Misplaced Pages

Talk:Aspartame controversy

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Immortale (talk | contribs) at 21:49, 1 September 2012 (→Michael Newton reference). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:49, 1 September 2012 by Immortale (talk | contribs) (→Michael Newton reference)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days 

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject iconSkepticism B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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


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

This article (and the main Aspartame article) must be being manipulated by the aspartame industry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Bullshit is bullshit. It is abundantly clear that this thread is not going to produce any more discussion leading to article improvement. This is not an appropriate venue for conflict of interest accusations (see WP:COIN).Novangelis (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

How can these articles claim that there has been no evidence against aspartame when this is clearly not true?

There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers showing direct correlation between aspartame use and a myriad of health disorders (migraine headaches, nausea, seizures, etc). These cannot all just be dismissed.

If these can all be passed off as some sort of "food allergy", then this is still not a reason to try and sweep it under the rug. Let it be known that a certain percentage of the population may have severe reactions to this chemical, and we should encourage manufactures of products containing it to clearly mark it as such, and also not to frivolously include it in products without good reason.

Why do so many manufacturers include artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and/or sucralose in their products unnecessarily and without clear marking?

Trident gum existed for many years doing perfectly fine using xylitol. There was no need to add aspartame to the mix when the end result is only that some people will have a bad reaction to it. It didn't need to be any sweeter.

--Thoric (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

SÆdon 23:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This talk page is not the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If you wish to raise the issue there, it is appropriate. Here, it is just an ad hominem attack.
"How can these articles claim that there has been no evidence against aspartame when this is clearly not true?" This is a straw man argument. Nowhere does either claim that there is "no evidence". The issues which have been raised (by both credible scientists and fringe elements) are discussed, based on sources weighted appropriately.
The Olney article is already discussed in the second paragraph of Aspartame controversy#Cancer. There is nothing wrong with linking to the primary source in the discussion. The problem remains that the trend he discussed started before aspartame was approved and had already leveled before it was published. Despite Diet Coke becoming the second most popular soda brand (an indirect measure of aspartame consumption), brain tumor incidence remains level.
While the EJCN review is an appropriate source in that it is a published review, it offers mostly speculative mechanisms, rather than observational studies. The link to the article is inappropriate since the website appears to violate article copyright.Novangelis (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The EJCN review is already cited in the article (I added it when I re-wrote the Neurology section); the others do not appear to be appropriate for inclusion. Yobol (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You are right on but the Misplaced Pages People have no interest in public health. They are single minded, Most likely they are being lead by a very rich industry, and refuse to consider any other opinions regardless of the source. The fact that they do this by invoking health issues to block sources that question aspartame is shamefull.Quione (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
If you have ANY evidence of this then take it to the proper noticeboard. If not, stop this bullshit now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I had to sign to write this but 1) the user is correct. 2) try not to swear 3) You should present both sides. thankx threePictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreePictures (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

1)No evidence has been presented that anyone here is being 'lead by the industry' 2) I am quite sick and tired of this bullshit, as I think others are 3) read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a talk page for discussing article improvements to this article and this article, only. For discussions of inappropriate behavior, please use user talk pages when a single editor's behavior is in question or appropriate noticeboards where evidence of wrongdoing can be presented. Generalized accusations without supporting evidence are not appropriate anywhere on Misplaced Pages.Novangelis (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs to be redone

This article seems to be very poorly written, and should probably better reflect a non-biased viewpoint. Phrases such as "n spite of this" and others should be deleted or rewritten so this page doesn't smack of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.3.160 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We follow sources. NPOV does not mean we give all sides equal weight. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
On Misplaced Pages we try to have a neutral point of view (NPOV). This means we try to represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Do you have any reliable sources that should be included but aren't right now? Please read WP:MEDRS, it explains how to identify reliable sources about medicine related topics. Arcandam (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Dbrodbeck and Arcandam. TFD (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Very well put. Please read the links that have been provided. If you have reliable sources to use here, please suggest them here and we'll be happy to take a look at them. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Aspartame and Weight gain.

I propose this section be replaced with the following:


Weight Gain and Hunger

Since the caloric contribution of aspartame is negligible, it has been used as a means for weight loss through its role as a sugar substitute. Although there have been claims that aspartame contributes to weight gain and obesity as well as increased hunger, a comprehensive review on this subject concluded there is currently inconclusive data to support the assertion that aspartame contributes to weight gain. The review notes that additional research may be warranted.


Rationale:

1) The title of this section should be weight "gain," not "change." This is a page about aspartame controversy. It is only the notion of weight gain which is controversial.

2) There is a difference between concerns about the safety of aspartame, and claims about its potential effects on satiety and weight gain. As such, references that focus exclusively on the safety of aspartame should not be used to dismiss concerns about weight gain. I believe references 8 and 57 should be removed from this section because their abstracts do not mention satiety or weight gain specifically.

Reference 55 does address satiety and weight gain. It states "The National Experts conclude that there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake. A study focusing on aspartame, such as that performed by Just et al. (2008) which looked at cephalic insulin response in healthy fasting volunteers after taste stimulation, comparing sucrose, starch and saccharin, may warrant further consideration. However at this point in time such considerations do not form the basis for recommending a re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannet3 (talk • contribs)

Disagree, weight change is appropriate (and neutral) since it is used for weight loss, but claims are that it causes weight gain, making that it causes weight loss by implication controversial. Refs 8 and 57 discuss hunger and weight gain in the body of the article, so are appropriate. I have added "or hunger" to text to clarify what part ref 55 is citing. Yobol (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
To say there is "little to no data to support the assertion..." goes further than the EFSA article, which acknowledges some level of uncertainty in this area. There have been several studies published after these reviews were completed. I believe the last two sentences of my edited version above are more accurate than the current text.Leannet3 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The EFSA specifically concludes "there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake" while suggesting possible areas of future research. I see no ambiguity there as to the conclusion. Newer studies have to appear in high quality reviews before they can be incorporated into this article, per WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT. Yobol (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but EFSA also suggests there is a need for further research, a concept not reflected in the wiki page at all. Can you see a way to be transparent to the reader that there is a degree of uncertainty in the conclusions of the review? That is all I am attempting to do here.
There is no uncertainty. They suggested future avenues for research, should someone want to do it. None of the two other reviews cited had uncertainty either, so neither should we. We are very closely paraphrasing the EFSA source here, so I find the suggestion we are misrepresenting the EFSA somewhat puzzling. Yobol (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Any fruitful research will by it's nature state that future research is needed and provide some context for the directions of that research. It's not worth noting unless the direction is substantially different from the published research in question. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
EFSA says "Interpreting the data to answer the specific question regarding whether aspartame has a direct effect on appetite is difficult, as this was not the hypothesis of the identified studies. Whilst it is encouraging that no trend of increasing appetite has been observed, the question is still largely unanswered, but remains an important one." On the wiki page, the notion that this question remains unanswered is absent. We state there have been compresensive reviews on this subject, when that is not the case. Those comprehensive reviews were on the safey of aspartame. We leave the reader with the feeling this issue is closed, when in fact it is under ongoing investigation. I am merely seeking a way to give the reader a more accurate sense of the current status.Leannet3 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
What about this "Comprehensive reviews of aspartame safety have also examined research conducted between 2002 and 2009 on the effects of aspartame on hunger and weight gain. Little to know evidence was found, but reviewers acknowledged that the question remains unanswered and additional research may be warranted."Leannet3 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You are ignoring the two other reviews and focusing on the EFSA, for some unknown reason. I also do not think any more time or effort should be spent on this subject. There does not appear to be any significant evidence to show that it does cause problems with hunger, as noted in the reviews, which is exactly what our article states. We should not try to suggest that there is controversy about that when our reviews do not suggest there is one. Yobol (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not trying to create a false controversy, or give weight to junk science. I am attempting to provide accurate information about the level of uncertainty on this issue, using acceptable sources.Leannet3 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The accurate information is that, per the conclusion of our source, "there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake". This is what we state in the article. Claims about hunger need to be substantiated by evidence, and in this case they are not. We are not here to fuel conspiracy theories about the substance that is not supported by evidence. Yobol (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
My concern remains that this section does not provide all relevant information. I'll make one more attempt to propose wording we can agree is accurate, based on acceptable sources.
"Since the caloric contribution of aspartame is negligible, it has been used to aid in weight loss through its role as a sugar substitute. Although correlations between the use of non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame and weight gain have been observed, little to no data to support a biological basis for these observations has been published. However, reviewers have stated that ongoing research is warranted.
Additional references would include this review paper from Mattes and Popkin in 2009. It concludes "There are long-standing and recent concerns that inclusion of NNS in the diet promotes energy intake and contributes to obesity. Most of the purported mechanisms by which this occurs are not supported by the available evidence, although some warrant further consideration." This Quin Yang 2010 mini-review in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, and this this 2010 review paper, which reports an association between artificially-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannet3 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You are, once again, ignoring the high quality secondary reviews already in the article (the Butchko and Magnuson reviews). Also, the new reviews you present are more appropriate in the sugar substitute article, as they do not come to any conclusions about aspartame specifically, but about the class as a whole (and as an aside, the last review specifically cautions against using correlation as direct evidence of causation between sugar substitutes and weight gain). You are, once again, ignoring the plain reading of the conclusion of the EFSA review stating there is little to no evidence supporting the claim. At this point, I am finding it hard to assume good faith when you seem to deliberately misreading the conclusions of the sources. Yobol (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Those reviews were published in 2002 and 2007. It seems to me that a legitimate scientific discussion on this issue has advanced since those reviews were published. Although I absolutely respect your dedication to making sure good science is used here, I can't help but feel you are going too far in this case. I also note that Misplaced Pages policies do not absolutely exclude the use of individual research studies,including animal studies, provided they are placed in appropriate context and their relative weight is made clear to the reader. The new sources I suggest are all review papers publishing since 2010. On what basis do you consider them unacceptable? WP:WEIGHT suggests using reviews published in the last 5 years, perhaps the 2002 reference has become a bit dated?Leannet3 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Any objection to a "see also" for sugar substitutes? It seems to me some of the references I suggest could be added to that topic, as you suggest.Leannet3 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Sources about health of aspartame need to comply with WP:MEDRS (which specifically cautions against primary studies and animal studies), and need to specifically make conclusions about aspartame. The sources you are trying to use are not appropriate here as they make conclusions about the general class of sugar substitutes, which contains a number of other artificial sweeteners other than aspartame. Artificial sweetener redirects to sugar substitute so there is no need for a see also as it is linked in the first sentence of the article. Yobol (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you perhaps interpreting WP:MEDRS too narrowly? For example, it directs us to "make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." and "it may be helpful temporarily to cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published." By the way, I completely agree that correlation should not be used as direct evidence of causation. My proposed text above does not do this - it simply informs the reader that a correlation exists, which is true. WP:MEDRS also suggests using Pubmed to find reliable sources, which is exactly how I found the references I proposed to add here, by using aspartame specifically as a search criteria.Leannet3 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a narrow reading, but the consensus of the editors who edit medical articles. If you want to add a source, it has to make conclusions about aspartame, not sugar substitutes in general. If it makes conclusions about sugar substitutes in general, it belongs on the sugar substitute page, not here. I don't know how else to say it, and will not address this topic further until you directly address this standard. Yobol (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I have two questions. 1) the EFSA source, which is specific to aspartame, acknowledges that "Interpreting the data to answer the specific question regarding whether aspartame has a direct effect on appetite is difficult, as this was not the hypothesis of the identified studies. Whilst it is encouraging that no trend of increasing appetite has been observed, the question is still largely unanswered, but remains an important one." why cannot wikipedia readers be made aware of the nature of this comment? It would seem to be in accordance with the spirit of WP:MEDRS and 2) could I trouble you to point me to the location in WP:MEDRS which indicates only sources specific to asparatme, and not sources which apply to asparatame as well as other sugar substitutes, may be used? Thanks.Leannet3 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
1) I have updated the article to reflect the above material from the EFSA. 2) That sources belong to the article in which they are most relevant would seem to be a common sense approach to editing. Because the conclusions about sugar substitutes in general are confounded by the presence of other sugar substitutes, we cannot know how much, if any, effects found are due to aspartame (as opposed to the other sugar substitutes also studied), unless the source specifies it. WP:OR would be the overriding policy here; implying that results about sugar substitutes in general necessarily apply to aspartame (as you would be implying by placing said material in this article) is your own conclusion, not the conclusion of the source. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you would hold off accusing me of behaviours that I haven't exhibited. Nowhere in my proposed text, placed here in good faith for discussion and review, have I attempted to portray results of research on sugar substitutes as results of research on asparatame specifically. Whether such studies could be mentioned in this article, provided proper context is given, may be worthy of further discussion. However, I would personally be satisfied if we add a "see also" link to sugar substitutes. You had previously argued this was not necessary, because there is already a link in the first line of the article. With respect, I suggest a "see also" link is also warranted, because it indicates to the reader that additional relevant information may be found there. Would you agree to that?Leannet3 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
No, per WP:SEEALSO. "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Yobol (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I plan to update the sugar substitute page with those reviews when I have time. At that point, perhaps we could re-evalute if the simple link in the text is sufficient, or if a see also, with an explanatory note might be most useful to the reader. Leannet3 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The sugar substitute link is the first link in the article, and the 2nd and 3rd words in the entire article. I don't know how much more prominent you can make it, and I do not think putting a See Also is appropriate given its already significant prominence in this article. At some point, editors should consider actually following the guidelines of the website instead of substituting their own opinions for them. Yobol (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I am following the policy, which states "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" (e.g. if research on sugar substitutes is described there, but not mentioned on the asparatame page) and "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Perhaps you should re-read WP:LAWYER.Leannet3 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Leannet3, what's the common sense reason to include a “see also” link to an article that is already linked in the first sentence of both the 'aspartame' and the 'aspartame controversy' article? The guideline tells us that the “see also” section shouldn't include links that are already in the article or its navbox, so you're not following a policy, you're argueing for an exception. It's possible to make exceptions, but I think there should be good reasons for that, and so far I haven't seen any. --Six words (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Six Words and Yobol are correct it seems to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks to a few new voices for weighing in. Let me explain that I first came to the aspartame article hoping to find a useful summary of the science that would shed some light on the media stories I had heard about aspartame possibly causing weight gain. A researcher I know had also told me that when he needed his lab rats to fatten up quickly, he intentionally added some asparatame to their feed. I was *extremely* skeptical about all of this, and I hoped what I would find on wikipedia was a reasonable summary of the issue and a rebuttal. Instead I found next to nothing. Sources from 2002 and 2007 before this issue really showed up in the media, and no acknowledgement of any of the work (and its limitations) that triggered the media coverage. I imagine I am not the only person coming to this page to find out what is up with these allegations around weight gain. Burying the issue creates an information vacuum and leaves curious people like with the media reports only. The absence of info on wikipedia does nothing to assure me that these claims are false, I just assume that wikipedia hasn't been updated yet. It is for that reason that I think either we should include some of the newer reference articles I mentioned above, and clearly explain what they do and do not say about asparatame and weight gain/hunger, or we should supply a "see also" with a note so that someone seeking this type of info gets a hint that it is located on the sugar substitutes page, not the asparatame page (of course, they haven't been added yet to my knowledge). Usefulness of the page and transparency, gentlemen, is what I am arguing for. Leannet3 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem with this though is that media reports are routinely sensationalized or blown out of proportion - it's not that information is hidden, it's that media reports have made it out to be more than it is. The fact is that by the editorial guidelines we follow here, including WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE, we can't really make more out of the weight gain issue than there is in the reviews. We've got three reviews, two of which says "no link" and one of which says "no link" and includes some standard boilerplate at the end about "more research is needed." Media sources aren't bound by these rules, and so frequently report on much less reliable studies, but this doesn't mean that we need to fall to their level. The question is asked and answered in this page, and I don't think anything further is needed. Kate (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
If we were discussing the apartame article itself I would fully agree. Given that we are on the aspartame controversy page, I would have thought that WP:UNDUE allows for more flexibility. Above, I had provided links to three review papers that summarized individual research reports on aspartame as well other artificial sweeteners. I honestly don't understand the resistence to adding some text along the lines of "Epidemiological data have demonstrated an association between artificial sweetener use (aspartame and others) and weight gain. See also - artifical sweeteners." I think my suggestion does the greatest service to wikipedia readers. However, if none of the more experience editors here are convinced, I am satisfied to end the discussion here. My intention is still to update the sugar substitute page with those references when I have time to give it some attention - so please keep an eye out there if you wish. Thank you all for your time. Leannet3 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Collapse trolling/soapboxing

Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia . As long as the prepondrence of litatuare - even if it is published by the industry- says aspartame is safe than it is safe. Our principles are more important than peoples health. Quione (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Another opinion on a lack of Neutral Point of View

This article reads like a one-sided polemic on why aspartame is perfectly safe. Here are my specific concerns.

(1) The article states that the "FDA approval of aspartame was highly contested" and later that an FDA commissioner found the scientific integrity of the supporting studies to be suspect. Yet the article mentions nothing about the specific concerns expressed by presumably well-informed critics.

(2) The article attempts to imply that a GAO analysis that states that approval protocol had been followed somehow implies that conclusions of the original studies were correct and the the critics are wrong. Although the article does not overtly say that, it seems to lead the reader in that direction.

(3) The USFDA approval section states that the GAO review "included a survey of scientists who had conducted safety reviews; of the 67 scientists who responded to a questionnaire, 12 had major concerns about aspartame's safety, 26 were somewhat concerned but generally confident in aspartame safety, and 29 were very confident in aspartame safety." I find this very odd. This says that 12 qualified scientist had serious reservations about the safety of aspartame. This is a huge red flag to me. Valid science is not done my majority rule. Yet, the author seems to imply that since 29 of 67 scientists were confident in aspartame safety, well...that is good enough, and we should all also be confident. That is specious argumentation. Why are the concerns of these 18 scientist not characterized? Surely they were not victims of the hoax letters.

(4) Under government actions, there appeared to be several institutions seriously questioning aspartame. Yet, again, no explanation is given why they drew the conclusions they did. Clearly there is some significant concern that these organizations felt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssaydjari (talk • contribs) 04:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Before tagging an article like this you might want to read the talk archives, these things have been discussed, most of them, ad nauseum. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The supposed safety concerns are extensively discussed (and debunked) in the Safety section. I see no reason for the NPOV tag, and would support its removal. Yobol (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Same here, there is no reason for the tag. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I did read them. My believe that the article has the flaws that I have described, irrespective of your viewpoint that it has been discussed ad nauseum. The points that I made regarding flaws in the reasoning are correct and they stand. Nothing in the archives changes my opinion on that. I am not saying I agree or disagree with the assertions in the article. I am concerned that sound objections and concerns are dismissed with accusations that the person objecting has not read the talk logs. I think this defeats the purpose of community review.Ssaydjari (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
The objections have been rejected by science. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The points made here are well taken. I fully agree. We need more people to look at some of these issues. Also many people have posted similar comments. Quione (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)— Quione (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've looked. They appear to be calls for more prominence without sources demonstrating they deserve such prominence, ignoring the past discussions as well as the relevant policies and guildeines, especially WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Point by point:
1. Searle's testing protocols and record keeping were shown to be lax, which prompted an outside review of the tests, as discussed in the article. If you want additional clarification, you could use the talk page to discuss specific problems of language or propose alternatives. This is not enough of a basis for an NPOV tag.
You missed the point. A neutral article would represent the full span of objections and concerns regarding the safety of the additive. Lax procedures is not the only issue. Yet, you narrow all of the issues to one and then argue against that one issue and then try to draw a general conclusion about the entirety of the issue. This is an argument fallacy.Ssaydjari (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No, that is not at all how NPOV works. We don't do fair and balanced, we say what the consensus is in the scientific community. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
2. The GAO concluding that the FDA followed its procedures in deciding if aspartame was safe for use as a food additive implies that the FDA followed its procedures when determining that aspartame was safe as a food additive. The outside review of the original results was part of the process, as noted in the report. That is not a basis for an NPOV tag.
Once again, you miss the point. That the GAO believes that the FDA protocol was followed does not make nay guarantee about the validity of the conclusions. This is again another argument fallacy.Ssaydjari (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No, once again, you don't know how wikipedia works. Our opinions are unimportant. The sources are what is important. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
3. The science was never up for vote, but the experts make recommendations to decide if the scientific evidence meets a qualitative standard: "proof of a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the proposed use of an additive" (Food Additives Amendment of 1958). Misplaced Pages is not here to manufacture a controversy by reinterpreting "generally confident" to mean "not confident" and "very confident" to mean "confident". What I or anyone finds odd (for example, setting twelve equal to eighteen) is original research and of no concern in a Misplaced Pages article. As of 1987, aspartame was "one of the most tested food additives in U.S. history" (GAO report). Since the famous hoax occurred more than a decade following the GAO report, that specious argument is no basis for an NPOV tag.
This is yet another argument fallacy...argument by ridicule of a simple typographical error (which I just fixed, change 18 to 12)...and minor error that is irrelevant to the point I was making. This also includes an argument fallacy of shift the focus of the point to something minor and then trying to argue against that and try to draw a conclusion about the original point. The point was that 12 scientists expressed serious concerns regarding the safety of this additive in the food supply, yet no characterization of the concerns is offered. This smacks of bias.Ssaydjari (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
What "smacks of bias" is exaggerating numbers and altering definitions of categories to make an argument that a minority position is underrepresented. An editor who cannot characterize the article accurately, does not have any business placing a POV tag. The controversy of the FDA approval process was the FDA approval process. Other countries had approved aspartame after the testing issues had been discovered and reviewed, but before the FDA's final approval. The goal of this article is not to document the degree of surety, decade by decade, but to discuss the actual controversies: things that generated real controversy in public opinion or major deliberative bodies as opposed to dust-filled corners of the internet. While you might have a point for article improvement, there is no basis for a POV tag.Novangelis (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
4. The sources indicate that the only government action in the section (as opposed to meetings, dead bills, or classification) was the 1997 law requiring labels bear the words "with sweeteners" and that was impacted by public perception about both aspartame and saccharine. There is nothing to suggest that this section is out of the range of due weight in the direction you are suggesting—in other words, no basis for an NPOV tag.
The point was that several institutions expressed serious concerns about the safety of the additive, yet, not basis is offered. This indicates bias. There is no doubt in my mind that the article is seriously biased. Ssaydjari (talk) 06:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I suppose someone could look into why the legislature in Hawaii (a sugar-producing state, not that it is the reason) sent a letter, but sound third-party sources would be needed, and there is none that I know of. The paucity of news coverage means that the legislature's actions did not raise the level of controversy much, so it is given due weight. The first reason given in the concurrent resolution was "aspartame was originally developed as a drug to treat peptic ulcers". Of course, aspartame was not developed as a drug; it was an intermediate in the synthesis of a four-peptide analog of gastrin for use in drug assays. Trying to tie the letter to any one study is wildly original research.Novangelis (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
In the listed concerns, I see no basis for sustaining an NPOV tag that had been placed and removed following extensive discussion in the past, especially when the content has not significantly changed.Novangelis (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Aspartame is the most tested food additive ever, and no harmful effects have been proved. The "controversy" comes from a small but vocal group of laymen. TFD (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree !Knorrepoes (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened to my posting of Aug 20.  ??? Quione (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed it as a violation of our talk page guidelines. We are here to improve the article, not for you to pontificate about how you feel aspartame is dangerous. Yobol (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing and the Dean Edell section

Do we really need to put a highly subjective opinion of an irrelevant radio host who studied zoology in the 1960s in this article? And do we really need to justify this by the argument that when two editors agree with it, it's all good? Immortale (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

From the article on him "Edell has won media awards for his work, including the C. Everett Koop Media Award, the Edward R. Murrow Award, a national Emmy, the American Cancer Society Recognition Award, and the American Heart Association Award. In August 2011 Dr. Edell was honored by The Independent Investigations Group with an 'Iggie' award for promoting science and critical thinking in mainstream media. " Seems to me that Edell has been recognized as an authority. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree, his opinion, especially as it relates to a hoax e-mail about medical issues, seems relevant here. Yobol (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you point to the fact that a few awards (some totally unknown) are now allowed to be used as a credential for inclusion of a scientific article? Quoted by some dubious website? Because if this is allowed, I have a long list of award-winning critics of aspartame... Immortale (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If a source receives recognition from multiple large, independent medical associations, you can certainly present them as a source for discussion here. Yobol (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Newton reference

Why is the opinion of this insignificant author quoted in the lead, and presented as a fact? According to his website http://michaelnewton.homestead.com/Referencebooks.html, besides many pulp novels, his non-fictional books are no where near the expertise on the sweetener aspartame or food in general. And besides that, the target group for his books are young adults. Why is he quoted as an expert in a real scientific controversy? To quote Misplaced Pages guidelines: "Misplaced Pages describes disputes. Misplaced Pages does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." And another reminder: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says..." The lead is far from being neutral because every time an editor puts in a more balanced view, the pro-aspartame editors (and they do exist), remove them. Immortale (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

According to the author's website, "he is best known for nonfiction, primarily true crime and reference books". His book Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida won the Florida Historical Society's 2002 Rembert Patrick Award for Best Book on Florida History. The book used as a source in the article, The encyclopedia of high-tech crime and crime-fighting, was published by Infobase Publishing, which publishes reference book titles and textbooks geared towards the North American library, secondary school, and university-level curriculum markets. The book is used as a source only for e-mail hoaxes, not "sweetener aspartame or food in general". TFD (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
THERE ARE NO PRO ASPARTAME EDITORS. There is no conspiracy. But, there is policy and there are policy following editors. I am so god damned tired of this bullshit, this constant POV pushing really has to stop. As well, the COI accusations ('pro aspartame editors') have to end. Such accusations are a gross violation of AGF. One would think that after all of your time here and the notes on your talk page you would have figured that out. The source, by the way, seems fine with me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course the source seems fine with you regular police editors. I didn't expect anything else. Your language "god damned tired of this bullshit" is a violation of "assume good faith" policy, which contradicts your "policy following editors". I do agree with you that there's no conspiracy. The facts are clear that there are legitimate health hazards with the artificial sweetener aspartame, just like there are with tobacco. A majority of the scientists who are actually knowledgeable about it, agree with this. Nevertheless, this whole article has a very strong POV towards the safety of it. And you make this every time very clear. Immortale (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Categories: