; so it will stay with conspiracy theories but not alternative medicine. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: WP considers (at least atm) altmed and Pseudomedicine to be pretty much the same, so vaccine stuff fits pretty well IMO. Aspartame is less obvious, I think, afaik it isn't used to treat patients. In the past there have been discussions at Chemtrails that concluded that the sidebar didn't fit there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Well in this case vaccine hesitancy and aspartame controversy are both recommended by alternative medicine practitioners, so the topics should equally qualify for the navboxes. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to the take the opportunity and propose the removal of Oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis, Vaccines and autism, MMR vaccine and autism, and GMO conspiracy theories from the alternative medicine navboxes for the same reason as was given aspartame in this discussion. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the aspartame article, not the alternate medicine navbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Leader, Dr David (2015-06-30). The Alternative Medicine Cabinet: Your Reference Guide to All-Natural Self Care. Lulu.com. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-1-4834-3257-1.
  2. Bowling, Allen C. (2010-04-20). Complementary and Alternative Medicine and Multiple Sclerosis. ReadHowYouWant.com. pp. 79–83. ISBN 978-1-4587-5343-4.

new link

here is an interesting link.

https://www.endalldisease.com/aspartame-linked-to-leukemia-lymphoma-in-groundbreaking-study/ Claustro123 (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing remotely relevant to article content: see WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Categories: