Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Immortale (talk | contribs) at 22:12, 6 December 2008 (→Potential sources to use...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

"Uncited and POV Material"

DHeyward, I disagree with the large parts of the text removal, but agree with some of your ideas. 1) One of the controversies surrounds reported effects. It is crucial for readers to know the sources of reported effects as listed. But I would strongly agree that each of these five sources need references. This should be fairly easy to add. Is this what you were getting at in this section? 2) There is a debate in the scientific community about the quality of the aspartame research on both sides of the issue. This relates to the length of studies, use or non-use of real-world aspartame, possible improper testing procedures (on both sides of the issue), etc. Since this is about the controversy, I think it is appropriate to include it. 3) I agree with removing the sentence about an alert related to aspartame in a U.S. Air Force Magazine. While there have been blubs with warnings about aspartame in numerous flying-related magazines and it is part of the controversy, it raises an issue that is not discussed in detail in the article. Unless we discuss it in a little more detail, it probably should be removed in my opinion. 4) Changing from "Some scientists" to "Scientists" makes the article more POV. Unless we use the exact same terminology on both sides of the issue, it might degenerate into a much more biased article. I used "Some scientists" because it is not all scientists or even most scientists that believe one way or another. 5) I don't think there is anything wrong with making a very concise list of common methanol poisoning symptoms, but the sentence you removed just mentioned one symptom. A short list of the most common symptoms might be helpful. What do you think? 6) I think you inadvertently completely removed one side of the argument related to aspartame and methanol. 7) If we are going to mention that Tephly believes that the researchers were not measuring formaldehyde, it is NPOV to mention that the researchers stand by their view that they were measuring formaldehyde. I agree that we should not conclude that one set of researchers is right and the other wrong. I believe that the researchers on each side need to be fairly represented.

As for references for sources for reported symptoms, here are some ideas:

a) Reports and analysis of case histories in scientific journals and at medical conferences

Johns, Donald R.. "Migraine Provoked By Aspartame," (Letter to the Editor), New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 314, August 14, 1986, page 456, 1986.

Roberts, H.J., "Reactions Attributed to Aspartame-Containing Products: 551 Cases," Journal of Applied Nutrition, Volume 40, page 85-94, 1988.

Walton, Ralph G., "The Possible Role of Aspartame in Seizure Induction," Presented at "Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function." Proceedings of the First International Meeting on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function, Washington, D.C., May 8-10, 1987. Center for Brain Sciences and Metabolism Charitable Trust, P.O. Box 64, Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA 02142. Reprinted in "Dietary Phenyalalnine and Brain Function," c1988, Birkhauser, Boston, MA USA, page 159-162, 1988.

Blumenthal, H.J., D.A. Vance, "Chewing Gum Headaches," Headache, Volume 37, Number 10, pages 665-666, 1997.

McCauliffe, D.P., K. Poitras. "Aspartame-Induced Lobular Panniculitis," Journal of the American Academy of Dermitology, Volume 24, page 298-300, 1991.

Drake, M.E., "Panic Attacks and Excessive Aspartame Ingestion" (Letter to the Editor), Lancet, September 13, 1986, page 631, 1986.

b) Symptoms reported to the FDA and other governmental agencies

"Adverse Reactions Associated With Aspartame Consumption," Department of Health & Human Services Memorandum, April 1, 1993, Reprinted in preface of "Bittersweet Aspartame: A Diet Delusion" by Barbara Alexander Mullarkey, NutriVoice, P.O. Box 946, Oak Park, Illinois 60303, (708) 848-0116.

"Evaluation of Consumer Complaints Related to Aspartame Use," Division of Nutrition, Center for Health Promotion and Education, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA 30333, November 1984.

c) Symptoms reported to non-governmental organizations, researchers, and physicians

Testimony of Janet Smith, Executive Director, Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, November 3, 1987 regarding "NutraSweet Health and Safety Concerns." Document # Y 4.L 11/4:S.HR6.100, pages 479-480.

Walton, Ralph G. "Seizure and Mania After High Intake of Aspartame," Psychosomatics, Volume 27, page 218-220, 1986.

Novick, Nelson Lee, "Aspartame-Induced Granulomatous Panniculitis," Annals of Internal Medicine, Volume 102, Number 2, pages 206-207, 1995.

d) Reports of symptoms and health conditions in the media

"FDA Denies CNI Aspartame Petition; More Clearances Granted," Food 1986. Food Chemical News, July 28, 1986, page 44.

e) Self-reported cases on the Internet.

http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/Victims/victims.html (Obviously, there are a huge number of self-reported cases on the Internet -- whether one agrees or disagrees that they are caused by aspartame. But we can just not list a reference or suggest a reference to a google search if the above domain example is not a good idea.) Item "e" above is a significant place that people find self-reported case histories and this is part of the controversy. Twoggle (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this article include undue weight, bad sources, and original research by synthesis. Some of Twoggle's suggestions have merit, but the version of 21 October is a better base from which to advance. Tom Harrison 12:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss each area before removing only anti-aspartame sections. Obviously, each side needs to be given equal weight. There is certainly no reason to remove sections if there is a bad citation or the wording has to be adjusted. Let's start by discussing one thing, hopefully we can quickly reach an agreement and then move on to the next thing. For example, do we want to say "Some scientists" or "scientists" throughout the article on both the pro- and anti-aspartame side of the argument? I think "some scientists" is more accurate and since we don't have an exact percentage, it is a good choice of words. But I don't care so much as long as we're consistent and don't choose words to disparage one side or the other. What do you think? Twoggle (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Bashing

This article is very poorly written. There is no discussion of the actual chemical formula of aspartame and how it compares in chemical formula to other very potent hypnotics such as phenobarbital or cocaine. As for a "controversy", that is the biggest one of all! Aspartame is a drug, it was never intended as a food additive.

There is a great deal made out of the "food additive approval process", when in fact the real controversy is about taking drugs such as aspartame and getting them approved as food additives. According to its discover, aspartame was a failed ulcer drug which happened to be hyper-sweet in taste, so the less rigorous "food additive" approval process was used to try and find a market for it. This process did NOT require extensive neurological human studies, and the controversy is how a substance that is almost identical in chemical formula (carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, nitrogen atoms, and oxygen atoms) to heroin, cocaine, quaaludes, or downers(phenobarbital) could first be petitioned as a "food additive", and then not tested for "neurological effects".

The drug industry and the pharma industry certainly laugh at the shallow nature of this article, as they know that no one editing it has any real clue what is going on. The differences between cocaine, heroin, and downers is only in the number of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen atoms, and yet they are all "hypnotics". Yet a similar set of differences that creates "aspartame" is looked at as "gee, no problem". That is because aspartame is used in very small quantities as an additive because it is so sweet...but if you keep on putting it in everything, the dose goes up and up.

There is no mention made of the history of cocaine as a food additive, and how it had to be pulled once neurotoxic effects became apparent. Cocaine was once "a controversial food additive". Why doesn't cocaine have its own Misplaced Pages page called "The Cocaine Controversy"? Because it wasn't developed in a lab, or millions spent trying to find a market for it. Why is every failed drug that looks like cocaine, heroin, phenobarbital, or quaaludes being applied for as an "artificial sweetener" food additive? Is that not controversial enough?

Look, FDA and all the "experts" know what the hell is happening. Someone took a drug which is similar to all known hypnotics and sedatives, got it approved as a food additive instead, and all hell broke loose. Now this product is out in the general population, where those who ingest it end up with all kinds of hypnotic effects (confused about thirst vs. hunger, sedation, grand ideas) and FDA and the makers claim "no harm". Well, if there is no harm then why if you stop taking it does your thirst return to normal, your energy bounce back, your hunger drop, and your thoughts become clearer. There are tens of thousands of anecdotal reports like this.

Look, this is "cocaine" in food all over again. 100 years later, and we never learn from history. Well, some of us can learn, but then we aren't being paid to "not learn", so we aren't afraid to illuminate the controversy some more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.35.157 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see your Talk page for important messages. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI to 67.68.35.157 -- A couple of years ago, this aspartame controversy article was moved from the aspartame article. The aspartame article has chemical formula information. Yes, the history of aspartame has extensive controversy that could be discussed. At one time, the FDA wrote a letter to the U.S DOJ requesting a possible fraud prosecution based on the pre-approval studies of the manufacturer. But on the other side of the coin, the current FDA officials do not feel that way. I think it's a good idea to be as informative and NPOV as possible -- present both sides of the aspartame controversy even though there could a desire of both pro- and anti-aspartame people to eliminate one side of the argument. But I think adding some of the controversy surrounding the history is an interesting idea as long as we could keep it NPOV. Twoggle (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think all of the so-called controversy is historical. There is enough usage and studies to conclude overwhelmingly that it is a safe and an effective replacement sweetener. This is the overwhelming scientific opinion. Any controversy should be in the historical context, not as a fringe outlet for extreme min ority viewpoints that are not shared by the scientific community. --DHeyward (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of recent research and controversy on both sides of the issue. For example, last year a number of prominent scientists, (2 NIEHS, 1 Harvard, etc.) called on the FDA to re-review aspartame and possibly ban it's use (See: SCIENCE VOL 317 6 JULY 2007 page 31.) On the other side of the issue, the FDA continues to insist that aspartame is safe. Then there was a review published last year by a team of scientists in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition that concluded, "From all of the adverse effects caused by this product, it is suggested that serious further testing and research be undertaken to eliminate any and all controversies surrounding this product." (EJCN; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866). On the other side of the issue, Ajinomoto funded by review and published in Critical Reviews in Toxiology that said that aspartame is safe. In addition, there have been recent hearings in the New Mexico and Hawaii legislature about banning aspartame in those states. (See for example: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2008/Testimony/HB2680_HLT_POST_02-08-08_.pdf ). The Ramazzini Institute studies are within the last few years and have raised numerous scientific issues related to the controversy. I don't think that scientists on either side of the issue are part of some "fringe" and I don't recall ever seeing that kind of reference in the scientific literature. Twoggle (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

removal of section ?

In the article the part Conflict of interest is still shown. However, the results date from 1996 and the main body of the aspartame literature dates from after that date. The section thus is heavily outdated. There are also no scientific articles of Dr. Walton after 1998 at all and he is no longer emplyed by the university. I propose removal of this section here to the talk page, so not to loose it, but it is so outdated that it does no longer fit in the main article to my opinion.Knorrepoes (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In cases where there is recent information, it should either replace older material or be added after it (to form a history of events). When there is no newer information, the older material should be kept. Misplaced Pages is here to provide the reader with the most up-to-date information available. This isn't a newspaper - we don't only provide information about current events. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear that this information is historical and whether it applies to more recent research though. Verbal chat 17:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"recommended further investigation"

The current second sentence of the lead reads "Many studies have recommended further investigation into the possible connection between aspartame ...". Recommending further investigation is a catch all cop out which is now banned in many medical journals as it adds nothing to any debate and is uninformative, plus other reasons (see the book "Bad Science by Ben Goldacre). I feel this phrase should be removed from the lead for similar reasons and for being weasely. Verbal chat 17:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Took a pass

I took a pass at this article. Here is my final result. I do not pretend it is the best, but I removed a LOT of problematic wording, weasling, equivocation, poorly sourced/vetted material, and some material that blatantly lied. It's still rough, but it's an improvement.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's an improvement, thanks. I restored a paragraph that I felt you removed too hastily. Please take care when removing text that cites reputable research journals and PubMed sources. If you find that the text misrepresents the sources, the text should be fixed, not wholesale deleted along with the sources. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the sources are being misused in such a way that they may not belong in the article at all. I don't think that this is what happened in this case, but too often people think that just because a source is good it necessarily belongs in Misplaced Pages. Just 2 (perhaps unrelated) cents. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think something happened weird here. This wasn't a partial revert at all! Anyway, I tried to make my edits piecemeal enough so that you could undo individual ones. Please do that.

In particular, most of the material you restored was not citing reputable journals nor PubMed sources. Most of it was citing innuendo and private websites.

ScienceApologist (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

AAargh! Something went wrong. I had intended to restore one paragraph you deleted, and it looks like I reverted a whole lot more. I must have been working from the wrong version. Thanks for re-reverting me. I'm going to try again.

No Problemo! This is the most friendly revert war I've ever been involved in. Please feel free to revert the appropriate paragraph. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

While you're at it, you should probably take a look at the corresponding paragraph in the aspartame article. I don't think it really captures the content of this article in a balanced way. Oh, and three cheers for you for getting onto this. There's far too much hysteria and far too little attention to the literature in the general public perception of aspartame, with obvious consequences to the accuracy and neutrality of the corresponding WP articles. -Kieran (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the edits (perhaps well-intentioned) produced a one-sided article as it removed most of the arguments on the other side. I request that we discuss each edit to make sure that both sides are represented fairly before massive removal of text. In this way, we can prevent edit wars and Misplaced Pages keeps its reputation of consensus building rather than mass edits to promote one viewpoint of a significant controversy. Twoggle (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is the other "side" simply doesn't "exist" as you would have it. The "controversy" is one that has taken place due to advocacy of a a few health nuts and a particularly strident organization, but they have been unsuccessful in making their case in the peer-reviewed literature while those opposing them have been successful. Therefore, we must, to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia, according to WP:UNDUE and WP:PARITY excise the poor resources of the anti-aspartame crowd when they fall into the category of unreliably sourced. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source

The Martini quote was sourced from an unreliable partisan source, just like everything else she writes. Find a V & RS. -- Fyslee / talk 06:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The unreliable H.J. Roberts is also quoted in a non-Pubmed listed source. This article needs its sources checked using WP:MEDRS guidelines. -- Fyslee / talk 01:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

MedCab

Hi all. As you can see, there is currently a MedCab case open regarding this article. I invite anyone who wishes to participate to come by and read the ground rules so we can get the dispute settled as quickly as possible.   07:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab has been closed; named party does not wish to participate. I advise an RFC on the article if issues continue here.   17:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's located here. -- Fyslee / talk 01:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Magnuson review

An excellent review that should be used:

Formatted for copying:

• <ref name=Magnuson>Magnuson BA, ''et al''. "" ''Crit Rev Toxicol.'' 2007;37(8):629-727.</ref>

Active ref: -- Fyslee / talk 02:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

References

1. Magnuson BA, et al. "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies." Crit Rev Toxicol. 2007;37(8):629-727.

Worldwide view?

This article is stuffed to the gills with accusations of conspiracy and CoI of U.S. government officials as a justification for its existence, but it totally ignores the approval of aspartame (and reaffirmations in 2002 and 2006) by the European Union's Scientific Committee for Food, Food Standards Australia/New Zealand, Health Canada, the UN's FAO and the World Health Organization. Are all of these scientific bodies also part of the conspiracy? Horologium (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are! That's how these things work! :) All of these approvals should definitely be linked in the article. — Scientizzle 20:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Critical examination of conspiracy theories?

"The conspiracy theories, claims of aspartame dangers, and the source of those claims has been the subject of critical examination."

By whom? One article on Media-Awareness.ca? Industry websites such as Aspartame.org? The conspiracy facts have not been "critically" debunked anywhere on or offline.

A few hours ago I removed the above section and reference on "Alleged conspiracy and dangers" (which previously said all aspartame conspiracies can be traced back to "one woman"), however it has been reverted. FactFinder55 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The section is relevant, informative, and sourced. It should remain. Tom Harrison 23:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Are there any outstanding issues that have not been addressed? If not I'll remove the tag. Thanks, Verbal chat 07:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Now a very POV article IMO, but as you know, I have requested dispute resolution in regards to conduct and how that led to certain changes to content. I would be very happy to discuss each NPOV point, but I suggest we wait for outcome of the dispute. Let me know if you want me to bring up an NPOV point. Twoggle (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Either mention specifics or the tag will be removed. Verbal chat 07:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a very large number of scientific and factual inaccuracies now and other issues that cause serious NPOV problems. I don't know if you want to discuss one at a time or several at once. So, I just list one to start: There is a reference to a article published in one of the world's top scientific journals that showed that there is an equally split opinion of members of the Society of Neuroscience on the potential long-term detrimental effects of food-borne excitotoxins (a category that aspartame falls into). . Therefore, all removal of one side of the issue related to aspartic acid creates POV since there is strong evidence of a equal split of the scientific community. For example, there is now a listing of references that found no effect of excitotoxins in primates, but the reference to research finding an effect (which was accepted in a FASEB review as their finding, by the way) was removed. Another example is: "The measurements of the blood plasma levels of aspartic acid after ingestion of aspartame and monosodium glutamate do not indicate to human subject researchers a cause for concern." This is POV because it's stated as fact when there other studies (cited in the same Misplaced Pages article!) showing a large spike in plasma levels of aspartic acid and reviews cited showing a large concern about such spikes (~50% of the Society of Neuroscience). Another example in that same section is the wording of sentences so that it appears one side is factually accurate (when there are really major disagreements in the scientific community) and that just "one group" is the outlier.

Please let know if you want to discuss this issue in more detail or think I should start bringing up other NPOV-related issues. Twoggle (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For some reason my institution’s Science subscription is on hold, so I can't read the article you've linked to. Therefore, I'll assume that you're accurately portraying its contents. First, that Science news piece is from 1990. Since then, there have been approximately 620 publications on aspartame that can be found in PubMed. Recent reviews that indicate generally sufficient safety include PMID 17828671, PMID 15367404, PMID 8052458, PMID 8140158 (here are reviews by The NutraSweet Company: PMID 12180494 & PMID 7838988; also interesting: treating osteoarthritis via aspartame PMID 9630831). The WHO/FAO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives & European Food Safety Authority recently indicated that aspartame has been thoroughly tested and is relatively risk-free PMID 17397982. I think you're overstating the case. If "~50% of the Society of Neuroscience" (of which I am a member) in 1990 expressed concern over spikes of plasma levels of aspartic acid, there seems to be a surprising paucity of follow-up publications that highlight this as a problem with aspartame. — Scientizzle 22:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

My statements on this one issue and the above-mentioned POV issues in the article is specifically focused on the aspartic acid (Excitotoxicity) issues related to aspartame. Members of the Society of Neuroscience are *the* experts on the effects of excitotoxins, discovered their effects and have been researching them for decades. While I am not a member of the Society of Neuroscience, I have collaborated with members on the issue of excitotoxins. The policy on weighting for Misplaced Pages articles states: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." Since that piece from 1990, there is no evidence that either viewpoint is in the majority from experts in the field. Members of the Society of Neuroscience tend to focus on testing specific excitotoxins (e.g., aspartate, glutamate) and there are many, many studies on those excitotoxins since 1990, some showing concerns and some not. Not that it relates to my concern about excitotoxins, but out of the six reviews you listed, 3 were funded by the manufacturer (NutraSweet/Ajinomoto) (yes, they have an opinion about their product), one was a 1994 review about aspartame and body weight, one was a review about aspartame and cancer which is long out-of-date since numerous studies on both side of the issue have been published since then, and one is about aspartame and hyperactivity which is not discussed in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twoggle (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Twoggle's reply is unconvincing; thanks Scientizzle. This is a historical artefact and placed in context does not effect the current weighting. Any further problems not yet dealt with? Verbal chat 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I realize that it is unconvincing to you, but I reiterate the policy: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." Since 1990 are their any surveys of experts related to aspartame and excitotoxins that show that one side is in the majority? Please remember, it's supposed to be easy to show that one side is in the majority if that truely is the case. Twoggle (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

First, to avoid WP:SYNTH violation, a source must directly link aspartic acid from aspartame to the etiology of a condition. The references I provided, and others like those listed below, assert that aspartame is generally considered safe. You claim that "ince that piece from 1990, there is no evidence that either viewpoint", regarding aspartame-mediated aspartic acid excitotoxicity, "is in the majority from experts in the field". Aspartame+excitotoxicity gathers only one hit from PubMed, Olney's '94 paper (PMID 7854587). As in all science, one must assume the null hypothesis without evidence to the contrary--therefore to allude that a lack of studies of studies on a specific topic is indicative of a mixed consensus is incorrect. However, I can cite, for example:

• the most recent review (PMID 17828671) clearly states "The data from the extensive investigations into the possibility of neurotoxic effects of aspartame, in general, do not support the hypothesis that aspartame in the human diet will affect nervous system function, learning or behavior."
• International Programme on Chemical Safety and confirmative re-evaluation
• Health Canada, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, the CDC, FDA, etc.

These suggest that the current "mainstream" opinion of relevant scientific & health organizations is that aspartame is generally considered safe. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate otherwise. There are certainly publications that make claims against the safety of aspartame...these should be addressed with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE in mind. — Scientizzle 00:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is specifically about the aspartame controversy. Presenting viewpoints from both sides of a controversy is appropriate depending upon weighting (which is what we're discussing now). I agree that the article should not draw a factual conclusion about the effects (or no effects) of aspartic acid from aspartame without specific research linking aspartic acid from aspartame a condition. The Aspartic Acid section prior to 10/26/08 listed both scientific sides of view, or in more appropriate terminology: both sides of the controversy since that is the subject matter of the article.

I do not generally use PubMed as a sole source of finding research because it is easy to miss countless studies. There are many studies on aspartame and excitotoxicity but you just have to choose your terms more appropriately and don't rely on PubMed summaries. As a member of the Society of Neuroscience, I'm sure you focus on the articles themselves when you have time.

"the most recent review (PMID 17828671)" -- is not the most recent review, but it was funded by the manufacturer and, as I said, they are entitled to their opinion (and have it represented appropriately in Misplaced Pages articles). A more recent review of aspartame effects on the brain and independent from the manufacturer is: (PMID 17684524). But neither of these reviews were done by researchers who directly study excitotoxins. So, my point is that the most recent evidence for weighting as it related to the aspartame controversy and excitotoxins is that their is a split amongst neuroscientists. In addition, there are two recent reviews, one funded by the manufacturer (that you cited) claiming no problems with the excitotoxic part of aspartame and a more recent one claiming problems with the excitotoxic part of aspartame.

I don't know why you posted two links to the 1970's pre-approval research of aspartame as any evidence related to weighting for the aspartame controversy and excitotoxicity issue. As you probably know, the FDA requested Fraud prosecution against the manufacturer for their pre-approval research. You linked to a summary of the CDC review that has no listed author (but the summary was written by the FDA not the CDC). It is true that government agencies have put out opinions on aspartame and that should be represented in the article (and is represented), but that has nothing to do with weighting as it relates to the aspartame controversy and excitotoxins. Twoggle (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're going to raise some new issues, can you please stop tagging the article as POV. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you think I added the tag before? Now that I've added the tag, I can present the evidence of each POV issue (starting with the Aspartic Acid section) and my suggestions for remedy per WP:NPOVD.

NPOV Dispute

Continued from above. My first NPOV point was focused very specifically on the Aspartic Acid section and the issues that were discussed in the article as it relates to excitotoxins. Also, so people reading my comments know: out of the four breakdown chemicals discussed in this article, I find two of the arguments more convincing by the industry and two by independent scientists. But I believe both sides of the controversy should be presented fairly and accurately.

Before I get back to weighting specifically on the Aspartame and excitotoxins issues, I want to point out what I feel happens when WP:NPOV is not sought prior to major changes in a controversial article. As the article currently stands, in the Aspartic Acid section, one of the references looks at aspartame's effects on the brain. This study was conducted by a team of scientists supported by the manufacturer. This is cited in Misplaced Pages as evidence of something despite the fact that the evidence these researchers displayed was a recropped picture from a completely different study with different types of primates. In addition, the same picture for both studies was from the wrong part of the brain. Finally, the researchers admitted that the primates with the pictured slice of brain had been given phencyclidine which protects against excitotoxic damage. Many people who are members of the Society of Neuroscience are aware of this and I would think it would be inappropriate (and perhaps embarrassing) for independent research showing the opposite effect to be removed from Misplaced Pages. It was that type of research that upset a number of members that I've spoken to and led to a FASEB panel to conclude: "The Expert Panel found no reason to question the validity of the lesions produced by Olney et al. (1972) but did have concerns about the interpretations of negative studies particularly with regard to the question of inadequate fixation." (FASEB Report: Analysis of Adverse Reactions ot Monosodium Glutamate (MSG); July 1995; FDA Contract # 223-92-2195, page 57 : Note: this section of the report was looking at the effect of excitotoxins on the brain of primates). If a secondary source was used that relies on the same type of research, that would not clear up WP:NPOV issues, IMO. But it's not only the use of this reference, but that the statement is presented as fact when clearly there is a split amongst the experts at the Society of Neuroscience and a FASEB Expert Panel (even with industry consultants!) accepted the research that was removed from this Misplaced Pages article.

As alluded to before, there is an enormous controversy on both sides, a fact that is admitted to in many reviews (government and scientific) as well as newspaper articles, etc. While I believe that it is incumbent upon Editors to present both sides of the controversy fairly since there are countless studies on both sides of the issue (including two very recent reviews drawing opposite conclusions) and obvious controversy in the general public with government hearings on banning aspartame (which I mentioned before) and even European Food Safety Agency being goaded/dragged into another review. Specifically, for the excitotoxin (Aspartic Acid) section of this controversy, there is no requirement of "absolute proof" of a split amongst the experts to give equal weighting (See WP:Weight), but in this case the we have evidence that there is a split amongst scientists at the Society of Neuroscience.

(Later Edit: Areas of NPOV violation: Bias; Undue Weight; Balance; and Impartial Tone.)

If my attempt at dispute resolution related to WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, WP:Disruptive Editing, etc. fails, I propose that we change the Aspartic Acid section back to a pre-October 26, 2008 version and discuss any concerns. That way, people outside of Wikipeida cannot point to a reliance of what they may call "scientific fraud" to push one POV and, of course, so that we can achieve WP:NPOV. Twoggle (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is against you. The article is being improved by the consensus of editors here. Returning to a biased version that favours your POV, while removing the good contributions and the consensus formed in the meantime, is not a solution and would probably be changed back. Your forum shopping and attacks against editors aren't improving the article. Give short descriptions of actual problem parts of the article so that we can move on. However, I don't think you'll be satisfied as the controversy is now a historical footnote. Verbal chat 21:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yours was the only comment on the very specific issues I just raised after I put up the POV tag just a few hours ago. If the consensus amongst Misplaced Pages Editors is to go against the split of opinions amongst experts at the Society of Neuroscience, the opinions of the FASEB Expert Panel (as I just pointed out) and instead make statements of fact based solely on industry-supported research that involved 'evidence' obtained from recropping of pictures from unrelated studies, inappropriate use of brain protective substances, and looking at the wrong portion of the brain, then I'd like to see those Editors publicly state their support for this type of consensus in the Talk section. Otherwise, there is no consensus, just two differing opinions. On the other hand, I am not proposing to remove this point of view, just to balance it with other research accepted by Members of the Society of Neuroscience and FASEB. Twoggle (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As a followup comment: Now that I added the tag a little while ago and have begun a discussion on the WP:NPOV dispute, I am very much looking forward to seeing how other Misplaced Pages Editors respond to the very specific points I am raising. Getting a bunch of Editors responding to these very specific points as agreeing or disagreeing or even wanting more information will be very useful and informative as far as I'm concerned.

The next area of WP:NPOV I'd like to discuss is the Methanol and formaldehyde section. I'll wait for comments on the Aspartic Acid section, but I will say that by removing the other side of the argument from the Methanol and formaldehyde section, readers (including perhaps children) are left with a text that implies that a provably-lethal dose of methanol (or aspartame) might be safe. It would be sad (or deadly) for science students to experiment with methanol or aspartame based on what is written on this Misplaced Pages page. Twoggle (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One more note of clarification from your earlier comment. The tag does not tag the article as POV, it merely states that there is an ongoing NPOV-related dispute. I think that's probably what you meant, though. Just to clarify.... Twoggle (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, one user disagreeing with consensus does not a dispute make. Your points are largely historical, and allegations of continued conspiracy are not supported by the evidence. Re the lethal dose comment, can you quote the text that you think is wrong and provide a V and RS that states it is wrong/what the lethal dose is? It might be better to put separate issues in new sections, and try to be more concise - then you'll get more input. Thanks. Verbal chat 09:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Any Editor can raise an NPOV dispute. I have very rarely raised such a dispute and do not do it lightly. According to WP:NPOVD, the disputed areas are then discussed on the Talk page until a consensus about the disputed points are reached. I will create a separate section from the point I posted the tag with the section title suggested by WP:NPOVD.

I provided my suggestion for fixing that section as well as the specific reason it violated the WP:NPOV policy. But I forgot to add the specific areas of that policy that I feel area being violated: Bias; Undue Weight; Balance; and Impartial Tone.

I was as concise as I could be -- maybe even too concise. It is difficult to detail all of the evidence related Bias, Undue Weight, Balance issues, and Impartial Tone issues on a complex scientific topic in just a few paragraphs. Yes, I prefer to get more input, including agreeing or disagreeing with my suggestions as that will provide very useful information to me and perhaps other readers. However, no response from Editors is a form of feekback as well. Twoggle (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Couple of additional points: 1) Text and references repeatedly removed from Aspartic Acid section with claim of "removing poorly vetted sources (again)" included information about research findings from the neuroscientist who founded the field of Excitotoxicology, Dr. John Olney. 2) While it is relevant in relation to Bias, Undue Weight, Balance, and Impartial Tone (i.e., WP:NPOV) that there is split amongst Members of the Society of Neuroscience and that the FASEB Expert Panel accepted Olney's research (without removal!) and that the founder of the field has been publishing papers on the subject for nearly 40 years, I believe that none of that is necessary to allow an equal/balanced presentation on a page about a controversy according to Misplaced Pages rules: "Neutrality here at Misplaced Pages is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." WP:NPOVD "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." WP:UNDUE Twoggle (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Original research

There is (or was) a controversy about Aspartame if the reliable sources say so. There is not a controversy just because some unreliable sources say so. That there are any number of studies on plasma levels of aspartic acid seems kind of beside the point. Though the article is now much better, there is still too much synthesizing of primary sources in support of the fringe thesis. Tom Harrison 02:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The controversy is historical and was not of the nature the fringe sources claim. Verbal chat 10:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We need some reliable sources for exactly what any 'aspartame controversy' is about, where the debate is focused, who the parties are, etc. I've added a citation request to the section Reported effects. Tom Harrison 13:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have just cited the Washington Post which is a reliable source confirming the existence of a substantial controversy. If you think there is some OR then you need to be more specific. I shall remove the tag until some specifics are forthcoming. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved the tag to the particular section where I added the citation request. Tom Harrison 14:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Air Force warning

I removed this because it was sort of hanging out there with no context, and there appears to be some source confusion:

The US Air Force issued an alert in 1992, warning air force pilots about drinking diet drinks containing aspartame before flying.

If anyone can fix this an find a good home for it, great. — Scientizzle 02:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that this sentencte should stay. It is verifiable from a paper based RS. MaxPont (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It should only stay when it is also mentioned when the USAF revoked this alert. Also in 1992 ? Any source ?Knorrepoes (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you can find a ref for that. The more pressing issue is how to integrate it in the article. MaxPont (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Food Chemical News and other paper references are reliable

There seems to be some confusion regarding sourcing. Verifiability does not mean a source is online. Accessibility has never been the priority with verifiability. Food Chemical News, published by Informa, is plenty reliable. It is a trade publication that keeps people in the industry informed. No reason whatsoever for it to skew facts. There's no reason to expect the FDA to record every statement it has made, or put online every report that they have produced. I wish it were so, but government agencies frequently keep the documents and reports they don't want known about off their websites. Fyslee is taking the better approach: tag with {{Verify source}} if you want someone to start digging. However, the onus is on the individual wanting the source verified to take the first steps. If you're having serious trouble, go to WP:LIBRARY and ask for help. Check your local libraries archives. I've done it; I've gone to my nearby academic libraries and read journals from the 1930s. It is part of the research process. II | (t - c) 20:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm copying this down. I made the anonymous edit a little while ago. How is Food Chemical News not reliable? It is published by an academic publisher, Informa, for the industry. II | (t - c) 19:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

To repeatedly claim that Food Chemical News is an unreliable source about this topic is bordering on bad faith.MaxPont (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have verified that the article in question is not about "Aspartame Controversy" referenced in this article. Rather, quotes were cherry-picked in order to make it seem that way. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is entitled "Aspartame Adverse Reaction Reports Down in 1994 From 1985 Peak". It is about exactly what it sounds like. The subsection in this article is entitled "Reported effects". Keeping this information out because the source doesn't state "aspartame controversy" is tantamount to wikilawyering. I've started a thread on the RS/N. II | (t - c) 08:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That is a source for aspartame, maybe. Since it isn't about the aspartame controversy it's the same problem that water fluoridation controversy had when people tried to insert statements about fluoride health risks that were unrelated to the water fluoridation controversy. Essentially it's original synthesis. If you think differently, report it to WP:NORN. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, does that imply that sources claiming that Aspartame is safe and harmless should also be removed because it is considered prohibited synthesis to add them? MaxPont (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(copied from RSN) The statements are being used to support the "ongoing" controversy stance, and to support the thesis that aspartame is controversial according to the FDA. This is not what the article says, as far as has been ascertained, and is synthesis. It is, maybe, a reliable source, but it isn't being used honestly. This may be accidental, but it is a violation of the project's policies. Verbal chat 13:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason that there is a controversy around aspartame are the alleged health effects. Wilcox states that "there is still a concern" and "some people have an intolerance to aspartame". That's exactly why there's a controversy, and Wilcox is clearly referencing the controversy. The synthesis argument doesn't make sense. Another thread started at WP:NOR/N. 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC) :ImperfectlyInformed forgot to sign 18:23, 15 November 2008)

The sources rightly dispute whether legitimate "controversy" over aspartame exists, or ever existed. To that end, adding a source that is pretending to support the claim of the existence of evidence for the only groups that claim a controversy exists essentially is offering a unduly weighted original research synthesis. The promotionalism of ImperfectlyInformed and MaxPont is plain. Just because they believe that there is a controversy doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages must adopt their claim -- and certainly their efforts to source their beliefs to various articles which are not about the "controversy" is essentially POV-promotionalism in defiance of WP:MAINSTREAM. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is bluffing. There is no Misplaced Pages policy called WP:MAINSTREAM.MaxPont (talk) 12:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To insist it's reliable, and to suggest the concern is that it's a print journal, misses the point. There is not, today, a significant controversy in the scientific community. The problem is less the source than the original research for which it's being (mis)used. Cherry-picking quotes and using them out of context to support a fringe position is not legitimate. Tom Harrison 13:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Two new sections: political moves to ban Aspartame + UK supermarket withdrawal

The Aspartame controversy is not just a scientific controversy. The political and market process also needs to be covered. Below are drafts for two new sections that I believe should be integrated in the article:

Political moves to ban Aspartame

In Hawaii, state politicians wanted to ban Aspartame in 2008, even though there is a federal approval of the product, following a similar attempt by state legislators in New Mexico from 2007. In the Philippines, the small political party Alliance for Rural Concerns introduced House Bill 4747 in 2008 with the aim of having Aspartame banned from the food supply. In 2007, the Indonesian government considered banning Aspartame

Controversy in the UK and voluntary withdrawal by food retailers

Due to public concerns over artificial sweeteners, in 1997 the UK government introduced new regulations on sweeteners. These regulations say that manufacturers must state clearly next to the name of the product the phrase "with sweeteners". In the UK, the supermarket chain Sainsbury's removed Aspartame from the store-shelves in 2007, as well as the competitor ASDA and M&S. MaxPont (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: food retailers that "removed Aspartame from the store-shelves in 2007". Not true. Not even supported by the sources. And the Daily Mail is most certainly not a reliable source. For example, Sainsbury swapped Aspartame for sucralose in its own-brand low-calorie drinks.. ASDA and M&S "promised" to remove it from own-brand goods in May 2007.. Both ASDA and Sainsbury sell other brands. Colin° 00:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Aspartame, not Sucrlalose. Thanks for the additional refs. They can be be integrated in the text. Large daily newspapers as The Independent and Daliy Mail are blatant WP:RS for reports about general news items.MaxPont (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a tabloid and has an extremely poor record for reliability, particularly on health issues. Please stick to the quality press or business press for information about companies. My main point is your proposed text is wrong. Neither your or my sources support the statement that these stores have removed aspartame from the store shelves (i.e., all products they sell, own-brand or otherwise). In addition, those sources are in the context of supermarkets generally removing "additives" and so any text should in fairness make this clear (i.e., they aren't just responding to the aspartame issue). Colin° 10:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading the WP article about Daily Mail gives a picture of a large circulation newspaper aimed at the "middle market". Considering the strict libel laws in the UK, newspapers spend considerable energy on fact checking. And by the way, this is not a medical claim, but a news item about a decision by retailers. MaxPont (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The the[REDACTED] article on the Daily Mail needs updating! :) Although I agree with you about the libel laws, some newspapers (or tabloids in this instance) aren't that careful about fact checking - as frequent mistakes and lawsuits will show. Also, they have ways of writing to mitigate litigation. Even if this article was 100% untrue I don't see any reason for Asda (Walmart) et al to sue, and what damage does it cause them? Verbal chat 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fact checking and libel law are unrelated. The latter is only concerned with a tiny minority of statements and is very expensive. Although the statement isn't a medical claim, it is a health-related story and the Daily Mail is notorious for spouting nonsense in this area. As Verbal said, unless the Mail is saying something that significantly harms ASDA's image (for example), they can say just about anything. Colin° 14:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added an additional WP:RS and corrected the text to adjust for the objections above before adding the text to the article. There is also a discussion about the Daily Mail as a reliable source in another context ] and it seems to be at least semi-reliable for general news reporting.MaxPont (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Misleading article

The reference in the beginning of the article where it states: The conspiracy theories, claims of aspartame dangers, is a highly misleading term that tends to set the tone for the rest. The dangers of aspartame are far from conspiracy theories, just like the dangers of smoking are. That the tobacco industry manipulated research for many years, is a fact that was later revealed. Much is the same for the aspartame industry. To keep the article neutral, I don't think anyone should quote the industry, but rather independent research, which are worldwide showing clear dangers in normal and excessive use of aspartame. Betty Martini has always denied she had anything to do with Nancy Markle (see: http://www.dorway.com/nomarkle.html), and by keeping this piece of disinformation as a way to discredit the anti-aspartame movement, is far from neutral. Therefore I'll be removing that bit. (Immortale (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

I've undone your edit as it moves the bias too far the other way. Verbal chat 13:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The title is Aspartame CONTROVERSY. The controversy is inadequately addressed. Especially the beginning of the article is an attempt to downsize the critique by summing up why Aspartame is such a safe product. If that isn't propaganda, then what is? The Nancy Markle example is RIDICULOUS and is not a valid source. You need facts and arguments here, so I'm putting my edit back. (15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortale (talk • contribs)

Please don't edit war, or promise to edit war - it is against the rules. Try to justify your edits here and get consensus for them. Verbal chat 16:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to change non-neutral language into neutral language, it's okay to do so. More substantial changes - such as removing sourced material or replacing it with material that cites other sources - should only be done if those sources are reliable ones, and if you are reverted the solution is to discuss the matter here (for more on this, see "the bold-revert-discuss cycle") and not to edit war. That will get you blocked from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Media Awareness Network is not a reliable source. It's a website and websites can claim whatever they want. The Nancy Markle emails have very little to do with the anti-aspartame movement and Betty Martini has officially stated she has taken no part in it. Therefore the line: This analysis says Ms. Martini constructed an apparently false story about "Nancy Markle" is a plain lie and should be removed. If not, then the whole article takes a very strong side towards the industry, something that isn't Misplaced Pages policy. Unreliable sources should be removed. The other source, about.com and snopes.com are just other websites. The claims they made are fully rebutted. Before I'm going to put my edit back, I'm curious how these sources are justified within Misplaced Pages's policy. (Immortale (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm guessing you don't see the irony in maligning the content of websites that can "claim whatever they want" whilst basing your argument on claims from a website in which someone has a demonstrable history of claiming whatever she wants...? — Scientizzle 18:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I guess, Betty Martini has stated she has no part of the Nancy Markle emails and that's good enough to acknowledge that. By keeping accusing her as the instigator, is not Misplaced Pages's policy and if you want to take this a step further, by all means.(Immortale (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

I re-wrote the part on Media Awareness Network a bit but my edits were reverted without debate. It said they had done an investigation. On their site I read nothing about an investigation, it's an exercise in deconstructing a webpage, the one from Rense.com (which is a smart choice because rense.com is full of nonsense) written by spoof Nancy Markle. How this one exercise is being used to discredit the whole anti-aspartame movement is beyond me. The sentence: This analysis says Ms. Martini constructed an apparently false story about "Nancy Markle", should also be removed because Media Awareness Network does not reach that conclusion, nor has this been proven by facts. On the contrary, Betty Martini denies being involved (how often do I have to repeat that here?) What Media Awareness Network do conclude is this: "It would also be accurate to use this Web site as an example of one side of the Aspartame debate." (Immortale (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Bring it up on WP:RS/N to get some uninvolved, less biased opinions. It's pretty clear that some website which claims to have found "the source of the controversy" is not a reliable source. The multiple sclerosis thing is a sidenote, and should not be be the first section. Aspartame was looked at cautiously by the regulators and scientists, which is why they did a survey till 1995 tallying the adverse effects. Note, for example, the statement cited to Science: "Neuroscientists at a 1990 meeting of the Society for Neuroscience had a split of opinion on the issues related to neurotoxic effects from excitotoxic amino acids found in some additives such as aspartame." It's pretty clear that this article has taken a gross turn away from NPOV. Also note that in reported effects, a 1987 article is cited to criticize the methodology of the critical research articles from 1993, 1988, and 2001. II | (t - c) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Alleged conspiracy theories"

This section is generalizing "conspiracy theories" based only on a single example. It indicates that all skeptical theories are "Conspiracy Theories". This terminology is loaded. At the same time, this section uses a single example of an non-credible source to indicate the general trend that all skeptical theories are non-credible! This argumentation is insufficient! Hence, I vote that this section is deleted as it is biased and shows an insufficient amount of examples to make a general statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenep (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have my vote. I addressed the same thing yesterday and edited the paragraph, which was removed again. Actually the whole article, that is supposed to explain the controversy, is an attempt to RIDICULE the criticism against aspartame. To me it shows that the industry people are in control here, and using this as yet another piece of their propaganda. Just look at the part below, called: Potential Sources to use.... It contains only links with questionable info on how safe and good aspartame actually is, and how dumb all those people are who believe otherwise. Very subtle, folks! There's hardly any real debate going on here, about improving the article. (Immortale (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

I tell you, that giant check I got from Big Sweetner this week for providing those sources will go a long way towards buying that third yacht. This life couldn't be sweeter if I was coated in aspartame itself!

Immortale, if you wish to be taken seriously, confrontational nonsense like this should be avoided. — Scientizzle 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

With all that money you can buy some nice new socks if this continues. Verbal chat 19:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Alleged conspiracy and dangers" section is a bit lean...I think the "FDA approval process" could become a subsection of the consiracy theory section, which should perhaps be renamed to refer to its large foundation as an internet/email phenomenon ("Internet conspiracy theroies", perhaps?) and certainly to remove the "dangers" as the "Reported effects" effect section can handle even the baseless effect claims more appropriately. I'm surprised there's no mention of Donald Rumsfeld on the page! — Scientizzle 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Poison

The documentary Sweet Poison was removed from the External Links section, with the reason "Google video (YouTube, etc) are not generally appropriate encyclopedic links". This is not a valid reason - please see WP:YT. The documentary is the source of much of the controversy, and linking to it is perfectly reasonable, as it's directly relevant to the article. Greenman (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple reasons why this link is probably inappropriate. WP:YT indicates that it's a rare occurrence for a YouTube/Google Video link to be appropriate, so I'd like to see more justification of why you believe this to be such a case. You state that Sweet Misery is "the source of much of the controversy". On what basis do you say that? Do independent, reliable sources identify this documentary as notable and important? A separate issue is copyright status. I'd like to see positive justification before inserting the link. MastCell  23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential sources to use...

• "A Web of Deceit", TIME, 8 February 1999
  • Deals specifically with the Nancy Markle nonsense
• "How Sweet It Is", TIME, 29 August 1983
  • Details rocky FDA approval
• "Link between aspartame, brain tumors dismissed by FDA, cancer group", CNN, 18 November 1996
  • About Olney's report of an aspartame-brain cancer link & the response
• The Truth about Aspartame, Skeptoid, 11 November 2008
  • General overview of practically everything in this article...

— Scientizzle 02:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to remove this paragraph. This page is for discussion and should not be used as a way to insert one's personal agenda. All these sources are pro-aspartame links. If you want sources, put them in the original article if they are valid. (Immortale (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2008 (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.

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