Talk:Aspartame

Working subpage

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

Update: page now moved to http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Aspartame New editors can find material missing from the article at this page. TickleMeister (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it was needlessly placed in the lead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed changes, in brief

Very well, here are the changes in brief:

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

Approval process history

I saw this report in The Guardian. It's an excellent source for data about the controversial nature of the approval process, and contains this interesting quote that echoes something I quoted from the Sweet Misery section above: In 1996 a review of aspartame research found that every single industry-funded study found aspartame safe. But 92% of independent studies identified one or more problems with its safety.

Once again, this establishes the case for identifying studies as "industry funded" if they are such. So therefore this is not me trying to introduce "innuendo" or "FRINGE" or pov, as has been claimed. TickleMeister (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Which specific review is that a reference to? Is it a published study? Yobol (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look it up yet. Still reading the archives. Perhaps you can do a scan on this? Are you interested in achieving a npov page, perhaps aiming for feature article status? Thanks. TickleMeister (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You can start here TickleMeister (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be from this [1]...doesn't come up in a pubmed search, so probably not peer-reviewed and therefore it doesn't meet WP:MEDRS (or even WP:RS, for that matter) standards. As an aside, I guess I'm confused by the methodology he's using. In the list of "non-industry funded" articles that have an "adverse reaction" is a 1995 study done on a nerve cell line. How exactly does a cell line have an adverse reaction? I also find it somewhat amusing that the studies can be divided cleanly into either "safety supported" or "adverse reaction identified" categories, as if the only "safe" substance is one that doesn't have any known side effect at all...Yobol (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the study was not published in a peer reviewed journal. But it was referenced in a RS (The Guardian — see first link in this section), and it does make an interesting point about the contrast between industry funded and independent studies. TickleMeister (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because an otherwise typically reliable source publishes unreliable information doesn't make the information suddenly reliable.Yobol (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Once it's in a RS, it's ok to quote in a controversy article, with attribution. TickleMeister (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, did you know milk is a poison? Yeah, if you drink more than your body can break down before it hits your intestines, you'll feel sick! In some people, that amount can be as little as a few ounces! It really should be banned, but the corrupt FDA will never step up and do it. --King Öomie 13:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have a RS for that please add it to the article on milk. And you are sooo right about the FDA. They would never approve a harmful drug. They even nailed Vioxx before it got approved. TickleMeister (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

you gotta read between the liiines, man- check out Lactose intolerance! A widespread genetic predisposition to be sickened by milk? And symptoms stop when they stop drinking it! This is the smoking gun we've been waiting for!

Oh if only there was a shred of evidence to suggest Vioxx was anything more than an error. You know, as opposed to a 40-year coverup. --King Öomie 12:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lactose intolerance you could say is the rough equivalent, for purposes of our argument, to phenylketonuria. Those are known risks. The controversy swirls around the unknown ones, or rather the reactions many people have to the chemical but who are not suffers of PKU, and the worrying finding in some studies on other issues. In fact there are some controversies surrounding milk, but it's far more complex than an intolerance issue.

You seem inordinately trusting of regulatory agencies. The Feb 2003 Scientific American has a piece called "Bad Medicine, Why Data from Drug Companies is hard to swallow". Some key points:

1. Companies (even the biggest ones) are massaging data to an unbelievable degree to get their drugs approved. This includes excluding data and misrepresenting data.
2. Companies pay the FDA $500,000 for each drug approved. The FDA is therefore approving more and more (useless and sometimes harmful) drugs, even when the studies supporting the drugs are clearly flawed and massaged.

These are not my opinions, but those of highly respected independent scientists. TickleMeister (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And you seem inordinately cynical. These two bulletpoints here- how valid were they 35 years ago? Because that's the length of the coverup we're talking about. NASA must have given them some pointers. --King Öomie 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding a timeline graphic

It strikes me that the approval process was quite complicated, with lots of players and events, stops and starts. I suggest we create a timeline graphic to assist in understanding what happened, and when. Any comments? TickleMeister (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

First you need a reliable source that documents the approval process. TFD (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we have lots of those. I'm talking about the non-controversial aspects, of course. TickleMeister (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a better fit for the controversy article, actually. It's not especially relevant to the compound itself. --King Öomie 14:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

POV dispute

I am finding this article extremely difficult to edit due to what I regard as a highly POV mindset in a group of editors who have this page on their watchlists. These editors seem to have decided that this chemical is harmless and safe, and all my attempts to edit in a NPOV —based on the fact that there are studies highlighting problems, and researchers expressing concerns, and people reporting adverse effects, and governments running investigations— are treated as laughable examples of the internet "hoax" about aspartame's dangers. I am treated rudely and with scorn, or with outright contempt. No attempt is made to improve the article or work in a collegial manner. Both aspartame articles bristle with inaccuracies and a pro-corporate POV. The archives show that I am not the first person to be treated like this. TickleMeister (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to respond to this, other than to say that your version of events is hardly news amongst editors who've tried in the past to make conspiracy theory articles more... ambiguous as to the veracity of claims. This individual was similarly not taken seriously by the other editors at the article (though nothing you've done comes close to that particular edit). --King Öomie 14:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your version of events above; just because others disagree with your interpretation of policy doesn't mean there is a "pro-corporate POV" going on. I would favor removal of tags on both this and Aspartame controversy; just because one user doesn't get to tilt the article their way doesn't mean the article violates WP:NPOV. Yobol (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I too disagree, I have a pro WP:MEDRS and pro science attitude. Most other editors interpret things differently than you is all, and dare I say, the majority of those of us that post here and the other place that you posted this disagree with you. This is not some sort of bias or conspiracy, it is following policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also pro-science and pro-MEDRS. I don't like the way you imply that I am not. I would suggest that allowing an industry funded review to stand in the lead, unqualified as to funding, exonerating the chemical, when there are ongoing investigations into it, shows a remarkable lack of NPOV. TickleMeister (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree, and have removed the tag - after removing the unsourced and problematical statements discussed in the thread "source required" above. It might need so further copyediting. Verbal chat 20:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The archives and some recent comments supporting me here show that this is a live issue, your removal of the tag notwithstanding. Do not edit war the tag with me. I have replaced it, pending discussions and possible RfCs on the issue. TickleMeister (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what you think about all pharmacological research, nearly everything is industry/manufacturer sponsored. Do you regard all those as biased as well ? If so, there should be a POV tag on every article dealing with some medicine..... Aspartame is probably studied in more detail as most medicines and definitely more as any other food ingredient (natural or not). It has been studied by many authorities worldwide and basically all studies show that it is safe. It may have side effects in some people, yes, but so has chocolate (allergies) or alcohol. And we are not forbidding these either... So you should see things in perspective.Knorrepoes (talk) 06:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not whether I regard something as biased or not, it's that the question has been raised in RSes by others. TickleMeister (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC on whether we can describe a pro-Aspartame review as "industry-funded"

The controversial sweetener aspartame was given a clean bill of health by a review study funded by its manufacturer. There are reliable claims that this compromised the study's findings (see here). Can we qualify mention of this study as "industry-funded" in the article? Some editors maintain that qualifying the study is "innuendo". TickleMeister (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by previously involved editors

• Include - there is a significant controversy over the credibility of the industry-funded panel and their findings, and presenting the panel's findings without qualification about funding acts to conceal that fact. This gives the wrong impression that the findings are universally accepted. This is even more urgent because the panel's findings are presented in the lead in a way that absolves the chemical compound from any suspicions, namely: "A recent medical review on the subject concluded that "the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener"". TickleMeister (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record, for future editors who make attempts to insert NPOV into an article about this highly profitable chemical (worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually) and face similar trenchant opposition, here is the proposed edit I linked to above as background info (and which, based on some comments here, will soon go dead, I suspect):

Extended content

Industry-funded studies In 2007, a review study was published by a panel of experts, declaring aspartame to be "very safe". The panel was chosen by the Burdock Group, a consulting firm serving the food, dietary supplement, and cosmetics industries, which was in turn hired by Ajinomoto, the world's largest aspartame manufacturer. Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), said that the study was "totally unreliable" and that some members of the expert panel were "longstanding industry consultants". He also observed that the panel was highly accepting of studies finding aspartame safe, but highly critical of those linking aspartame to possible health risks. The panel coordinator responded that panel members were not told the name of the company funding the study until the study was submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A 2005 report in The Guardian stated that a 1996 review of aspartame research found that every single industry-funded study found aspartame safe, but 92% of independent studies identified one or more problems with its safety. Also in 2005, the BMJ published a letter that noted that "the glaring disparity in results from industry funded and independently funded research is clearly of considerable concern."

Thank you. TickleMeister (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that the review panel was composed of what some sources allege are highly compromised people. I quote: A reader might ask, "Is it possible for there to be an unbiased review of aspartame, made by Ajinomoto and Monsanto, where the review is funded by Ajinomoto, authors have done paid work for Monsanto, several authors have official positions in trade and research associations funded by Monsanto, Ajinomoto, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, etc., several authors work for corporate advocacy groups, one of which called aspartame toxicity a 'nonissue,' and one author who consults for companies that sell aspartame and in the past has said that aspartame is safe?" I think a reasonable answer might be, "No! Are you kidding me?!" From here TickleMeister (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, nor is the website it was copied from (holisticmed). --Six words (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say calling these scientists "highly compromised" is probably a WP:BLP violation. Yobol (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Write to the website owner and tell him. Quoting it here is certainly no BLP vio. The same text is in TESTIMONY FOR HB2680 & SB2506 - BAN ASPARTAME IN HAWAI — a US state government document. TickleMeister (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While holisticmed is free to say whatever they want about anyone as long as they're willing to bear the consequences, WP:BLP applies to every article on Wikipedia. Mr Gold's opinion about Ms Magnuson is irrelevant here, and none of the documents are a reliable source for what you claim (both holisticmed and his testemony are self-published sources. BTW: Hawaii's department of health opposes the bill. Their testimony concludes "The Department understands that public health would be further served if it would concentrate its efforts on the food safety inspections of the regulated community, food recalls of adulterated foods, and not the monitoring of the removal of aspartame-containing foods, which are already considered safe.").--Six words (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Six words and Yobol. Further unsourced, poorly sourced or POV comments about living persons will be removed, as I have done with TM's BLP violations at Aspartame controversy. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Question for 6words: do we have anything about the attempt to ban aspartame in Hawaii in the aspartame articles? If not, why not? TickleMeister (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wild guess: Nobody suggested a wording to include this "attempt to ban aspartame" without giving it undue weight. Some points I think it should include would be that this was a political movement rather than a scientific evaluation (most politicians aren't toxicologists, are they?), and (of course) that aspartame wasn't banned in Hawaii. It might also include that the bill was at least in part caused by the "Ramazzini Study" that was later reviewed by the EFSA and the FDA who both found the data they were given didn't warrant the conclusions the Ramazzini Foundation had drawn.
I guess the bottom line of what I am saying is this: suggest a wording that describes it neutrally, find an appropriate place for it in the article and source it properly (preferrably with reliable a secondary source). Discuss it first and gain consensus, and everyone will be happy.
What do you mean when you say aspartame articles? Is there an alternative article, or are you talking about your draft at /temp?--Six words (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude There is a fringe element that wishes to discredit the scientific consensus on aspartame by attacking the research and presenting criticisms from writers outside the scientific community. Unless any of these views are published in scientific literature they fail reliability as sources. The purpose of this article is not to provide a platform for promoting views that have no scientific acceptance. TFD (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But I point to non-fringe people with non-fringe concerns. Just because some truly fringe people took issue with aspartame does not mean there are no valid concerns. We must not throw out the baby with the bathwater. TickleMeister (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fringe refers to "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". We should not provide any validity to those ideas in this article, or promote them by presenting ad hominem arguments against the scientists who study aspartame. TFD (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Straw man. There are no ad homs in this issue, AFAIK, and describing the 90+ published studies (From the BMJ 2005;330:309-31: "Other studies (a total of 91) that attest to aspartame's potential for harm can be found in an online review of peer reviewed literature") that raise concerns as "fringe" is a novel interpretation of fringe. TickleMeister (talk)

An ad hominem argument "is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise". That is the case here, the validity of the science is attacked by claiming that the scientists were influenced by the funding. The source you quote is a letter to the editor in the BMJ[2] - can you please tell us which if any of the studies to which the letter refers should be in the article. TFD (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude It is clear that the editor is trying to imply impropriety and/or that the results of the study (and any other studies that point to the safety of aspartame) are less than reliable due to their particular funding. However, no evidence from a reliable source has been provided to suggest any actual wrong doing on the parts of any researcher. "Innuendo" is an apt term to suggest wrong doing or to cast doubt on results of the study without providing any evidence that anything was actually wrong with the study/results in question. If no actual evidence is provided to suggest that results were tampered with or are otherwise unreliable, we should not imply such with our wording, per WP:NPOV.Yobol (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Note to all RFC participants Please note that the link provided in the text of the RFC, that purports there are "reliable claims that this compromised the study's findings", and leads to here is a temporary page set up by the editor who initiated the RFC to flesh out his proposed edits and is not part of an actual article. Yobol (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they'll be looking at the text and sources, not the fact that it's a working page. TickleMeister (talk) 07:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude The controversial sweetener aspartame was given a clean bill of health by an independant review study funded by its manufacturer, though the scientists were unaware of the source of funding and the funding was conducted in the usual manner for such reviews. Per 2/0, TFD and Yobol (who echos my previous comments), and per previous discussion. Verbal chat 11:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude per above, especially WP:FRINGE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude The review in question was published in a peer-reviewed toxicology journal and confirms the findings of previous safety reviews. --Six words (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude I agree with the above Knorrepoes (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude Even if the source qualified as reliable, using it to insinuate that a particular study is tainted is an improper synthesis. Further, since a POV flag has been raised repeatedly, the working page should now be considered a POV fork, outside the parameters allowed for subpages.Novangelis (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Include Stating the disparity of findings from 'industry-funded' and non-industry-funded research is clearly of interest to the article. We don't need a MEDRS to state that, we just need to have an attributable source that makes that claim. It is not within our remit to choose sides here, simply state what is in the public record. WP:FRINGE does not strike me as a valid argument for exclusion, as 2/0 points out; This is the very reason why authors are made to disclose affiliations and funding sources. The Guardian source is valid for the quote "In 1996 a review of aspartame research found that every single industry-funded study found aspartame safe. But 92% of independent studies identified one or more problems with its safety.". John Briffa with more than 240 pieces in the Guardian alone is, at least, a 'notable commentator' and it wouldn't matter if his opinion was stated on his blog or accepted as a letter to the editor in BMJ, "This review is particularly worrying as it shows that, although 100% of industry funded (either whole or in part) studies conclude that aspartame is safe, 92% of independently funded studies have found that aspartame has the potential for adverse effects" is not MEDRS related, he is not making a medical claim out of the blue, he is commenting on published research. Unomi (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: the "research" (the actual "study", not the Guardian article) that is being quoted is self-published on a website and not a WP:RS. Yobol (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, we aren't sourcing to the research, we are sourcing to a statement of opinion. I take it that you are fine with the Guardian bit then? Unomi (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Where it already is sourced in the article? No, or I would have removed it already. Yobol (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude. Without a source satisfying our strict sourcing requirements for articles of this type and stating that the funding source improperly prejudiced the study's conclusions, this is inadmissible. It's pejorative and, potentially, a BLP violation to boot.

Doesn't help to keep the discussion civil.
Of course, that Ticklemeister, Unomi and several additional editors abuse Wikipedia as a soapbox for fringe causes such as aspartame conspiracy theories is reason enough for me.

Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time out from denying the existence of AIDS to attack me and another editor. I feel honoured. TickleMeister (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Concerns about industry are not irrelevant. The latest EHP issue notes that the debate about banning asbestos has been tainted by industry consultants such as ChemRisk and Exponent (consulting firm) who are really no different than the Burdock Group. The group of scientists renewing the call for the ban of asbestos include some of the same scientists who recently raised questions about aspartame (Abdo KM, Camargo CA, Davis D; et al. (2007). "Letter to U.S. FDA commissioner. Questions about the safety of the artificial sweetener aspartame" (PDF). Int J Occup Environ Health. 13 (4): 449–50. PMID 18085059. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)), a group which includes highly qualified oncologists without any financial conflict of interest. This page currently omits any discussion of the scientist opponents of aspartame and claims that the health risks are entirely unfounded, while the aspartame controversy page allows for only a short paragraph, which Keepcalmandcarryon (talk · contribs), in a startling outright violation of neutrality, tried to delete twice (second attempt). I can't be accused of trying to hype the problems with aspartame: in addition to noting the anti-aspartame scientist perspective, I wrote the pro-aspartame substantive criticism of the "Ramazzini" study which these concerns are based on (diff) and personally am not overly concerned with the substance. This brings up the question, however, as to whether we should similarly treat asbestos as being "debatably harmful" and secondhand smoke as being "harmless" simply because these industry-funded contractors have dominated the literature. Unfortunately, we aren't scientists and probably no one here (with the exception of myself to a rather limited degree) has done much analysis of the primary literature which these statements are being based on. So it is very easy for us to get a skewed impression by a couple biased reports from secondary sources. II | (t - c) 18:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I, and, I would assume, other regular contributors have more than a passing familiarity with the scientific literature on aspartame. Based upon this familiarity, I agree with most reviewers and regulatory authorities that the scientific literature does not currently support the adverse side effects claimed for aspartame, whether by a small number of scientists or by conspiracy theorists. Please note that this does not prove in any way that aspartame is truly harmless. It may indeed be quite harmful to human health. However, our role as Wikipedia editors is to reflect current knowledge about the subject, and current knowledge is that aspartame is safe. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not our job to suppress controversy and disagreement within the scientific community. We must report the true situation, which is that there is disagreement, with the majority opinion currently saying that it is generally safe at recommended intake levels. We can do all that, and still report the negative findings. We are not here to SELL the chemical. Or are we? TickleMeister (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop insinuating that other editors are acting based on a commercial bias. It is a violation of the policy against personal attacks.Novangelis (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by previously uninvolved editors

Exclude per WP:VALID and WP:PARITY. Sources of funding in medicine (and, I assume, studies of food additives in general) are a legitimate and sometimes grave concern, (ref) but sourcing is required. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This MEDRS [3] refers to an internet source that hosts these pages : industry funded studies and independent studies. I'm sure someone here will find a way to exclude this on a technicality though. TickleMeister (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: That's not a MEDRS, it's a comment on a MEDRS. The author's reply to that comment describes the "internet source" quite well: "[...]an online review of studies on aspartame that merely lists study number and funding sources without any scientific content or systematic review."--Six words (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

By definition, it's published in the BMJ, is therefore part of the medical literature, and is available via PubMed, and is covered by MEDRS. The review in question, done by an academic medical professor, is widely referenced on the internet, and is cited in a MEDRS-acceptable source, as we see above. The fact that this article turns a blind eye to it is troubling. TickleMeister (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. A key feature of MEDRS is that they are peer-reviewed - letters and comments aren't. Even if this comment was an acceptable source, that wouldn't automatically turn the sources it cites into acceptable sources.
Did you even bother to look at this "review" properly? By that I mean did you do more then count "positive" and "negative" outcomes? Frankly, I'm not surprised Dr Walton couldn't get it published in a peer-reviewed journal, as apart from being no more than a list sorted by year/funding, it's not even an accurate one. Sorry to say that, but it looks like you're willing to use any source, as long as it confirms your opinion. Don't tell me you'd want to use that "review" if it said most of the "non-industry funded" were in favour of aspartame (I still wouldn't, because in my eyes it's rubbish). Above you say you're a scientist - please act like one. You probably know about the different levels of evidence (if you don't you can find a comprehensible introduction to the subject here). If there are reviews or even meta-analyses, then expert-opinion, case-studies and unblinded tests just won't suffice. Your reason for editing this article (being a self-identified sufferer of aspartame-headaches) makes you biased - it's possible to stay neutral on such subjects, but it's pretty hard. I'm not questioning your good faith, but perhaps it's just not possible for you to properly weigh the sources on a subject you feel so strongly about. So what's troubling here? It's you constantly implying that other editors act in bad faith. --Six words (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me dodge the flurry of personal attacks here to contest what you're claiming. MEDRS does not specifically exclude letters to journals from use. Moreover, MEDRS names WedMD as an acceptable source, and WebMD has a whole article discussing the controversy of Ajinomoto's panel review. The there are the articles in two of the world's leading newspapers, the NYT and the Guardian. So you trying to spin this as me pushing a barrow is absurd. Moreover your claim that the existence of reviews and meta-analyses trumps individual studies in all instances goes against the spirit of MEDRS in a profound way. I quote: "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. The views of tiny minorities need not be reported" — now the studies showing potential or actual problems with aspartame and/or its metabolites are much more than a "tiny minority" and are totally deserving of mention here, and even more so in the Aspartame controversy article (note: I am finding it impossible to insert any new data into that article because of tag-team reverting without cogent reason). There's something distasteful going on here, I'm just not sure what it is right now, or what the covert motives are ... TickleMeister (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks to avoid (except your claims of PR shilling, etc). You are trying to abuse the sources, and go beyond what they say or only represent one side of the "debate". This goes against our core policy of WP:NPOV. I'm afraid I agree with all the other editors criticisms of your proposals as they would be misleading to readers. I would also endorse 2/0 and 6words WP:MEDRS comments. Please stop trying to turn this into a battle, and Wikipedia is not the place for WP:ADVOCACY or crusading for "teh WP:TRUTH". Verbal chat 09:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your insertion of inverted commas around the word debate is asinine, considering this compound is currently under investigation by the British Food Standards Authority because of all the adverse effects reported. TickleMeister (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I said this on the other talk page, but I think it bears repeating here that the FSA, when describing that very report, makes the point that aspartame is safe. It also says that the study is due to anecdotal reports of side effects people consider themselves to have. FSA release. Doesn't seem to be any debate there, just normal science doing what science does. Verbal chat 13:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So a government authority gets so many reports of side effects that it sets up an inquiry, but we pooh pooh that, do we? How many chemicals are under investigation because of consumer complaints in the UK, any idea? TickleMeister (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. When the report is finished, we can discuss adding it. Note that the PR disagrees with what you have said. Verbal chat 12:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You were right the first time =D --King Öomie 15:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Last time I use yahoo rather than check in a real dictionary. Fixed. Verbal chat 20:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• RfC Comment. Exclude. I have previously been completely uninvolved with this page, and I came here from the RfC notice. I read the section of the page about the controversy, and it already presents the fact that there are dissenting views in an NPOV way. Labeling a source as "industry-funded" is pejorative. There would potentially be nothing wrong with adding the letter criticizing the study as a source for the statement about critics alleging a conflict of interest, but there is no need to add the proposed wording of the text. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your compromise solution is acceptable to me. TickleMeister (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. I hope that I was of help. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude per Tryptofish: I've come from WP:WQA rather than WP:RFC, interestingly enough, but I am an uninvolved editor. I think the long discussion above has adequately explained why this phrasing should be excluded. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Safety controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-NPOV synthesis

Metabolism and phenylketonuria

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

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

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

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

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

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