Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:39, 26 January 2009

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Skepticism Unassessed

This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance

This 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

References

Documentary about Aspartame

I'd like to say there is document on the subject, available on Google Video, or Spread the Word websites. It's called Sweet Misery and it discusses health implications of Asparthame from almost all aspects. After seeing it, I have to say that, in my humble opinion, it's really extensive as of the stuff, it contains opinions of both sides of the "battle". In particular, it contains details of how Aspartame was approved by FDA (which is not that specifically included in the article as of now), it details of tests of Aspartame of that period of time (it's flaws etc.), features experiences of "patients"/people sensitive to asparthame etc. Although this documentary is rather critical to Aspartame, it nicely made and it has the will to be objective and not to steer into some narrowminded propaganda. As far as I know, that's the most extensive audio-visual contribution on the Aspartame controvesy subject available now, and since (I'm from my point of view) it tries to stay neutral, how about including it in the (audio-visual) sources? --81.201.48.25 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately those sources don't meet our standards as "reliable sources" - they don't have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you find a newspaper, magazine, book, or other media that comments on your sources, then we would have a source we could cite. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't we have a way of assessing if a documentary film is a RS? MaxPont (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The "High end" newspapers cited in the "reliable sources" are not RS. They are all privately owned, have a recognizable market profile and are advertisement dependent. Many have been sued for publishing reports that are falsified or manufactured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.189.244 (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Pentagon list

In this edit, Immortale (talk · contribs) adds:

It even once made a Pentagon list as a potential biochemical weapon.

sourced to "Committee for the National Institute for the Environment, "Food Additive Regulations: A Chronology," Congressional Research Service, Updated Version, September 13, 1995."

I'd like to see this source directly because I have a feeling that the addition may lack important contextual information... — Scientizzle 22:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is the source, there's nothing in there about the Pentagon or biochemical weapons as far as I can see... — Scientizzle 22:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't find anything there either. We do need to examine any sources provided by anti-aspartame activists very closely, since the history of the conspiracy theories traces back to a fabricated story, involving a non-existent conference and an apparently faked woman, Nancy Markle, all sourced back to one woman named Betty, and she has been the source of that story right from the beginning. No other sources have ever been provided, and she has been identified with it right from the beginning. She started circulating the story, and still does so. No, these stories started with one fabricated story involving several fictive elements, and her followers wouldn't be above twisting the evidence to suit their purposes. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee is misreprestenting facts by pretending that all the sources that are critical don't exist. MaxPont (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

??? Not only do I not understand what is meant, I do take offense at this blatent lack of good faith ("misreprestenting", "pretending") MaxPont, what do you mean? Please AGF. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fyslee and Scientizzle - there is nothing that I can find in this source that supports any claims about biochemical weapons and aspartame. MaxPont, please address improving the article and discussing sources, not making personal attacks which are banned. I suggest you strike the above and apologise. Verbal chat 13:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill here...Fyslee's comment is fairly accurate if one reasonably assumes "anti-aspartame activists" is a descriptor of the pervasive non- or pseudo-academic, ideological elements readily witnessed online. MaxPont is correct that there are critical sources with WP:RS credibility and academic credentials, many currently cited. Let's move on to more improtant things, and not worry about these minor quibbles. — Scientizzle 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let’s move on. As long as we don’t see attempts to portray the controversy as an internet hoax I am fine. MaxPont (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. The controversy is one thing, the conspiracy theory is another. The one predates the other. Interestingly there is a connection, since it's the conspiracy theory and activism of Betty Martini that has kept this issue alive for so long. Without her influence there might exist some small controversy, but it would be at a scientific level, not a mass hysteria level. Not only does she keep it alive, she vastly exaggerates any possible dangers far beyond what any scientific source involved in the legitimate controversy has ever done, in that she claims aspartame is the cause of a long list of serious illnesses, and she even claims it frequently causes many individuals to drop dead. This is supposedly happening all around us all the time! Her extreme charges have had the unfortunate effect of causing the controversy to be looked upon with skepticism, in that it's hard to separate the controversy from her conspiracy theory and extreme claims. Extremism does that. Her cause has also suffered from its use of several unreliable and discredited MDs who, like herself, are using the issue to gain fame, get speaking engagements, and boost the sales of their self published books. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

←...back to the topic of this section...I removed the Pentagon claim after the source I found (which appears to match the initial citation) clearly could not substantiate the assertion. If this is a case of the wrong source being applied to a verifiable claim, let's rectify this and evaluate that source. If that is not the case, and there's not some other good-faith explanation for the error, I think this is an egregious example of misusing Misplaced Pages and would caution all editors to actually vet their sources. — Scientizzle 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Your source looks like the one I quoted but I'm not sure what happened. I'll look into this myself and will try to find the official document in the next few months. To be continued... (Immortale (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

New ref: connection with Seizures

Eur J Emerg Med. 2008 Feb;15(1):51. Seizures and hyponatremia after excessive intake of diet coke. Mortelmans LJ, Van Loo M, De Cauwer HG, Merlevede K.

Department of Emergency Medicine, Klina General Hospital, Brasschaat, Belgium. luc.mortelmans@klina.be

We describe a case of epileptic seizures after a massive intake of diet coke. Apart from the hyponatremia due to water intoxication the convulsions can be potentiated by the high dose of caffeine and aspartame from the diet coke. To our knowledge this is the first report of seizures due to excessive diet coke intake.

PMID: 18180668 MaxPont (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Mortelmans LJ, Van Loo M, De Cauwer HG, Merlevede K (2008). "Seizures and hyponatremia after excessive intake of diet coke". Eur J Emerg Med. 15 (1): 51. doi:10.1097/MEJ.0b013e3282703645. PMID 18180668. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Jeez!...drinking 9L of any fluid in a single day doesn't sound pleasant...As this is a single case report (of an extreme case of hyponatremic Diet Coke consumption), I don't think it's an appropriate source for use in a general article like this. However, the publication was useful if only to see their cited claims. Mortelmans et al cited a letter to a journal and Camfield PR, Camfield CS, Dooley JM, Gordon K, Jollymore S, Weaver DF (1992). "Aspartame exacerbates EEG spike-wave discharge in children with generalized absence epilepsy: a double-blind controlled study". Neurology. 42 (5): 1000–3. PMID 1579221. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Camfield et al has since been followed up by:

• Rowan AJ, Shaywitz BA, Tuchman L, French JA, Luciano D, Sullivan CM (1995). "Aspartame and seizure susceptibility: results of a clinical study in reportedly sensitive individuals". Epilepsia. 36 (3): 270–5. PMID 7614911. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Shaywitz BA, Anderson GM, Novotny EJ, Ebersole JS, Sullivan CM, Gillespie SM (1994). "Aspartame has no effect on seizures or epileptiform discharges in epileptic children". Ann. Neurol. 35 (1): 98–103. doi:10.1002/ana.410350115. PMID 7506878. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Published work prior to Camfield et al (1992) doesn't show a lot of support for aspartame causing or exacerbating seizures in humans, and rodent work was often done in really high doses (i.e., 1g/kg in rats PMID 2010138). Since seizure actually gets little attention in this article, perhaps it's possible to fashion a paragraph about the aspartame-induced seizure literature. — Scientizzle 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's possible to fashion a paragraph about the caffeine-induced seizure literature ;-) Why look for the obscure and rare, when the obvious and common is staring one in the face? A fundamental principle involved in making any medical diagnosis is that the most obvious diagnosis is usually the correct one. When living in Alaska, don't assume that the sound of galloping hooves outside the house are galloping zebras. They really are most likely a herd of reindeer. Only a fool would assume that a herd of zebras was galloping past the house (although a few that have escaped from a traveling circus are not an impossibility)!

Here is an interesting study:

• Absence of an effect of aspartame on seizures induced by electroshock in epileptic and non-epileptic rats

-- Fyslee (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At the end of that study it says: "This work was supported, in part, by a grant from the NutraSweet Company." Not exactly an impartial source. (Immortale (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

A need to rearrange the "Origins..." section

We currently have a jumbled section with duplication in two places. I propose we fix that based on the chronology of events.

The Markle hoax and its associated conspiracy theories, all attributed by V & RS to Betty Martini, first began in 1995 (none existed before then). The speculations about the "FDA approval process" were speculations about earlier events. Therefore our presentation should start with the origins (the Markle email spread by Martini) of the whole thing in 1995, and then present the conspiracy theory's contents about earlier events.

This brings up the questionable practice of describing what is pure speculation. We must not present conspiracy theories as fact.

The current section contains duplication and fragmentation of subjects. We currently have this structure:

1 Origins of the aspartame controversy

1.1 Scientific Studies

1.2 Internet rumors (similar to lower section)

2 Alleged conspiracies

2.1 FDA approval process

2.2 Internet activism (similar to upper section)

It is in two basic sections, and I suggest we still divide it into two basic subsections, but with a combination of the duplications, and a new subheading:

1 Origins of the aspartame controversy

1.1 Scientific Studies

Current content

1.2 Creation of conspiracy theory (New subheading)

1.2.1 Internet rumors and activism

Markle letter and internet activism

1.2.2 Speculations about FDA approval process

Description of conspiracy theory references to FDA approval process

This source (which we use as a reference) says this:

• "Comments: First off, despite the attribution at the top (absent in some versions of the message), this text was not written by "Nancy Markle" - whoever that may be. Its real author was one Betty Martini, who posted a host of similar messages to Usenet newsgroups in late 1995 and early 1996. The original email was penned in December 1995." Source

Since we must be true to the sources, we should mention Martini as the author of the "Aspartame warning" email. No one else has claimed authorship; she is the one who started circulating it; and she is the first major activist, also having founded an organization called "Mission Possible International. All this has gained her fame and income based on speaking engagements and other activities. That she has later denied authorship is not found in reliable sources, but is her own self-serving defense of her hoax. It is an unreliable statement and should be given no weight, if mentioned at all. Since it is found in an unreliable source, I'm not sure the rules here even allow mention of her statement. We don't mention lies unless we also name them as lies, or in some way mention their dubious nature. No reader should, after having read it, even consider that it could be true. If we haven't done that, we haven't been true to our V & RS, which are to receive most WP:WEIGHT. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The structure of this article needs substantial work. There's much redundancy after some well-meaning editing essentially duplicated a lot of material and placed it in separate locales. I'd also like to see, perhaps, subsections within the scientific research section dedicated to the main medical claims in the scientific literature (i.e., cancer risk, headache, seizure). I think this might be a clearer way to organize the relevant literature than the format we currently have. — Scientizzle 21:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a shot at it and hope the result is better. I did it in small steps so as to make it easier to follow what I was doing. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Martini admits she wrote the original email

The current wording in the article no longer makes definite claims about Martini making a hoax email, but makes it clear that many have claimed she wrote the original email, and some have used the word "hoax". That's the "history" of the conspiracy theory. Contrary to Immortale's claims of her non-involvement, she claims authorship of the email, only denying that she later placed the "Nancy Markle" name on it. That seems to have been a later act by some unknown person. It is indeed an untrue theory, filled with false statements. Here are some interesting sources for those who want to sort this out. They are unreliable, as far as scientific information goes, but accurate as far as the history goes:

• https://listserv.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109a&L=parkinsn&D=0&F=P&P=13548
• http://www.dorway.com/nomarkle.html
• http://dorway.com/dorwblog/?page_id=636

This particular page is an unfinished page with editorial comments that are VERY interesting! I'm surprised this is still available, as it shows how inaccurate their editorial practices are:

• http://www.dorway.com/benkofinal.txt

We can't use these sources for anything other than documenting that she does claim to have written the original email, just as is claimed by the various conspiracy theory and urban legend websites. They are accurate about that, and they are accurate about it being a conspiracy theory filled with unscientific claims and outright lies about the words of Clarice Gaylord, who never said what Martini (Markle) claims she said. Gaylord flat out denies it. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Suddenly we can use unreliable, unverifiable websites/ mailing lists to prove a point, at least in this section? This is what Betty wrote in your source: "A person calling herself Nancy Markle published the article under her name, changing the title and some of the wording." That this person copied and pasted it from old posts from Betty was never on dispute. But don't sidetrack the controversy and hold Betty responsible for the whole controversy. If she never existed, the controversy would be the same size/magnitude. Don't forget that there were 2 Congressional Hearings in the 1980s, overwhelming scientific research from the last 3 years pointing towards adverse effects of aspartame, and a manufacturer (Monsanto) who has been caught numerous times of bribing governmental agents (fully documented) and together with GD Searle committed serious research fraud (which was revealed in the hearings and the Bressler Report). The original research was so badly presented that U.S. Attorney Samuel Skinner had set up a grand jury up to investigate G.D. Searle. The accusations were deliberately forging and hiding study results regarding the safety of aspartame. On top of that, a Public Board of Inquiry that could not allow Aspartame on the market in 1980. Betty can be in a side note on Internet activism somewhere in the article, balanced of course. (Immortale (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

You must not know Betty very well. Don't underestimate her influence in making this controversy known. Without her the scientific consensus would have had a better chance to calm the waters and deal with serious concerns about aspartame in the context of a basic maxim of toxicology - "the dose makes the poison" (Paracelsus). Also don't underestimate the damage she has done to the anti-aspartame cause because of her manner of activism and exaggerated and unscientific claims. She can never stick to the point, or answer a question straight. She just resends her enormously long screeds and endlessly repeats herself. Her activism has scared vulnerable and gullible people and caused them to see problems that were not there, or to attribute the cause of their real problems to aspartame, when instead they should have been getting the proper treatment for the real cause of their problems, IOW Betty "has put the wrong crook in jail", and the real culprit(s) are still at large. The huge numbers of complaints filed by these people has drowned any serious complaints that should have been getting attention. She has done all in her power to create a mass hysteria.

I'm not saying that everything she says is nonsense. That would be pretty much impossible. There is a shred of truth in some of what she says, but it is a conspiracy theory that promotes the POV of some pretty weird MDs, especially Roberts. They have created careers in their old age based on their odd ideas. If we could get more reputable scientists to say some of what they are saying, we'd have a much better chance of sifting through the chaff that Betty and her allies have created. Their hyperbole has not helped the matter. Their promotion of a competing product has not helped the matter. Their sales of self-published material has not helped the matter. Their profiting from the matter has not helped. Their conspiracy theory mindset only causes them to be ridiculed by serious scientists.

No, we must keep the legitimate controversy and her conspiracy theory somewhat separated as two different matters that both deserve mention. The scientific controversy would now be a low level or pretty much nonexistent matter, unknown to the public without her conspiracy theory and activism. She is considered by all her allies, and quite correctly so, to be a "super-activist". I haven't encountered anyone on the internet that can quite match her, except for her close internet friend (but on the subject of breast implants) who is indefinitely banned from Misplaced Pages. They are both unreliable loose canons who do great damage to their own causes. I sympathize with both causes, but cannot support their destructive manner of dealing with them. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The article currently has no mention of Roberts, when in fact he's far more important in the controversy than Martini is. He has a lot on PubMed, especially comments (search for "Roberts HJ"). I certainly don't agree that without Martini, the aspartame controversy would be unknown. Anyway, you are right that Martini seems to admit that she wrote the article which Markle's email is based upon, and Martini appears to praise Markle. Personally I don't see why it matters much, but feel free to change it to make it more accurate, which does not mean that it should be changed to say that Martini = Markle. II | (t - c) 01:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

When did we start to use WP:OR on self-published conspiracy websites as input to Misplaced Pages? There are millions of conspiracies floating around on the web, we can't mention all conspiracies - or most articles would need a section about crackpot conspiracies. This "Martini, Nancy Markle" conspiracy is really peripheral and has not received any substantial media coverage. It should not be given more than a few sentences in the article. In addition, I believe there are WP:BLP issues that would prevent us from accusing a living person. MaxPont (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Any web search on the subject will reveal the vast influence of Betty M.. Much of the controversy usually comes back to her front door. The "Nancy Markle" email has been commented on by RS, and since it's an important part of the history of Betty M.'s conspiracy theory, it deserves mention. The vast majority (98%?, considering the vast numbers of people she has alerted) of people who have any doubts about aspartame can thank her for letting them know. That's why the anti-aspartame movement calls her a super-activist and a saint of the movement. We are using V & RS in the article, and the section has been revised enough to clear up any BLP issues, IOW we aren't "accusing" BM, but giving her the credit for what she claims to have done, which is to have written the original contents of the email. If there are any specific inaccuracies, then please mention them so we can deal with them. We also deal with the scientific aspects of the controversy, and are keeping them separate from the Betty M. matter. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Industrial sponsored research

We should be careful citing sources from research that was paid by an aspartame manufacturer. Misplaced Pages shouldn't become a string puppet of the industry. There's a great deal of industrial propaganda out there and it's known that the industry's goal is to make money, as much as possible. Negative publicity of a product will always result in less profits and therefore every large industry will do everything to prevent that. When I'm investigating, for example, the source mentioned in the sentence: "Quality studies do not support a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in any tissue": "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies", I find out the study was done by the Burdock Group, whose website states: "To find out more about how we can help bring your product to market quickly and effectively, contact Burdock Group today for a complimentary consultation." If that doesn't raise anyone's eyebrows, the study was paid by Ajinomoto (the largest aspartame manufacturer in the world). Strangely enough, they had to mention: "The identity of the sponsor, Ajinomoto, was unknown to the chair and expert panelists throughout the conduct and completion of the review, and submission and peer review of the manuscript. Panelist identity also remained unknown to the sponsor. There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors. (see: ) Even if that's true, Ajinomoto hired them for a reason, they knew exactly what outcome the Burdock Group would bring. The press release of the results of this study comes from something called Aspartame Resource Center at aboutaspartame.com, a website owned by Ajinomoto, which often refer to the Aspartame Information Center, at aspartame.org, a website owned by Calorie Control Council. From their site: "The Calorie Control Council, established in 1966, is an international non-profit association representing the low-calorie and reduced-fat food and beverage industry. Today it represents 60 manufacturers and suppliers of low-calorie, low-fat and light foods and beverages, including the manufacturers and suppliers of more than a dozen different dietary sweeteners, fat replacers and other low-calorie ingredients." I could continue with the individuals listed to these websites, but we're not writing a a book here. Industrial propaganda is real, and we should be careful listing it as a reliable, impartial source. If anyone insists to mention such "research", we should mention it was paid by the manufacturer, because such facts add to the controversy, and that is what this article is about. (Immortale (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Although I agree that industry-sponsored studies are less reliable, the fact that the panelists were unaware of the sponsor makes this review fairly reliable. I recognize one name off that list, John Doull, and he does seem to be one of the foremost toxicologists in the world (see bio here, see. II | (t - c) 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Burdock Group is not a Consumer Advocacy Group, they are CONSULTANTS, which describe themselves like this: "Our services provide our clients with solutions to the regulatory and safety issues affecting their FDA and USDA regulated products. At Burdock Group, we do more than solve problems. We design solutions... Burdock Group's team of consultants, comprised of recognized experts, will work with you to deliver real-time support and practical solutions for safety assessment and regulatory compliance - on time and on budget." If I was a manufacturer facing a risk for new food regulations on my food product, I'd hire them. They would HELP me. They pride themselves that 90% of their customers return. They provide zero negative results for a client (which is the industry), because they want to make money and they want their client to come back for more. The boss of the Burdock Group, GA Burdock, was part of the aforementioned study. Do you honestly believe that the owner of a company wouldn't know anything about their client? To quote Mark Gold this time: "John Doull was a paid consultant of Monsanto, a member of the Monsanto-funded ACSH Advisory Board, and a Trustee of the Monsanto- and Ajinomoto-funded corporate research association, ILSI (Tobacco 1993, CSPI 2008). This author’s consultancy with Monsanto and official positional within Monsanto- and Ajinomoto- funded associations was not disclosed in this aspartame review." And to end with Mark Gold's words: "A reader might ask, "Is it possible for there to be an unbiased review of aspartame, made by Ajinomoto and Monsanto, where the review is funded by Ajinomoto, authors have done paid work for Monsanto, several authors have official positions in trade and research associations funded by Monsanto, Ajinomoto, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, etc., several authors work for corporate advocacy groups, one of which called aspartame toxicity a "nonissue," and one author who consults for companies that sell aspartame and in the past has said that aspartame is safe?" I think a reasonable answer might be, “No! Are you kidding me?!" (Immortale (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

I wonder why they put R.M. Kroes as one of the participants on this review. The review was finished in September 2007, while Kroes died at the end of 2006 from cancer. What did he contribute with, besides loaning out his name to them? He became internationally known through his function as President of ILSI Europe from 1999 to 2005. (Immortale (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

I agree that conflicts of interest should be disclosed, and EHP apparently agrees. Good job finding that EHP letter. II | (t - c) 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I added twice the source of this letter and the statement that it was paid by Ajinomoto, which was twice removed again, without discussion. The last time by Fyslee, which wrote: "Revert vandalistic removal of sourced information and sources by User:Immortale. Don't repeat it!" What this means, I have no idea because it doesn't make any sense. I get accused and lectured for adding a small valid, reliable impartial source, which another editor here agreed with. We need to set up some basic rules for this article, otherwise it'll be a long year ahead. When you disagree, discuss it here, don't act like a dictator-in-chief and pretend you own the place. This is what I had written: "According to a review paid by aspartame manufacturer Ajinomoto, quality studies do not support a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in any tissue." Regarding the notes on Snopes.com, why mention the same source triple (being on an urban legend site)? Almost all the pro statements are sourced more than once on each occasion, but when I give more than one source, it's often reduced to one again. Is this a subtle way of telling the reader that the pro statements have the overhand in the world? And I didn't read a unanimous decision that Snopes.com is a reliable source. (Immortale (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

This line:"She believes that there is a conspiracy between the FDA and the producers of aspartame. This conspiracy theory has been discussed on several major internet conspiracy theory and urban legend websites." citing the snopes.com sources. One Snopes source is about ant poison, which clearly is about something else, the other source is the Markle letter again (how many times do you want this to be squeezed into the article?). Why not find instead a source where "a conspiracy between the FDA and the producers of aspartame" is being discussed. (Immortale (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

Reviews from EJoN and CRinT

Anyone have access to PMID 17684524 and PMID 17828671, the two recent reviews? II | (t - c) 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I now have these reviews. Email me if you want copies. The EJoN review is pretty speculative, so there's an argument for taking it out of the lead. II | (t - c) 18:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed from lead

Aspartame for the US market is made using genetic engineering..

1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/worlds-top-sweetener-is-made-with-gm-bacteria-1101176.html The Independent, June 20, 1999

There are a couple of problems with this sentence.

First of all, why is it in the lead? This sentence is (presumably) an argument used by anti-aspartame activists. If it is one of the more important such arguments, then the fact that this argument is used might belong in the lead, but not the argument itself. If it is an argument used less commonly, then that fact can be covered in the body of the article, making sure to give it due weight.

Secondly, aspartame isn't "made using genetic engineering". It's made by bacteria in a natural process. Scientists do not individually modify every molecule of aspartame. According to the article, one of two strains of bacteria that are used to produce aspartame is genetically modified. This is a rather non-neutral (one could say melodramatic) description.

SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The source is a front page article from the British newspaper The Independent: "A Monsanto spokeswoman confirmed that aspartame for the US market is made using genetic engineering." Is Monsanto suddenly an anti-aspartame activist? Do you know the product aspartame better than its manufacturer of what it exist of? Why would you withhold this important piece of information for the reader who wants to know more the Aspartame Controversy. GMO is highly controversial in Europe. I didn't imply that the genetic engineering is a bad thing or a good thing, but it's a fact we should mention to the readers. (Immortale (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

It doesn't belong in the lead. Could be added to the body, though. II | (t - c) 00:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in the body in the way Immortale is currently adding it, with incorrect claims of consensus (again). SheffieldSteel's points should be addresssed if this is added. At the moment it is a leading and biased addition. Verbal chat 16:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Silence implies consensus: WP:Silence_and_consensus. You had 25 days to give your opinion here. This is not an incorrect claim of consensus, neither was the other one. The source of this sentence: "Aspartame for the US market is made using genetic engineering." is a valid source. The manufacturer doesn't deny it. Your claim of genetic engineering is scare-mongering is POV. Either something is genetically engineered or it is not. Period. Two editors here are in favor of adding this info, some are silent, and you disagree. Still you remove this sentence twice. I'm putting it back. (Immortale (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

That is a misreading of policy. You should have commented again before making the edit. After thinking about this again, it has no place in this article unless we have a good RS that there is a controversy attached to aspartame specifically because of its GM status. If this is found then a paragraph that puts this into correct context could be added, after discussion. It might, possibly, be better placed in the Aspartame article in a manufacture section (appropriately contextualized). Edit warring and false claims of consensus do you no good. Verbal chat 17:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The addition of the above content (for example in this edit) is a low-quality edit. First off, it doesn't have anything to do with the section ("Reported effects") in which it was placed. Secondly, if use of GM bacteria is an actual "controversy", start a detailed section rather than a random sentence..."made using genetic engineering" is a low-information statement; at least use some of the qualified information of the report and find other sources from which to build detailed information rather than haphazardly plug the scare words "genetic engineering" into the article.

Finally, Immortale, you cannot use the "silence implies consensus" claim if your addition was actively challenged. It's obtuse. The reversion of your addition clearly "broke" the silence. — Scientizzle 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus seems clear: remove the text for now, until & unless other sources comment on the issue; at that point, we'll have a better idea both of what to say and how much weight to give it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Role in mental disorders

From the lede:

"As of 2008, however, concerns still exist among some scientists over aspartame's role in certain mental disorders, compromised learning, and emotional functioning, although other scientists are not concerned."

I've tagged this with POV-statement because the first reference is a single study, "Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain," while the second is a review, "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies." --Ronz (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this single study being given such weight? Why is this article even attempting to address such topics? If this (or other) research is the basis for the controversy, we should cite sources stating this, rather than attempting original research to document what may or may not be the rationale for some to think there is a controversy. In general, the article is full of such problems, where instead of documenting the controversy, editors are trying to create their own case for a controversy. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you had read my edit summary and looked at the article, I wouldn't have to point out yet again that the article in question is a review. http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v62/n4/abs/1602866a.html It calls itself a study, yes. Study is a broad term which is used to refer to studies of the literature, clinical trials, in vitro laboratory tests, and everything else. It is clearly classified as a review by its journal, and by Pubmed. II | (t - c) 01:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Rest of concerns still apply. --Ronz (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Since your tag was based on a false premise, it should be removed or clarified. Please explain what you mean by original research and "why the article is even attempting to address such topics". What topics? Since the health effects are at the root of aspartame's controversy, articles such as the reviews referenced in the lead (both added by myself) are directly pertinent to the article. Incidentally, this article should be retitled "Aspartame health concerns". II | (t - c) 02:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors appear to be doing original research to demonstrate a controversy. Who is choosing these studies and reviews? If editors are doing the choosing, then we have NPOV and OR problems. If we have sources discussing the controversy that themselves refer to these studies, then we're fine, though we need to make this clear.

I agree that the title is a problem, and I like your suggestion. I think that there should be more discussion on this to find a neutral title. Why not something like "Health effects of aspartame?" --Ronz (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, let's wait a couple days to see what people say. You're not right about Misplaced Pages's original research policy. It's not meant to discourage people from doing research like finding reviews or research articles on PubMed. It's about adding information which is not in sources, whether you're doing that by just adding unsourced information or through synthesis. In any case, the two primary articles in the lead are relatively high-profile. John Olney, who did the first objection, is probably the most high-profile opponent. Similarly, the cancer study by Ramazzini has made very large waves. Most of the real specialized primary research is used to refute the controversy -- read the section on the metabolites. II | (t - c) 04:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's get the title worked out first. I was initially assuming that this article was just about the controversy, but I hope we can agree that the article is about health effects and concerns. Once we get that settled, then the point of view and original research problems can be approached more straightforwardly. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am dubious about renaming this article. It is a legitimate fork of the Aspartame article. Renaming it "Aspartame health concerns" gives (as likely intended) legitimacy to the theories mostly promoted by conspiracy theory advocates. The current title covers all aspects perfectly well, "controversy" being a neutral term that can cover health concerns and the various aspects of the "controversy", both scientific studies and conspiracy theories. The most notable medical advocates of these concerns (Martini isn't a medical professional in any manner) are Olney, Blaylock and Roberts, the last two very dubious characters, whose names should raise red flags wherever they appear. Especially Roberts is way out in left field, a man who has lied about his "knighthood". -- Fyslee (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic that Fyslee, a Misplaced Pages editor, feels so comfortable calling a prestigious neuropathologist who is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine a "dubious figure". Roberts/Blaylock are not notable except as a background to Martini -- they are the medical professionals she bases her statements upon. There are a fair amount of scientists who have published critically in the peer-reviewed literature on aspartame, and Roberts is not one of them. Similarly, whatever your thoughts on the topic at hand, the NYTimes notes that Paul Soffriti's Ramazzini Foundation "has earned considerable credibility since it was founded in 1971 for its pioneering research on chemicals", and Soffriti has been doing cancer research for 30 years. I'm not saying Olney, Soffriti, and the various others holding their position are right but they are certainly not dubious figures, and both their arguments and their opponents' arguments should be presented to make this a neutral article. The current title is inelegant. I think the conspiracy theories and fringe health claims could still be covered under a new title. II | (t - c) 18:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about mentioning Olney in that manner. I have corrected my mistake above. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement that only scientists working for the industry are qualified and the independent ones are "dubious", is a statement from the industry itself, which gets parroted by people working for the industry. When one cannot find arguments, one start with character-assassination. I see this over and over again. For every qualified scientist who says aspartame is safe, I'll bring you 10 qualified scientists who say that aspartame is not safe. That's the situation now and that's the situation how it always was. Except the ones with more money, have the advantage to use the media to create a distraction. We have been talking about weight, the weight lies in the majority of the people who are affected, not the ones who defend its safety. I agree that the title needs to change, because people use it to downsize the controversy or side-track it to a few conspiracy theorists. In my opinion, conspiracy theories are about aliens and UFOs and such, nothing that fits aspartame because almost everything can be traced back to real facts, and statements/research by real scientists and investigators. And though it's important to mention that the FDA approved it, and based on that approval, so did Europe, but that doesn't mean it's safe. Where was the FDA in the 1950s when tobacco was presented as a contributing health factor? "Health effects of Aspartame" sounds fine to me. (Immortale (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC))

Who made a "statement that only scientists working for the industry are qualified...."? Is your conspiracy theory mindset getting the better of you? -- Fyslee (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Could we try to avoid all this debating if it is not focused on the article or particular sources at hand? Both Immortale and Fyslee are inclined to write rambling, long posts. Hopefully I don't offend when I ask them to stay focused. When you introduce unsourced errors on to the talk page, it influences the editors and worsens the page. I had to correct Fyslee when she said that Olney was a dubious figure, and my sense is that Immortale is not correct either. It's impossible to assess how the distribution of opinions of relevant scientists falls, but my sense is that the ones who are concerned are outnumbered by the ones who are not. There's likely at least a few prestigious scientists at the regulatory agencies. If there are concerns that these scientists have close connections to the industry which is not reflected in the article, bring the sources and we can discuss it. II | (t - c) 04:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote is focused on the article. I did try to discuss these matters but there's very little discussion here. Almost every critical note that's being sourced by valid and variable sources is being removed without discussion. I've been doing research for the past 10 years and of course it can happen once in a while that I have misplaced a source, but I will show you the original document on the biochemical list eventually. But then I'm sure I get to hear that it doesn't have weight. (Immortale (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC))

Change title to "Health effects of aspartame"

If we cannot agree to renaming this article, then I think it needs to be merged back into Aspartame. Otherwise this is simply an improper POV fork that ignores the need for a properly addressing the health effects of aspartame.

I'm not too attached to "Health effects of aspartame." It's just what seems to be a fairly standard way of naming a sub-article that discusses the health aspects of a food product. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That suggested title can easily give readers the impression that there are serious negative health effects, even though your wording is pretty NPOV. How about "Controversy about health effects of aspartame" ? That makes it plain that there is a controversy about the matter, and readers are prepared to read differing POV on the subject. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

But things change if one would write "Positive Health Effects..." or "Negative Health Effects..." So to balance it we can call it "Health Effects..." Reading a title with the word Controversy in it, suggest to me more of an impression that there are serious implications about health. (Immortale (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC))

Looking at the actual page, I am a little uneasy. If this title goes through, then I'd want a guarantee that it wouldn't become an excuse to wikilawyer out much of the controversy information and history, such as the approval process (tumultuous because of health effects) and the internet rumors and conspiracy claims. II | (t - c) 21:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have the same concerns. The article is about what the title describes, and that shouldn't change. If there is any title change, it should be to better describe the contents. Right now it's pretty neutral. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the title should stay unchanged.MaxPont (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the lead

There are several problems with the lead. Ronz is concerned that it gives too much weight to the critics, and Immortale thinks the opposite. Which in some sense means that maybe it's good. I have a concern over the Crit Review, which was funded by the world's largest aspartame manufacture. When I added that ref with the sentence "quality studies do not indicate a connection to cancer", I didn't know the review was funded by the industry. That bothers me. Environmental Health Perspectives, and most journals, require conflicts of interest to be disclosed. My opinion is that Misplaced Pages should hold itself to a similar standard. When Immortale added this information to the lead, it was removed by Fyslee. Perhaps we should just leave the lead in more general terms: "Although some scientists continue to voice concerns over aspartame's effect on the brain, regulatory agencies and other scientists have affirmed the product's safety". This would allow the details to be explained later with context. II | (t - c) 04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the brain that scientists have concerns about. But I like your suggestion. Maybe change "the brain" with "health"? (Immortale (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC))

II, you are right about your "maybe it's good" statement. An NPOV version will often leave both sides with an uneasy feeling ;-) Your suggestion sounds like an improvement, and include Immortale's suggestion. "Health" is better. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

"Ronz is concerned that it gives too much weight to the critics" Actually, my concerns are much more fundamental than that, specifically that editors here are doing original research to present arguments supporting minority viewpoints. However, I don't see how we can properly address these concerns until we have agreement on what this article is about. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning the sponsor Ajinomoto

Verbal keeps removing the edit: According to a review sponsored by Ajinomoto, quality studies do not support a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in any tissue. A consensus was reached on this and if you scroll up you can read: I agree that conflicts of interest should be disclosed, and EHP apparently agrees. Good job finding that EHP letter. (written by II, the original poster of this sentence. No one objected there. Verbal keeps removing it though, falsely claiming that no consensus was reached. Claiming that no quality studies exist that link aspartame to cancer in any tissue is a false claim, manufactured by the industry. The Ramazinni was one of excellent quality, to name just one. If you want Misplaced Pages to be a propaganda tool of the industry, don't expect readers to take it seriously. You might want to read this article on corporate propaganda: http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/41-corporate-spin/5156-how-industry-money-protects-killer-chemicals (Immortale (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

That doesn't show consensus. I think this excessive disclaimer is unwarranted and is attempting to lead the reader and bias the review. Verbal chat 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider any tenuous consensus in support of your inclusion no longer applicable. "The new review was sponsored by aspartame supplier Ajinomoto. However Informa Healthcare took precautions to avoid allegations of underhand influence. It says the panellists were unware who was footing the bill throughout the review process, and up until submission and peer review of the manuscript. Likewise, the sponsor as not made aware of the panelists' identities. "There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors," said Informa. The EHP letter, I might add, is just that: a letter to the editor. I don't think we want to open the door to allowing that type of content into the article. There are many such letters critical of the reviews cited for "anti-aspartame" claims, too. There's no need to attempt a guilt-by-association for this particular claim. If the statement reads "According to a 2007 review, quality studies do not support a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in any tissue" then we've done our jobs--it attributes a specific claim to a specific source. — Scientizzle 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"According to a 2007 review" is not even mentioned in the article, but that would be an improvement though. Informa Healthcare is not the one who assembled the review (they published it). It was the Burdock Group, with GA Burdock as its leader. GA Burdock is a consultant. He has worked many years for the Tobacco Industry where he was paid millions for reviews that showed no adverse reactions to smoking (official documents disclosed that). And you might want to explain what consensus does mean here, when several editors agree on something and no one objects. You can parrot what the industry has to say about aspartame, but they have far more to defend than the so-called anti-aspartame ones. (Immortale (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC))

Two editors is not consensus here, and I'd doubt the other editor would describe it as that either. For a guide on consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS. Verbal chat 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Silence implies consensus: WP:Silence_and_consensus (Immortale (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)]

And such an assumption holds only until someone speaks up or acts. This is what happened. I don't have a problem with someone boldly going forward with a 2-0 discussion in favor of a certain edit...just as I don't have a problem with the reversion or modification of said edit when it's clear that consensus has changed. This seems a perfect reasonable compromise. And no protocol of WP:BRD has been breached. — Scientizzle 20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramazzini foundation

The section on the Ramazzinii foundation has a lot of information, but I find it hard to follow for the following reasons:

• The discussion of the September 2007 study by Soffritti et al. Life-Span Exposure to Low Doses... mentions that the studies found a significant difference in incidence of certain types of cancer, but does not mention how big the increase was. Comparing the lifetime cancer incidence rates of rats fed 100mg Aspartame/kg body weight to rats fed no Aspartame:
  • # of males with malignant tumors -- up 65%
  • # of males with lymphoma/leukemia -- up 81%
  • # of females with lymphoma/leukemia -- more than doubled (from 12.6% to 31.4%)
  • # of females with breast cancer -- nearly tripled (from 5.3% to 15.7%)
• This discussion does not mention that all of these cancer rates fall within the historical "normal" range for control groups of this type of rat, as seen in many other studies.
• It is confusing that the August 2007 NZFSA comments that follow (Food Safety Authority challenges activists’ views on aspartame) completely ignore the dramatic increase in incidence of some types of cancer, and comment only on the lifespan figures from a 2005 Soffritti study. Why? Is there any other contemporary comment on the Soffritti 2007 paper? Does anyone have access to
• Following the criticism from the NZFSA is a statement that the Ramazzini study involved 1900 rats. Which Ramazzini study? The Soffritti 2007 study involved 470 rats. This is confusing.

Probably a more useful criticism of the Soffritti 2007 study is found in Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven (Magnusen and Williams, 2008), in which the authors take Soffritti et al. to task for making poor estimates of Aspartame dosage levels (estimate of 100mg/kg were based on assuming that each rat weighed 400g and ate 20g/day of the supplied food containing 2000 ppm aspartame), for using rats from a breeding colony infected with chronic pneumonia, (which causes more lung lymphomas), and for not presenting data on the details of the prenatal portion of the study, including info on the mothers, pregnancy outcomes and pup sizes during pregnance, at birth, and while nursing -- all important to tell if control and treatment groups were well-matched from the start. Finally, even the breast cancer rates for the treated rats are within the normal range seen in control groups for many other studies.

I think this section is unclear, possibly POV, nad needs a rewrite, but I'm not exactly sure how to tackle it. I'm hardly an expert. I spent about 5 minutes finding the refs. cited here and digging up the Magnusen opinion on pubmed, and about an hour reading them.

Who can help clarify this section?

--SV Resolution(Talk) 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Folate Depletion

Here's a developing angle that this article is missing. Metabolism of formaldahyde (Aspartame: Physiology and Biochemistry) and methanol can both involve folate. So a high-aspartame, low-folate diet could cause problems, according to John E Garst (ACS Division of Agricultural and Food Chemistry Cornucopia, Spring 2008:AGFD 15

Do a google on "garst aspartame" and you'll catch a couple of references to his presentation, as well as a couple of his comments on blogs and news articles.

He may have written to the New Mexico Legislature to encourage them not to ban aspartame ([http://www.rense.com/general75/flak.htm Aspartame Flack Tries To Mislead NM Legislature]), but I can't find his original letter.

He says aspartame is OK if you get extra folate in your diet, and anti-aspartame activists are attacking him, so that seems to be a notable componant of the controversy.

In addition, a scientific discussion seems to be going on at the RoomForAll blog and a Yahoo Group -- debate over whether things really work in the body in the way Garst proposes. Presumably, there will be studies published one of these days.

John Garst's theory and criticism of John Garst's theory by M Alemany and HJ Roberts.

--SV Resolution(Talk) 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Garst is often quickly present at blogs and forums where critique of aspartame is expressed, where he copy and paste the safety of aspartame. He contradicts himself with his folate theory, something - according to himself - is not shared by the industry. He basically admits that aspartame is carcinogenic but you have to add folate to your diet to prevent getting cancer. Can you imagine the food industry putting that on the labels: This product contains aspartame, please make sure you get the antidote as well to prevent you from getting ill. As he lives in New Mexico, he actively worked against the ban on aspartame. The sources you mention are not valid according to Misplaced Pages's rules. His theory doesn't have any weight. (Immortale (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Is the controversy Garst is stirring up notable? The folate thing is starting to pop up in blogs. Is it best to wait until it makes it into "news" (whatever that is, anymore) before adressing it here? Garst's most notable publication on the topic is the abstract of a talk he gave at the American Chemical Society 2008 Annual Meeting. Other experts have expended the energy required to criticize his hypothesis. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If the experts have just expended that energy in blogs, might not be worth putting in. His hypothesis could get a sentence in my opinion. Something doesn't have to be criticized to include on a Misplaced Pages article. Note that WP:NOTABILITY says that it applies to whether articles can be included. Whether facts can be included has more to do with reliable sources and proper weight. II | (t - c) 22:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is different from the main Aspartame. It is not about "the truth" about Aspartame. It is about the competing claims about aspartame. So a reliable source in this case would be one that states that certain people claim aspartame is bad, or that certain people claim that aspartame is fine, that a scientist has presented the theory that aspartame metabolism causes folate depletion, or that government agencies went easy on Nutrasweet's developer or marketer. So if a US senator made national news by claiming aspartame cures stinky feet, it would be OK to put that into this article. The theory may be wacko, but we can verify that the controversy exists. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A reliable source is by definition one that meets our guidelines. Self-published sources are generally not considered reliable except under limited cirumstances. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In this article, there are two different standards -- scientific and news/rumor. The appropriate sources to support the two kinds of facts are very different.

To document scientific research, peer-reviewed publications are needed. And, sometimes, non-reviewed letters in peer-reviewed articles, which are sometimes the only evidence that the experts are not in consensus. Soffritti does a big study, someone says it is a bad study. Soffritti does another study, Magnusen says some of the rats were diseased to being with, so it is just as bad as the first one. Presumably, more studies will be done, and scientific disputes will continue until scientific consensus is reached.

To document "is it news", "is it really a rumor", and "Did Martini write that viral letter", we need more "popular" sources. Did the NM legislature attempt to outlaw aspartame? Was there a viral internet letter making lots of anti-aspartame claims? How do these claims match up with the science? (WP:NOR means we can't do the analysis in the article, but must quote credible sources who have already done the analysis). Did Martini write the "Nancy Markle" letter? Did she sign it Nancy Markle? Who is John Garst? --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Double standards

Can or can't we use letters from scientific journals? As what has happened recently, it seems okay for the pro aspartame editors to include such sources, while at the same time when I use a similar source that contains a negative outcome on Aspartame, it's being removed. What is the consensus here? (Immortale (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

My opinion is that it depends upon the letter - and mostly upon who wrote it. WP:MEDRS generally applies. Letters by cranks or online "comment" letters rank poorly, whereas letters from experts in a field might meet the criteria. This doesn't seem to be double standards but simply "a standard". Verbal chat 13:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about letters from experts from letters published in peer reviewed scientific journals or established newspapers. A letter from Soffritti was removed from the article while from the very same journal, in the very same letter section, a letter from Bernadine Magnuson is allowed in the article. That is a double standard. Scientizzle mentioned that he doesn't want to open the door to allow any kind of letters. I understand that it means only letters that are critical towards aspartame. (Immortale (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

I can't imagine Soffriti's letter not being allowed in the body, but using it to cite Ajinomoto's involvement in the review doesn't have consensus for understandable reasons. Was it taken out of the body of this article too? II | (t - c) 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way about the letters inclusion (I can be convinced), but Immortale's last edit seems to give undue weight to the "rebuttal letter" by giving it prominent and significant coverage. Verbal chat 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you judge "a prominent and significant coverage"? The word count of Soffritti's response from this letter is significantly less than the part from Magnuson's letter. I reported shortly the statements Soffritti made to Magnuson's letter.

In the Ramazinni section I had also replaced the sentence: The study showed that there was no statistically significant link between aspartame and brain tumors. with: The study shows that APM is a multipotential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are evident even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg bw, much less than the current ADI for humans in Europe (40 mg/kg bw) and in the United States (50 mg/kg bw). Verbal reverted my edit. If we are to report the conclusions of the report, then I cannot find your sentence. Doesn't it make more sense to mention something from the Conclusions from this study instead? (Immortale (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Origins of the aspartame controversy

This section starts with: The controversy about aspartame safety finds its origin in some individual scientific studies, as well as in false rumors spread over the internet.

To me this doesn't describe the origins of the controversy. The origin is the long approval process between 1974 and 1981, where the final decision was to not have aspartame allowed on the market. This decision was overturned by one man, the FDA commissioner Hayes. To have two Congressional Hearings in the 1980s is not something that happens if there wasn't a controversy. Another important issue is the clear difference between industrial research showing no dangers while almost all independent research show negative results. That internet played a role after 1995 is a side note and false rumors is something open for debate. A rumor cannot be false or true. That's why they are called rumors. On the internet you can find rumors about anything and it's irrelevant to the controversy. For the controversy is built on real science, real testimonies, real corruption. (Immortale (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Rumours can be false or true, so that's a non argument. The majority of the controversy in the public imagination started with the false rumours initially spread over the internet, which were not based on actually scientific research. Verbal chat 13:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the controversy in the public opinion already existed in the written press and public television prior to Internet. If you have statistics and sources that say that the controversy in the public opinion started with the internet, I like to see them. And rumors either exist or they don't. I don't see the point in adding "false" to that. My Oxford Dictionary says about rumor: Information spread by word of mouth but not certainly true. So I propose to write it like this:

The controversy about aspartame safety finds its origin in the original approval process that took 8 years to get approved by the FDA. Since then there has been done many studies, industrial sponsored research versus independent research where each side showed opposite conclusions, resulting in a continuous controversy around the world, reported by all sorts of media.

This is then further explained by the sub sections below this. (Immortale (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

That is very much a POV rewrite, and I don't support it. Verbal chat 14:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That you disagree isn't a surprise, but it would be helpful if you have arguments in this discussion. Or have sources for your statements. Misplaced Pages says: "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints." So your sentence is actually POV. Most of the article is very POV towards the industry. And I have to say it again: the article is about the controversy so we have to report the controversy. Otherwise it can go to the regular aspartame article. (Immortale (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Just so that my silence isn't misconstrued, I still think Immortale is incorrect and his version is biased. Verbal chat 17:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My apology

I apologize if I inadvertently set off an edit war here. I did add material from a letter, feeling that it supported the position of many experts in the aspartame controversy that the Ramazzini foundation's claims against aspartame are not adequately supported by their research. I thought this review and opinion from an expert in the field was more substantial than the press release from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. I still feel that way.

If I had it to do over again, I might have brought this up for discussion here, rather than boldly editing the article.

It is my opinioin that this article should be a neutral review of

1. The developing scientific story of aspartame research -- the good, the bad, the ugly, even the silly.
2. notable/newsworthy "aspartame controversy" things, such as states seeking to outlaw aspartame, whether or not they are part of the scientific story.

I recognize that this may not be consensus. For now, I will stop editing this article in order to avoid further inflamming the situation here. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ramazzini again

In that section I had removed this sentence: "The study found no statistically significant link between aspartame and brain tumors" because it's not in the section "Results" or "Conclusions" of this quoted study. It's misleading to quote anything else then the final results of a study. This line could have easily been quoted from a control group. However, Verbal did immediately put back the sentence. What the study really said about brain tumors is this: "Malignant brain tumors. Concerning the incidence of malignant tumors in the brain, it should be noted that, as previously reported (Soffritti et al. 2005), 12 malignant tumors (10 gliomas, 1 medulloblastoma and 1 meningioma) were observed, without dose relationship, in male and female APM-treated groups, whereas none were observed in controls.". Verbal, on your Profile it says you have a PhD and have published in peer-reviewed journals. I like to know what your real name is because of possible WP:COI. (Immortale (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest says in part, "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline." Tom Harrison 13:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How am I harassing Verbal about it when I simply ask? He didn't respond, I didn't continue pressing him. "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Outing is when someone else than the person involved is publishing personal info. That is not the case at all here. What wp:coi also says is this: Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. That is exactly what I've done. Do not make it look like anything else by quoting irrelevant parts of Misplaced Pages's policies. It's also side-tracking the real issue I described above. Immortale (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Therefore you should have asked on my user talk, rather than the post I did receive on my user page. I have no COI, I am employed by the EU and I am a theoretician. I have no interest in aspartame except for occasionally consuming it (with no ill effects). Asking an editor for their real name in such a manner is disruptive, especially on an article talk page. Verbal chat 17:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I only followed protocol. No where it states that discussion needs to be done on the editor's Talk Page. That's your own private opinion. But there was never a discussion about it in the first place, I simply asked. But it seems you've found yourself a good companion for your pro aspartame editing. Why don't you investigate the false reference I mentioned 10 days ago and repeated above. How long does it take to read a study's results? Immortale (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Bettia (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by Immortale

The results in the Ramazzini study mentioned above , does not conclude: "The study found no statistically significant link between aspartame and brain tumors" and should therefore be deleted.

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by Bettia

....

Third opinion by User:RegentsPark

This is pretty straight forward. In the cited paper, three studies on the effects of Aspartame on brain tumors are discussed. Two studies showed some increase in brain tumors but the FDA did not consider these positive results (perhaps the results were not significant); one study showed no increase in tumors. The authors go on to question the methodology (duration of test and number of animals). I don't see how these can lead to a quotable finding of the sort that 'no statistically significant link between aspartame and brain tumors' was shown by the study. That is obviously not the intent of the paper because it questions the methodology of those studies. I agree with Immortale, the statement should not be included in the article. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 23:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I second this opinion. In fact, rather than saying that there was no link, the paper seems to suggest the opposite. Bettia (rawr!) 10:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I'll remove the edit and hopefully Verbal won't revert it this time. Immortale (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. I do not recognise the dispute presented here. More than two editors were involved in the discussions on this issue. This appears to be an attempt at smearing and gaming. Verbal chat 14:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You were the one who kept putting this false statement in the section, no other editor did. I gave you 2 weeks to explain yourself why you wanted this statement in it and you were completely silent on it. You had a chance to express your view above, which you ignored. It's my right to ask for a third opinion when you as another editor were unwilling to debate. I find it offensive that pro aspartame statements don't get the same scrutiny as critical statements. How you interpret this as a personal attack is beyond me. Immortale (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinions vs sources

Too many times the references quoted do not match the statements made in the articles. The latest one by Tom Harrison regarding: The controversy about aspartame safety finds its origin in some individual scientific studies, as well as in false rumors spread over the internet. False rumors was replaced with a more neutral wording but was reverted. No where in the source you can find the words "false rumors" or something similar. Then it becomes an opinion about a sourced article. Furthermore, the controversy was alive and real before Internet, through the long approval period, 2 Congressional Hearings and regular reporting by large US Newspapers such as the New York Times and The Washington Post. The pro aspartame editors eagerly want to link aspartame to conspiracy theories so for them Internet is an easier target than independent scientific research. Immortale (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a quotation from the source. Tom Harrison 13:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement: The controversy about aspartame safety finds its origin in false rumors spread over the internet.

Your quotation: "The "aspartame scare" hit the mainstream media when the Associated Press moved a Jan. 29, 1999 article debunking the rumor."

That's quite a difference of interpretation. Your source is based on one email which indeed contains some false information, compiled by a person who doesn't exist, which supposedly has started the whole controversy. Isn't that a very weak basis to work on? Your quote doesn't mention "false rumors" and it doesn't say it started the controversy in the mainstream media, but it hit the media that particular time, which it has hit before on numerous occasions. There are many examples to find in the mainstream press prior to internet. Immortale (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, false rumors on the internet. It looks to me like the source supports the wording in the article. Tom Harrison 14:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the source supports the article. Verbal chat 17:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Verify, please

According to a poll in 1987, most scientists doubted aspartame's safety

I can't access the full-text for this article. I'd like to know more about what "most scientists" is supposed to mean... — Scientizzle 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The poll was done by the Food and Drug Administration: Food Additive Approval Process Followed for Aspartame, which various newspapers reported about at the time. The complete poll can be read here: http://archive.gao.gov/d28t5/133460.pdf on page 16 and 76. 67 scientists that had researched aspartame had responded: 38 had either major concerns or were somewhat concerned. 29 had few if any concerns. 38 is more than 50 percent so the newspaper reported it as "most scientists". Also 32 scientists believed any actions to protect consumers should be taken on aspartame, but feel free to add that to the article as well.

I have a question for you, about this sentence: "Some scientific studies, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the approval process — which were refuted by an official US governmental inquiry — have been the focus of vocal activism and conspiracy theories regarding the possible risks of aspartame." I had removed the part: "which were refuted by an official US governmental inquiry" because it doesn't belong in this sentence. Plus this exact information is given 2 sentences further down. Why is it necessary to emphasize it like this?

Then I added the recent letter-to-the editor because it's important to show the big difference between industrial sponsored research and independent research. That's the core of the controversy. Immortale (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Appendix I in the cited article reads that of the 67 respondants, 12 chose "I have major concerns about the safety of aspartame; i have little if any confidence in the safety of aspartame" 26 chose "I am somewhat concerned about the safety of aspartame ; I am generally confident in the safety of aspartame" and 29 chose "I have few if any concerns about the safety of aspartame; I am very confident of the safety of aspartame". Therefore it is obviously false that 'most scientists doubted aspartame safety'. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the text to properly reflect the source. — Scientizzle 01:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't sum up a list of numbers just because you can

The Aspartame Information Service lists several issues with the 85 pieces of research allegely identifying adverse reactions to aspartame. Each issue is helpfully prefixed by a number of studies affected. Someone here at Misplaced Pages summed up these numbers and proclamed "(85-sum) studies are uncontested". Don't do that, it's wrong, mostly because these issues needn't affect disjunct sets of studies. But it's likely what the Aspartame Information Service wanted you to think (as it's a technique every lobbyist should be familiar with). For example, I'd suspect that the "brief reports"/"case reports", "anectodes" and "letters to medical journals" all intersect highly. And I'd bet serious money that the last point, "3x allegations", is already covered by some of the previous "not-a-real-study" stuff. Anyway, back to provables: both instances of "3 reports of the same .." need to be counted as 2, not 3, each, since a study being mentioned 3 times does not make it invalid, it just means you mustn't count the second and third occurrence of it. So I left "at least 9 studies are uncontested" there, because that's the absolute minimum and I suspect if I remove all mention of the sum, somebody is gonna jump in and sum stuff up again, even if no summing at all (as the Aspartame Information Service has done) would be more proper.134.130.4.46 (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this opinion from Ajinomoto even allowed in the article. In the article I've inserted opinions from scientific experts that were at least published in peer-reviewed journals, but were removed over the last weeks. Ajinomoto's reply comes from a self-published PR website. How is that for verifiability and neutrality? The old "double standards" again? Their opinion of the facts is so flawed, it's ridiculous. Would anyone dare to say that nicotine is not tobacco and therefore irrelevant to tobacco's safety? Immortale (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethanol as antidote for methanol

On a recent revert of an added source by Monte to the article, I don't see the original research. However, Monte's research has been criticized. PMID 3300262 (freely accessible) notes references 49, 50 critiquing Monte. I had access to PMID 4065772, which was a letter to the editor by a Searle scientist who said that "because ethanol is metabolized much more rapidly than methanol, any 'protective' effect in food sources will be pharmacokinetically evanescent. For example, the 'protective' effect of ethanol in 500 ml orange juice can be shown to persist for less than 1 min after a simultaneous aspartame dose of 200 mg/kg". I don't have access to Monte's work. II | (t - c) 18:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

After I made that revert I realized I should have added WP:SYNTH violation. The whole section seems to reek of it. While we can't usually use a letter to the editor as a source, if it is true, and there is no reason to doubt it, then we should be careful not to include dubious information if we aren't certain. If we can find a V & RS that clears this up, maybe we can use it. Right now it looks like we are publishing anti-aspartame OR that may not be true as part of a section of anti-aspartame SYNTH propaganda. It seems to be a theoretical problem, but where's the evidence that it's really a serious problem for anyone? Where's the research? I'd like to hear other's views on this. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In order to sort this out, it's important to be clearer about what the objections are and how policy informs our editing decisions. And it sounds as if there is confusion about what original research means in wikipedia policy. It refers specifically to claims, opinions, arguments, or comparisons produced by wikipedia's editors, and aren't found made in published sources. It's acceptable for Monte to conduct original research. It's not acceptable for wikipedians to use their own original research. Monte can claim anything he likes, and wikipedians aren't really in a position to judge his facts or arguments. If they're his opinions, we must attribute the opinions to him, and not take them to be broad statements of fact or opinion of anyone but him. We're also to judge is how much weight Monte's published opinions carry in the field, and we do that by a surveying the body of relevant published literature on the subject. And in terms of this article, the relevant published literature would be about the issues and people who claim aspartame is harmful and those who disagree with them. So if the Searle response letter is criticizing a claim made by Monte, they're both relevant to this article. The ultimate question is, are Monte's claims or the letter published response given much weight? That's the issue, because how much weight they're given and by whom determines how much weight to give their claims in this article. Original research isn't the issue. But weight is. The fringe guideline might give good guidance here also. Hope this helps. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes & references

This should be the last section. If you notice a new section below, please "fix it" by moving this section back to the bottom of the page. Thank you.

Unencyclopedic Ramazzini section

The Ramazzini subsection is unencyclopedic, with a nearly interminable back-and-forth between defenders and detractors of the Ramazzini group. The Ramazzini study also is not in the same category as the other two studies cited. We are talking here about a poorly-controlled primary research study of rats compared with meta-analysis (Negri) and a large-scale human epi study (NCI).

The Ramazzini group is one group that has reported results, mostly in one journal, differing from those of the wider scientific community. Multiple regulatory agencies have criticised its methodologies and the validity of its conclusions. There is no reason--apart from ideological prejudice, i.e. POV--to include it here. Although I initially just tried to pare it down to a more appropriate size, I finally opted for removing it entirely. If it is restored, then, please, only in drastically reduced form. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only did you vandalize the Ramazzini section, you ultimately removed the whole section without any debate nor consent from the contributing editors here. Of course the industry was extremely unhappy with the independent research done by a highly respected organization that has conducted research for more than 30 years. To counter strike, the industry paid millions again to "prove" aspartame is really safe and came with the severely flawed review by the Burdock Group consultants. They flood the scientific community with 1-day studies to determine long-term effects, which we all know is impossible. The Ramazzini is the only and largest research done that investigated the long-term effects of aspartame intake, and did that according to valid scientific protocols. What you say is your OPINION about Ramazzini and that's not an argument to remove it. And let me quote the Misplaced Pages meaning of Controversy here:

A controversy or dispute is a commencement of a conflict between statements of accepted fact and a new or unaccepted proposal that disagrees with, argues against, or debates the accepted knowledge or opinion. Controversies can range in scope from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale disagreements between societies.

And this is not a paper encyclopedia, there's no reason to shorten anything if it's valid. Immortale (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The Ramazzini study had a very high statistical power due to its large population of rats (much larger than previous studies), and the Ramazzini foundation is notable and experienced in carcinogenic studies according to the NYTimes :

While Dr. Soffritti's methods have drawn some criticism, the Ramazzini cancer lab, which is financed by private bank foundations, governments and 17,000 individual members, has earned considerable credibility since it was founded in 1971 for its pioneering research on chemicals. It was the first research body to do studies showing that vinyl chloride and the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or M.T.B.E., are carcinogenic, research that eventually encouraged the United States to strictly regulate vinyl chloride and that led 21 states to ban M.T.B.E.

You also questionably removed a secondary source from EHP which stated that Ramazzini had a better than standard methodology; no reason for that removal is stated here. Given the letter noted in Science supporting Soffriti's research as well , there's no basis for saying that Soffriti's work is largely dismissed by scientists. Sorry, restoring until you can provide better reasons. Removing the large Ramazzini study but then keeping a survey of consumption based on very short-term consumption (1995-1996) and a relationship to cancer is, again, highly questionable -- cancer occurs over long-term exposures. Additionally, you're introducing original research. We can't editorialize that the EFSA used the reasons highlighted by Magnuson, since no sources make that connection. You've also introduced original research by saying that "a small number of scientists" think there's a connection to mental functioning, which isn't in any sources, although I don't have as much of an issue with that. II | (t - c) 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the justification for featuring so prominently a primary research study by one group, particularly when that one group has been so roundly criticised by far more reliable sources. Perhaps those reliable oversight groups, from the US to the EU to New Zealand, are thoroughly wrong. Nevertheless, they are reliable and should carry more weight on WP than they are accorded here. Inclusion of Ramazzini, which surely represents a scientific fringe, smacks of activism, not encyclopaedia writing. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @II/Immortale: OK, all well and good, but rats aren't people. Large-scale human studies should probably be given more weight than a rat study, regardless of its statistical power. First of all, the Ramazzini section as written is nearly unreadable. More to the point, we read ten paragraphs about a rat study, and then a few offhand sentences describing huge studies involving hundreds of thousands of humans. That's a canonical violation of WP:WEIGHT ("Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.") I'm not saying the Ramazzini study should be excised - it seems to have a notable place on the topic - but its coverage needs to be brought into line with WP:WEIGHT. MastCell  22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I excised the Ramazzini section because of concerns about its encyclopaedic nature (or lack thereof); it had degenerated into an out-of-control back-and-forth. It could certainly stay in the article, but preferably with some of the changes I suggested, all of which were removed by Immortale/II. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unassessed Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages