Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Role in mental disorders

From the lede:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a bit ironic that Fyslee, a Wikipedia editor, feels so comfortable calling a prestigious neuropathologist who is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine a "dubious figure". Roberts/Blaylock are not notable except as a background to Martini -- they are the medical professionals she bases her statements upon. There are a fair amount of scientists who have published critically in the peer-reviewed literature on aspartame, and Roberts is not one of them. Similarly, whatever your thoughts on the topic at hand, the NYTimes notes that Paul Soffriti's Ramazzini Foundation "has earned considerable credibility since it was founded in 1971 for its pioneering research on chemicals", and Soffriti has been doing cancer research for 30 years.[1] I'm not saying Olney, Soffriti, and the various others holding their position are right but they are certainly not dubious figures, and both their arguments and their opponents' arguments should be presented to make this a neutral article. The current title is inelegant. I think the conspiracy theories and fringe health claims could still be covered under a new title. II | (t - c) 18:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Fixing the lead

There are several problems with the lead. Ronz is concerned that it gives too much weight to the critics, and Immortale thinks the opposite. Which in some sense means that maybe it's good. I have a concern over the Crit Review, which was funded by the world's largest aspartame manufacture. When I added that ref with the sentence "quality studies do not indicate a connection to cancer", I didn't know the review was funded by the industry. That bothers me. Environmental Health Perspectives, and most journals, require conflicts of interest to be disclosed. My opinion is that Wikipedia should hold itself to a similar standard. When Immortale added this information to the lead, it was removed by Fyslee.[2] Perhaps we should just leave the lead in more general terms: "Although some scientists continue to voice concerns over aspartame's effect on the brain, regulatory agencies and other scientists have affirmed the product's safety". This would allow the details to be explained later with context. II | (t - c) 04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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^TALK 14:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Change title to "Health effects of aspartame"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mentioning the sponsor Ajinomoto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ramazzini foundation

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

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

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

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

Who can help clarify this section?

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

Removed from lead

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

There are a couple of problems with this sentence.

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

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

SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Folate Depletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Double standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins of the aspartame controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are the Wurtmans?

Wurtman was a former consultant to Searle, the original manufacturer, and a professor at MIT. Coke considered his advice and lowered the aspartame level in diet coke.

His work on effects of aspartame is cited in a few places:

http://wurtmanlab.mit.edu/publications/pdf/673.pdf (research article)

http://tech.mit.edu/V103/PDF/N30.pdf (MIT newspaper article)

My apology

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

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

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

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

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

Ramazzini again

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

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

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

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

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

Opinions vs sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reviews from EJoN and CRinT

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

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

Verify, please

According to a poll in 1987, most scientists doubted aspartame's safety^{Most Scientists in Poll Doubt NutraSweet's Safety}

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third opinion

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

Viewpoint by Immortale

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

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by Bettia

....

Third opinion by User:RegentsPark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synthesis and failed verification

I removed a sentence from the aspartame byproducts section. Four primary sources were used to synthesise a claim that aspartame intake is dangerous to infants or children because methanol potentiates the effects of excitoxins. As far as I can tell, the first, second, and fourth sources are about glutamate, while the third source is about chronic methanol consumption in rats. These sources do not support the claim, so I have removed it. My detailed reasoning follows.

"One group was concerned with potential effects in infants and young children"...citing an essay by researcher JW Olney from 1990. "small-to-moderate spikes on plasma excitotoxin levels" again citing an Olney paper, this one from 1994. I do not have access to the full text of these dated pubs, but they seem to be about glutamate receptors, and I'm not sure how relevant they are here, nor how much weight we should be giving to this one researcher's work. In any case, the rest of the paragraph is pure synthesis:

"the potential dangers of combining formaldehyde exposure from aspartame with excitotoxins given that chronic methanol exposure increases excitoxin levels in susceptible areas of the brain"

• The first citation is a study of rats that receive 2g/kg/day of methanol. Since methanol comprises 10% of the breakdown products of aspartame, this is roughly comparable to 20g/kg/day of aspartame, assuming that all of the aspartame is broken down: 500 times higher than the ADI established by world health authorities. You would have to drink about 10 000 cans of diet soda in a day to get this sort of intake. The authors cite a monkey study in which methanol exposure does not cause pathology. The study does not mention aspartame and is being used here to synthesise a conclusion.
• The second citation is a study of rat retinal segments exposed to 1 millimolar glutamate in the presence or absence of various glutamate transporter inhibitors. Glutamate, while similar in properties to aspartate, is not the same thing. The study mentions neither methanol nor aspartame. It seems to have in common with some of the other studies cited here only an author, JW Olney, and it really has nothing directly to do with the topic of this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag removal

The deletion discussion [3] included recommendations that fringe science be trimmed, through bold edits if necessary. I feel that recent edits, including mine, have achieved this goal or at least moved the article towards appropriate balance. I propose that the POV tag be removed. An article on a controversial topic such as this will never be completely acceptable to the conspiratorial-minded and other editors who espouse fringe viewpoints; this is however not a valid reason for maintaining a POV tag. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Verrett, Gross, and Bressler

The last edit removed a couple sources on Verrett and Gross's testimony. My impression is that Verrett and Gross were senior toxicologists (Verrett certainly was a toxicologist for the FDA, likely, as she says, from 1957-1977 -- see her testimony hosted on a USDA website) on the task force reviewing 3 of the 15 studies noted in the article, which I believe was headed by another FDA scientist, Jerome Bressler. Generally the burden is on the remover of a source to show that it doesn't support its claims. However, there's a problem (according to Keepcalm - I haven't been able to double-check) with failed verifications on this article, so we can keep this out until someone verifies it directly. These sources can likely be found in the Congressional Record with the provided information or, for the book, through an ILL from WorldCat. Copies, which are almost certainly but not positively genuine, are on the internet [4]. Basically these two people say that management ignored the scientists (Gross, Verrett, and Bressler) and created a whitewash summary when they said the errors were inconsequential. These FDA scientists are an important, notable part of the conspiracy theory and at some point will need to be noted in the article. II | (t - c) 18:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to including the two former FDA officials' testimony in the relevant section. I object only to placing their stated opinions on equal footing with the FDA's organisational conclusions in the lead--whether those official conclusions are part of the approvals and reviews or summarised (on the FDA's website) in the FDA's publication as cited. Without secondary sources reviewing their testimony, we don't know if these officials' objections were significant, whether they were simply disgruntled former employees, or anything else.

With multiple national and international scientific and regulatory bodies, including the FDA, stating that aspartame is safe, even after (and in detailed and careful response to) the release of the Ramazzini studies, it's a gross violation of WP:UNDUE to place these primaries in the lead. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree about putting them in the lead. And there isn't as much secondary coverage as one would think aside from WNHO et al. The Ecologist ran an article on it [5], and Davis covers it in her book [6]. II | (t - c) 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

FDA Consumer

Re: the most recent edit-war over citation of FDA Consumer in the lead: it seems to me that FDA Consumer is a reliable source for describing the conclusions of FDA's scientists - after all, it is a journal published and presumably vetted by the agency. It seems tortuously legalistic to write: "The FDA's magazine reported that the FDA's scientists said that..." I agree with II that the date (1999) should be mentioned as important context. Just write "In 1999, FDA scientists described aspartame as..." and source to FDA Consumer. That seems pretty straightforward. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. That's completely fine; it's too bad I didn't think of it. II | (t - c) 19:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The relevant passage from the publication is:

...the safety of another artificial sweetener, aspartame, is clear cut, say FDA officials. FDA calls aspartame, sold under trade names such as NutraSweet and Equal, one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved. The agency says the more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population.

Clearly, these are not simply the opinions of Jon Henkel, and, particularly as they appear on the FDA website in its own publication without disclaimer, are reasonable representations of the FDA position. The FDA's stance also has not changed since 1999, at least according to statements from the FDA as recently as 2006 in response to the Ramazzini studies...which the FDA promised to examine more closely, while noting that its own research did not indicate problems. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't know whether the FDA officials would be so bold as to say its safety is so clear-cut today, after the Ramazzini studies. To cite that Henkel's article as "The FDA states" is misleading. They did recently dismiss the Ramazzini studies in a press release, but they didn't release a detailed report (the detailed report came from the EFSA). Henkel's reporting reflects his research, and it's not quite the same as an official statement from the FDA, so I think it's misleading to say attribute his article as an official FDA statement. What I just added was an official FDA statement. II | (t - c) 19:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We actually probably do know. FDA could not conduct a complete and definitive review of the study because ERF did not provide the full study data. Based on the available data, however, we have identified significant shortcomings in the design, conduct, reporting, and interpretation of this study. FDA finds that the reliability and interpretation of the study outcome is compromised by these shortcomings and uncontrolled variables, such as the presence of infection in the test animals. Additionally, the data that were provided to FDA do not appear to support the aspartame-related findings reported by ERF. Based on our review, pathological changes were incidental and appeared spontaneously in the study animals, and none of the histopathological changes reported appear to be related to treatment with aspartame. FDA believes that additional insight on the study findings could be provided by an internationally-sponsored pathology working group examination of appropriate tissue slides from the study. Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food. "Aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food" is a distinctly unequivocal statement... — Scientizzle 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Henkel article, it states:

...the safety of another artificial sweetener, aspartame, is clear cut, say FDA officials. FDA calls aspartame, sold under trade names such as NutraSweet and Equal, one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved. The agency says the more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population"

This clearly indicates that FDA officials and FDA are of the opinion that aspartame's safety is "clear cut" and "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved", respectively. We can properly assert this in the article--adding the date of publication is entirely reasonable. I don't know what is so controversial about this... — Scientizzle 23:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"FDA Consumer: Published online between 1989 and 2007". That's quite impressive to publish such a journal online before modern internet came to existence. John Henkel signs his article as "John Henkel is a staff writer for FDA Consumer." Not as a spokes person for FDA. So that's WP:OR. Then Henkel writes this: "In 1996, a study raised the issue that aspartame consumption may be related to an increase in brain tumors following FDA's approval of the sweetener in 1981. But analysis of the National Cancer Institute's database on cancer incidence showed that cases of brain cancers began increasing in 1973--well before aspartame was approved--and continued to increase through 1985. In recent years, brain tumor frequency has actually decreased slightly." Now comes the interesting part, in another issue of FDA Consumer, Evelyn Zamula comes to an opposite conclusion: "...In the United States, about 100,000 cases of brain tumors are predicted for 1996, almost double the number of just a decade ago..." "... The incidence of brain tumors, both primary and metastatic, appears to be increasing worldwide, especially among the elderly, and no one is sure why..." There are many other studies done during those particular years that show a rise in cancer, such as:

In 1999, the National Cancer Institute looked at the trends in childhood cancer between 1975 and 1995. They found a "statistically significant" rise in the occurrence for brain and other central nervous system cancers. They wrote: "For brain and other central nervous system cancers, incidence rose modestly, although statistically significantly…" —Linet MS, Ries LA, Smith MA, Tarone RE, Devesa SS, "Cancer surveillance series: recent trends in childhood cancer incidence and mortality in the United States" J Natl Cancer Inst 1999 Jun 16;91(12):1051-8

That same year, the International Journal of Health Services published a report in which they stated that the "rising childhood cancer rate represents a far more serious problem in the United States than previous reports have suggested." "From the early 1980s to the early 1990s, the incidence of cancer in American children under 10 years of age rose 37 percent, or 3 percent annually. There is an inverse correlation between increases in cancer rates and age at diagnosis; the largest rise (54 percent) occurred in children diagnosed before their first birthday. Rates rose for all 11 states and cities included in the analysis. A jump in cancer rates for children born in 1982-83 was followed by a drop; but another abrupt rise for the 1986-87 birth cohort has been sustained thereafter. Results indicate that the rising childhood cancer rate represents a far more serious problem in the United States than previous reports have suggested…" —Mangano JJ, "A rise in the incidence of childhood cancer in the United States" Int J Health Serv 1999;29(2):393-408

The FDA is corrupt and recently a group of federal scientists complained to the Obama transition team of widespread managerial misconduct in a division of the Food and Drug Administration. Immortale (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I got as far as your first citation of policy (WP:OR), which struck me as completely off-base. FDA Consumer is an official magazine of the FDA, and hence for all intents and purposes is on the same footing as a spokesperson's words. We're not citing FDA Consumer to document the incidence of brain tumors. The literature you mentioned would be a better source for those numbers. We're simply citing FDA Consumer as accurately conveying the conclusions of that agency's scientists.

Playing "Kick the FDA" is a popular Wikipedia (and national) pastime, and in some respects justifiable, but it has no bearing on this particular content issue. You probably realize this, since you carefully worded your final sentence to minimize the fact that the criticism dealt with regulation of medical devices, not foodstuffs. MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I read the whole screed. I haven't the desire to go dig up actual numbers, but it's easy to see Immortale's claims, while presented as refutation of the maligned FDA Consumer assertion, have at-best tangental bearing.

• FDA Consumer claim: brain cancer incidence began increasing in 1973 (before aspartame was approved) and continued to increase through 1985; aspartame was targeted as a possible reason, but brain tumor frequency decreased slightly between that assertion and the 1999 publication.
• The second article claims an increasing worldwide incidence; this seems perfectly congruent with the first claim--brain tumor incidnece had climbed over the course of a decade, perhaps leveling off in the last years of said decade.
• A rise in childhood cancers, modest (CNS) or surprising (overall), is a separate beast that doesn't appear to counter anything claimed in the first point. I doubt the largest rise, ≤1 year, has much practical relation with aspartame.
• Whether the FDA scientist letter leads to anything concrete will be an interesting and important thing to watch; the confidence working-level FDA scientists and medical experts is very important to me. However, its relevance to a decade-old claim or the 34-year-old aspartame approval is unclear (beyond poisoning the well).

Also, I can't help but note that dismissing some FDA claims, because they apparently don't suit your position(s), and accepting others, because they apparently do, seems a touch...disingenuous. — Scientizzle 23:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes to lead

The conclusions in the cited article, First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects ... do support the statement that

 a small number of scientists hypothesize that aspartame could ... cause some forms of cancer

and not only in rats. Sofritti et al. concluded that aspartame had caused the treated rats to get more cancers than the control population, but also said

The results of carcinogenicity bioassays in rodents are consistent predictors of  human 
cancer risks (Huff 1999; Rall 1995; Tomatis et al. 1989). The results of  our study 
therefore call for an urgent reexamination of the present guidelines on the 
use and consumption of APM.  

The citation supports the statement that the authors hypothesize that aspartame could cause cancer in humans, (in addition to supporting the unstated assertion that the authors concluded that aspartame causes cancer in rats). Therefore, I have removed the phrase "in rats" from that sentence, which is now as User:Immortale last left it.

Of course, if the researchers were hypothesizing that aspartame might cause cancer only in rats but not in humans, the entire phrase "or cause some forms of cancer in rats." ought to have been left out as irrelevant to a presentation of the controversy over aspartames affects on the health of humans (the topic of this article).

Since every word of this article has become contentious, I feel it might be necessary to give a very careful explanation of the meaning of each rewording, as well as justification for the support of appropriate references. This My edit of this sentence does not mean that I either support or challenge the cited Sofritti study, merely that I wish this article to convey its the study's significance to the ongoing debate. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your recommended changes. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is useful to hash these things out. Please be as specific as possible on why you disagree with the deletion of the words "in rats" at the end of the first paragraph of the lead. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is in rats. It's NOR to conclude that a rat model can be translated to humans. It is one study, that I would consider deficient in so many ways, one of which is that numerous other studies don't come the conclusions it did. In fact, I'd delete both sentences as violating WP:WEIGHT. This has been discussed and decided many times. Why do we have to converse about it again.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If there weren't controversial, it wouldn't be in aspartame controversy. I'm certain the lead needs some major rearranging. I think it is fair to say that the aspartame controversy was FIRST about claims that the route to FDA approval was irregular, and that there were some unanswered questions about the Searle studies, SECOND about the contents of the Betty Martini letter and its Nancy Markle offspring (with references to Roberts and ???), and THIRD about the recent Ramazzini studies and rebuttles.

I may be pruning branches while the orchard is burning, and there may be some questions about undue weight, but if we aren't going to delete the entire sentence, "in rats" should go. It misrepresents the position of a minority party in the controversy. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is too much reliance on primary sources. We should avoid synthesizing journal articles into a thesis that nobody has made in a reliable secondary source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom, You're right. I prefer primary sources. But even I know that's not always best. Newspapers, "Sweet Poison", snopes(?)

Now, to attend to the forest instead of the branchlets on the trees. I'm not bold enough to replace the lead without discussion, so here's a go at it, in my own namespace: draft of new lead section --SV Resolution(Talk) 21:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit by Orangemarlin, which in my opinion can only be explained with bad faith, absent-mindedness or lack of reading comprehension after this clear explanation of the problem by SV Resolution. Sorry for the language. I have no opinion about this controversy, the quality of the study, or whether it should be included here. But misrepresenting sources is never acceptable and I remind everybody here (just in case others on either side are similarly negligent, this article being new on my watchlist) to show some diligence not to do it. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tom's removal of the contentious material from the lead, allowing the article to present the much-criticised study in proper context in a later section. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

methanol to formaldehyde...or formate?

There seems to be some confusion about whether methanol metabolism proceeds as methanol-formaldehyde-formic acid or MeOH-formate-formaldehyde. The former is correct. See this overview for a simple description. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic Ramazzini section

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

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

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

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

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

The Ramazzini study had a very high statistical power due to its large population of rats (much larger than previous studies), and the Ramazzini foundation is notable and experienced in carcinogenic studies according to the NYTimes [7]:

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

You also questionably removed a secondary source from EHP which stated that Ramazzini had a better than standard methodology; no reason for that removal is stated here. Given the letter noted in Science supporting Soffriti's research as well [8], there's no basis for saying that Soffriti's work is largely dismissed by scientists. Sorry, restoring until you can provide better reasons. Removing the large Ramazzini study but then keeping a survey of consumption based on very short-term consumption (1995-1996) and a relationship to cancer is, again, highly questionable -- cancer occurs over long-term exposures. Additionally, you're introducing original research. We can't editorialize that the EFSA used the reasons highlighted by Magnuson, since no sources make that connection. You've also introduced original research by saying that "a small number of scientists" think there's a connection to mental functioning, which isn't in any sources, although I don't have as much of an issue with that. II | (t - c) 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

"rats aren't people"... That's a good one. I know you haven't made it up yourself because I recognize it from industry propaganda, but according to you we can ban all rat studies and ignore all results, negative or positive, in all scientific research. Scientists use rats because they are very similar to people. I even recognize a few on this page. The cancer study was a poll conducted with people between ages 50 to 69 during 5 years, where they examined only 2 types of cancer with aspartame intake. The details of the results were not published. Dr. Soffriti replied with his expertise that addressed the shortcomings of this poll, despite the large number of participants. But this was removed from the article. Also Adrienne Samuels replied with a letter to the editor about its flaws. To name one: "Estimates of aspartame consumption were based on reports of beverage consumption. Chewing gum, pharmaceuticals, and foods listed by the Aspartame Information Center as containing aspartame were not considered for either supposed aspartame users or non-aspartame users." After all the other severe flaws Samuels stated, the letter ends with: To claim that their findings "are in direct contradiction with [the work of Soffritti et al.]..." is deceptive and misleading.

If any other large independent research of Ramazzini's magnitude doesn't show tumors in rats, it can replace it. Until then it has to stay. Keepcalmandcarryon, read the history, I hadn't removed any of your edits, but I disagree with all of them. George Orwell would be rolling in his grave if he could see how you use Doublespeak and manipulate language to propagandize the safety of aspartame. Immortale (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I haven't been very active on this page - Immortale, is this the tone you typically adopt here? Do you think it's served you well thus far?

I didn't propose "banning all rat studies" or ignoring their results. I simply suggested that results in humans are more relevant than results in rats. I'm quite familiar with the advantages and limitations of animal models in research. Biological effects in rat models do not always translate into biological effects in humans. If you're faced with a study saying X happens in rats, then it makes sense to test X in humans. But it doesn't make sense to belabor the rat results and marginalize the human results when they don't agree - that's back-asswards at best, and blatant WP:ADVOCACY at worst.

This sort of reminds me of the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis article. Despite numerous large clinical studies showing that abortion does not cause breast cancer, an editor continually insists on prominently featuring and describing the rat study from 1980 which gave rise to the hypothesis. I doubt this is the first time someone's mentioned this, but Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy. If you honestly feel the need to label anyone favoring human studies over rat studies an "industry propagandist", then consider whether Wikipedia is the best venue for what you hope to accomplish. MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If you think that a 2-year survey of aspartame consumption is a reliable indicator for its carcinogenicity of long-term exposure, then I'm afraid I've overestimated your common sense. There's a reason that the 13 scientists who wrote the recent letter to the FDA (PMID 18085058) take the rat results much more seriously than the "human" study. It's not back-asswards. As James Huff (who's been working on cancer since 1980 at the NIH) notes in PMID 18085059, there haven't been any good human studies, and Ramazzini's study was state-of-the art. Huff has more discussion on using animal studies as an indicator for cancer in that paper. For example, he says "3) all known human carcinogens that have been tested adequately in animals are also carcinogenic in the animals,6,8 almost without exception sharing identical target sites6,13; and 4) nearly a third of human carcinogens were first discovered in animals". II | (t - c) 00:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think this misrepresents my position. I get it: 13 scientists, including James Huff, whose expertise I respect, have concerns about the safety of aspartame. That is notable and belongs in the article. A well-conducted rat study by the Ramazzini Foundation suggested carcinogenic potential - that's notable and belongs in the article. What I object to is prioritizing the rat study over the human studies which have shown no additional risk.

I get it - James Huff doesn't think the human studies were adequate. Perhaps his view should be noted, but to give ten paragraphs to a rat study (even a state-of-the-art rat study), and a few throwaway sentences to large human studies is undue weight, and more basically, it doesn't make sense. I can tell you that in my own field, if I went on at length about elegant rodent studies and minimized the human trials because of their methodologic shortcomings, you'd get a very misleading impression of what we can accomplish.

A minor quibble - you cite Huff to lecture me that "all known human carcinogens that have been tested adequately in animals are also carcinogenic in the animals." Leaving aside the word "adequately", parse that sentence carefully. It does not say that all known animal carcinogens are carcinogenic in humans. That's a subtle but rather relevant distinction. MastCell ^Talk 22:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rats != humans despite the "13 scientists" and James Huff's agenda-driven points. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. James Huff (who has spent his entire career studying cancer risks on a researchers' salary), as well all the other NIH and university scientists on that letter, have an "agenda" while the heavily-weighted Magnuson study, financed by Ajinomoto and led by a woman who works for Cantox Internaional, a company which helps clients "facilitate timely regulatory global approval"[9], has no agenda worth mentioning. Coke has even flown Magnuson around to promote aspartame [10]. And yet those who point to special interest lobby are "fringe" and "agenda-driven". I wonder how I could see life through your perspective. This kinda reminds me of those "fringe" Chicken Littles on the economic crisis (Roubini, Krugman, Shiller). II | (t - c) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that James Huff has any "agenda" beyond advocating what he sees as good science. And I do tend to be suspicious of industry-sponsored research. It's probably best not to go down this road, at least not outside the realm of sourced material on agendas and biases that would be appropriate for the article. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Magnuson et al. was published in a manner that at showed some deference to concerns of industry bias: The new review was sponsored by aspartame supplier Ajinomoto. However Informa Healthcare took precautions to avoid allegations of underhand influence. It says the panellists were unware who was footing the bill throughout the review process, and up until submission and peer review of the manuscript. Likewise, the sponsor as not made aware of the panelists' identities. "There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors," said Informa. This obviously won't convince many people, but for those (like me) who have generalized concerns regarding industry-funded research, it is a step in the right direction. — Scientizzle 01:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see Keepcalmandcarryon making 19 edits and deletions in 1 and a half hour, some of them within one minute, while some editors here worked on it for weeks. Equally interesting, is that all serious edits and deletions were done in parts that were critical towards aspartame. And then you wonder why less and less people take Wikipedia serious these days. MastCell, I rather see good scientific research on rats than a flawed poll on humans. And don't forget the 7 monkeys in the Olney study, presented by Searle, where 2 died and 5 received grand malseizures. Immortale (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, mouse studies tend to be more "elegant" and methodologically impressive than human studies. That's because you can put a rat in a cage, feed it exactly what you want, and then sacrifice it for necropsy. Most humans aren't quite as pliable, so human studies will always look "flawed" from that perspective. Still, it would be a great mistake to dismiss "flawed" human studies in favor of "good" rat studies. The reason is that not all biological effects in a rodent model translate into biological effects in humans.

I see we've gone from a few hundred rats to 7 monkeys. All I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe, we should give as much space to studies involving 12,000 or 460,000 humans. Does that make me an industry propagandist? MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Immortale, I visited this article after a query was placed on the reliable sources noticeboard about a source being used here. The manner in which the query was worded raised some flags for me. After looking through the article, I felt that a strong emphasis was being placed on selectively interpreted primary sources. In the case of some of the sources I ended up removing, the claims being made did not square at all with the contents of those sources. If you perceive my edits, which have mainly insisted on reliable sources and proper weight, as being slanted, perhaps this perception is instructive of your own point of view. My own opinions on aspartame are largely restricted to my intense dislike of its taste. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Mastcell, the Cancer study is flawed not because "Most humans aren't quite as pliable" but to use the letter by Adrienne Samuels about this study:

Aspartame Consumption and Incidence of Hematopoietic and Brain Cancers Adrienne Samuels <snip> Then it doesn't matter if there were 12 000 or 12 million people involved. It doesn't prove anything. Immortale (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is kinda what I'm talking about with regard to undue weight and WP:ADVOCACY. You cite a critical letter to the editor. Did you look at the authors' response to the criticisms? It was published on the immediately following page. The authors performed a number of the analyses that Samuels demanded, none of which showed evidence of harm from aspartame. It seems a bit one-sided to produce a letter-to-the-editor to show that the study "doesn't prove anything", without mentioning that the authors addressed many of the criticisms on the very next page of the journal. MastCell ^Talk 00:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Adrienne Samuels is hardly some impartial researcher working in the field...her doctorate is in experimental psychology, and her entire PubMed body of work appear to be various letters-to-the-editor--like the one above--that support her general activity as an anti-MSG activist. This doesn't make her wrong, of course. However, it does temper any suggestion that her opinions are of sufficient note to warrant coverage in this article. — Scientizzle 01:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your responses MC, but really, the authors are still way of line speculating that their study is "in direct contradiction with Soffriti's". The argument isn't whether consuming aspartame for a few years, even in large amounts, substantially increases the risk of cancer. The authors cite some evidence for consistent dietary patterns, but considering that the consumption of aspartame-sweetened soft drinks has exploded in recent years, it's not really convincing. Consumption of aspartame would likely increase with age as diabetes and weight become more of a problem. When aspartame was approved in 1981 (not for use in soft drinks), these people were at least 22. Anyway, I'm surprised that you're so impressed by the study, which is pretty disappointing science. II | (t - c) 01:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not in direct contradiction to Soffriti's. It's entirely possible that both are correct - that aspartame as administered by Soffriti et al to rats causes cancer, while aspartame as consumed by the respondents to the survey does not. It's possible that the study doesn't reflect current consumption patterns. On the other hand, these appear to be the best available human data. Better and more recent data would be nice, but Wikipedia isn't the place to demand it, really. We're kinda stuck with what's available here. MastCell ^Talk 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the section should be deleted. It really is too long per WP:WEIGHT. Frankly, all of the studies can be summed up in a couple of paragraphs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

At the acceptable risk of being thought to mimic MastCell, it is possible that both studies are correct. A major difference between the two for WP purposes is not, as II seems to assume, whether I or MastCell or Immortale agree or disagree with the results or the conclusions of one or the other, but rather the demonstrable fact that multiple national agencies and numerous individual scientists have published studies and statements rebutting the Ramazzini study. Yes, the NCI study has its drawbacks, as MastCell and II have shown. But it has not been the subject of a similar level of worldwide criticism by experts. On WP, the conclusions of scientists forming a national regulatory body are to be given more weight than the conclusions of a single laboratory. And all the more so when multiple such agencies come to the same conclusions.

Of course, we can synthesise the conclusion that all of these national bodies, along with many individual scientists, have been subverted[11] by industry bribes or threats. Without reliable sources to support this claim, though, it has no place on WP.

The weight problems in this article and the ongoing debate demonstrate why we, as editors, are discouraged from evaluating primary research studies on our own when writing the encyclopaedia. Let's make a renewed effort to follow WP:RS, and specifically its suggestions on primary and secondary sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon uses as argument "the conclusions of a single laboratory", but he deleted a couple of references I added to articles more recent than the Science article, with the reason "Don't need these; the additional references are those covered by the Science news item, which is more easily accessed and fairly reliable". That article was published in July 2007, one month before the publishing of the second study by Ramazzini Institute (August 2007). The online unavailability of the articles i cited there (Aspartame and Incidence of Brain Malignancies in Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Davis et al. 17 (5): 1295 and James Huff, Joseph Ladou. (2007). Aspartame Bioassay Findings Portend Human Cancer Hazards. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 13(4), 446-8. Retrieved February 25, 2009, from ProQuest Medical Library database. (Document ID: 1386523321)) can't be a reason to ignore those: they're available to the scientific community. The Calcutta University study i cited down here, in a specific section, confirms the risks, so I believe that the situation is changed. The national regulatory bodies should have more weight in the discussion if they only made some comments about these studies, but i can't find a single comment from them since July 2007. (Karloff (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Activists?

In the section "Approval in the United States" it says: "Soon after the approval, scientist and anti-MSG activist John Olney and James Turner, a public-interest lawyer who had written a popular anti-food additive book". I suggest we label the scientists who have made pro statements as "pro aspartame activists". Labeling a scientist as an activist is POV because I'm sure it's not mentioned on his job description. That Turner wrote the book "A Chemical Feast", a critical evaluation of certain food additives, and then calling it an anti-food additive book is also a POV statement. If I would start calling those who wrote pro aspartame articles as "pro food additive articles" then no one would hesitate to remove such edits. And I'm sure it would be tagged as POV. There are many more double standards in the article, but this is what I just spotted. Immortale (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment is highly spun and not a true representation of the facts. Scientists with a clear bias should be labelled as it is relevant information, scientists who have campaigned or opined on related topics outside of their research should be so labelled. Labelling scientists who have simply conducted research and published their findings as pro or anti is not fine. The difference is "scientist and activist" and "scientist". Verbal chat 11:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

How are people with 'activist' tendencies appropriately labeled? Based on the nature of their talks? Based on their extroverted personality types? Are they just speaking about their results too much, and not helping others replicate their experimental results? Do they use ad-hominem attacks? After all, stastitics have shown that 20% of activists were actually justified in their activism, because they were right after all :-) Foodfan (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, when you write: "Scientists with a clear bias should be labelled as it is relevant information, scientists who have campaigned or opined on related topics outside of their research should be so labelled." So when B. A. Magnuson gets big bucks from Ajinomoto to compile a review of an amount of studies, then go on a world-wide tour paid by Coca-Cola, to promote the safety of aspartame, she is not considered bias? Either you apply your rules on all scientists, or none at all. Immortale (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Olney and Turner are both activists in addition to being, respectively, a scientist and a lawyer. This isn't an attack on either, merely a relevant fact. When a scientist campaigns against a particular food additive in the popular press and by lobbying the government as a private citizen, he has become an activist. It's not uncommon in science, nor unwelcome, for scientists to feel so strongly about their research findings--or their interpretation of their research findings--that they become active outside the normal bounds of scientific discourse. This is quite clearly the case for Olney, as demonstrated by the sources in the article. On the other hand, your accusation against Magnusson is one of impropriety: namely, that Magnusson accepted bribes to come to a pre-determined conclusion, subverting scientific ethics. Without reliable sources for this defamatory comment, you are venturing onto thin ice, in terms of both WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about bribes, I'm talking about a fat salary that Ajinomoto paid consultant Bernadene Magnuson with The Burdock Group (Burdock's slogan: "To find out more about how we can help bring your product to market quickly and effectively, contact Burdock Group today for a complimentary consultation." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy/Archive_1#Industrial%20sponsored%20research). These are not well-kept secrets, and sourced in respected peer-reviewed journals and we have discussed this before to include its sponsor in the article. That her publicity tour was paid by Coca-Cola was no secret either. She even admitted it while being on New Zealand television: http://tvnz.co.nz/view/video_popup_windows_skin/2096071 Immortale (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Keepcalmandcarryon. Your continued smear, without any evidence, is not helping your case and is pushing the limits you have already been made aware (warned) of. Verbal chat 19:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who reads here? I cited hard evidence. But your association with "smear" indicates that you disapprove of such tactics as Magnuson has exercised. And I take your warnings with a grain of salt, coming from someone who has cited references with opposite conclusions. Immortale (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"The authors received payment from the Burdock Group during the preparation of an expert review of the safety of aspartame. The Burdock Group managed the independent review, which was financially supported by Ajinomoto Company Inc., a producer of aspartame." (from Magnuson & Williams' Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven in Environ Health Perspect. 2008 June; 116(6): A239–A240) (Karloff (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Aspartame and consumer associations

My last edit has been reverted because of a non-neutral-view reason. I just added references to the fact that FDA has not yet considered the last Ramazzini study, nor the European Authority has done it officially in Internet available notices. Another information I added is that not only "internet conspiracy theories", but also some consumer associations (i omitted the italian ones, like http://www.inran.it/, as cited in one of the main italian consumer magazines, "il Salvagente", 21-28 june 2007) did published warnings about aspartame. These are facts, and i cited sources about it, that's not my point of view, but the official position of noted organizations. I don't think wikipedia should argue about their specific "political" point of view, but just provide facts from "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (NPOV). I also tried to correct the confusion about the discussion of the articles published by Ramazzini, because the section is referred (with so much detail!) only to the reactions to the first study, and nothing there is related to the second study. (Karloff (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Hi, i just tried to explain the reasons of my edit to the Ramazzini section in the Aspartame controversy page. I think that what's happening now in the dispute about aspartame should be actualized, considering both the reactions of the market to the study and the reaction of Consumer Organizations, not only the scientific reviews, leaving to the reader the decision about being favorable or not.

That is what is in discussion now on some important newspapers about aspartame, and i cited the relative references.

Moreover, the last available study on aspartame make some claims, and it has been published in september 2007. From a scientific perspective i think the whole section has a non neutral POV: the claims reported are a mix of considerations about the first and the second study, and only one of the cited articles has been published after the publishing of the second study: that one has been answered by Soffritti in the cited reference(not shown in the html version of the article, but in the pdf version), and clearly states that the authors (Magnusson & Williams) received financial support by an aspartame producer. (Karloff (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Moved from my talk page--I do not discuss articles on my user talk page. Moreover, I have no clue what you're saying. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it mean I can undo the deletion? I'm just trying to understand why my edits were considered not neutral.(Karloff (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

Dear Orangemarlin, here we are asking in detail the reason for such edit. As simple as that. Can we undo the rollback? If not why? --Biopresto (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The Science news item is a prominent secondary source for the statement that some individuals supported the study's conclusions. It is easily accessible. It mentions the letter to the FDA by Huff and others. I simply don't see the justification (see WP:WEIGHT) for adding additional sources to this statement, especially when they are less reliable, obscure primary sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about a study published in August 2007 and the reactions to it, you're talking about an article published in july 2007. How is it possible, in your opinion, to consider it a collection of conclusions about that article? Why remove the information about the warnings officially published by a consumer association instead of discussing here about the deletion? I can't understand why an Encyclopedia should remove informations about the only public information published after some magic date, stating that somewhere in a cited source in some note everyone can find the hidden information (NPOV:Space and balance:Information suppression) (Karloff (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

The Ramazzini group published two papers on their first study in 2006. They published a paper on a second study in 2007. This paper was published online in June of 2007, then in print in September of 2007. The Science news item about James Huff and other scientists who expressed concern based upon the Ramazzini studies was published in August of 2007. This follows the on-line publication about the second study. In addition, specialists are often aware of the conclusions of upcoming publications before they are published (as a result of personal communication, conference attendance, etc.). There's no date contradiction here.

When we have a reliable source for information, there's no need to add additional, less reliable, lower-impact, less easily-accessible sources unless we have a good reason for doing so. In this case, I don't see what that reason would be, other than perhaps to advance a viewpoint beyond the weight it commands in the literature. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it was my fault, i didn't double check the dates (and contents). What to do about the unanswered claims of consumer associations and their advices? What's puzzling me then is why to list the Magnuson and William's letter reasons and not the answers given by Soffritti et al. 2008 or the letter by Davis et al. 2008. These are my two unanswered questions now. (Karloff (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Again, WP:WEIGHT. Yes, there are people who think aspartame is a genocidal conspiracy. Yes, there are some scientists who feel it may pose a health risk. So far, the balance of the scientific evidence does not seem to support these concerns, so the article should not be a repository of all references (letters and articles in journals, consumer websites, etc.) that oppose aspartame. We should cover the controversy, give some representative references and avoid giving undue weight to the minority position. It appears to me the article does this. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethanol as antidote for methanol

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

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

In the sweet misery movie, it also claims that methanol in food/beverage is bound to pectins that prevent absorption - it isn't just ethanol having a protective effect. As for the claim that the alcohol is metabolized by the body in under a minute, any drinker should question that assertion. It should also be pointed out that Searle is comparing 200mg/kg of Aspartame, an amount much higher than the ADI, to 500ml of orange juice that would contain only a small amount of methanol and ethanol. It is also an apples to oranges comparison as the original claim was that ethanol in natural beverages counteracted the methanol naturally occurring in those beverages - not aspartame, in any quantity, let alone the draconian quantities used. There would be about 0.4mg of methanol and 190mg ethanol in 500ml of fresh orange juice [12], though after prolonged storage it could be 31mg methanol and 242mg ethanol. Ethanol, like most substances, is eliminated (Blood alcohol content) from the bloodstream more or less in proportion to its concentration but elimination saturates at about 10g/hour (30g/hour for drinkers with high tolerance). At low levels, below saturation, one should think in terms of half lives in the body.

200mg/kg of Aspartame in a 70kg person is 14000mg of aspartame or about 1400mg of methanol from aspartame (at 10%) - an amount that in juice would be counteracted by (at 8:1 ratio) by 11200mg of ethanol, not the mere 242mg or less contained in a pint of orange juice. They are comparing the toxin level equivalent to 46 pints of old orange juice or 3500 pints of fresh OJ to the protective level found in only one pint, even if we ignore the slight of hand of substituting aspartame for methanol when attempting to refute an argument about naturally occurring methanol. Or, to put it another way, they are comparing the toxic effect of 78 cans of diet soda (or 3500 pints of fresh OJ) to the protective effect of one pint of OJ. Searle could also have further manipulated the outcome in their favor by the choice of fresh/old orange juice and the use of heavy drinkers. And ultimately they are comparing an 8:1 to 475:1 ethanol:methanol (naturally occuring) ratio vs a 1:5.7 to 1:7.3 ratio of ethanol:methanol (from aspartame). Thus, their comparison is based on ratios that differ from natural conditions by a factor of 45 to 3467 - i.e. 1.6 to 3.5 orders of magnitude. The protective effect is highly dependent on the ratios. In addition to ethanol and pectins, orange juice would also contain vitamin C and other antioxidants. Methanol has a half life of around 2-3 hours without ethanol andand more than an order of magnitude greater with high concentrations of ethanol [13]. Since the high relative concentrations of ethanol would take many ethanol half lives to reduce to the point where it ceases to be protective, the longer protection time afforded by realistic concentrations of ethanol will reduce the rate at which methanol is converted to formaldehyde and one would expect the effective instantaneous dose of formaldehyde would be lower. "There is typically a delay of the toxic symptoms [of methanol] anywhere from six-30 hours and longer if ethanol has been co-ingested." (ibid). Indeed, ethanol is one of the primary medical treatments for methanol poisoning (also combined with dialysis). Whitis (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

University of Calcutta

Anyone has access to the full text of Genotoxicity testing of low-calorie sweeteners: aspartame, acesulfame-K, and saccharin, Bandyopadhyay A, Ghoshal S, Mukherjee A. Drug Chem Toxicol. 2008;31(4):447-57? In the abstract they affirm a potential health risk. (Karloff (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

See WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It says "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." The NPOV adds: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Maybe in your opinion the review Drug Chem Toxicol. is not a reliable source (see [14])? Reliable doesn't mean accessible online by everyone, isn't it? Anyone has access to the printed version of that article or to the online versione to write here, in the discussion page, and maybe in the aspartame controversy page, a resume of it? (Karloff (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Are you asking for a copy of the article? It's copyrighted, and available by subscription only. Are you proposing that it be used as a source for some claim? If so, what? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I just asked for a resume, not for the article. I've just found new information and i would like some informed people could add something instead of adding it myself. It seems there are some experts in toxicology here, so i asked for a contribution. Is it strange? The article abstract is a reliable source or not? Has it been added to the aspartame article before? Do you think we should wait for a secondary source before writing anything in wikipedia? (Karloff (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

All significant views do not include fringe views. If 10,000 articles say aspartame is safe, and one implies something different (and in a non-human model), then we're not going to discuss it. If you can find several researchers across the world, all repeating the same results, then we can have that discussion. Right now, this is a fringe theory. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for a secondary source is preferable to interpreting primary findings, particularly when one doesn't have access to the primary findings. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, keep on deleting every primary source, following the WP:WEIGHT. My citation of an EPA revised study has been totally deleted by Keepcalmandcarryon (because the use of the term "confuted" 'was a bit strong' for an article proving that the claim of FDA and Magnuson was not based on scientific data) in the same line citing the last Magnuson article "Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven". That is not a revised article, just a letter, and it has received no citations in scientific revised studies. It's just the opinion of a scientist in COI. Peer-reviewed articles ARE NOT PRIMARY SOURCES! So please stop deleting important sources showing what's really thinking the scientific community! Is it really impossible to discuss such facts here? Hiding sources means ignoring what are the Wikipedia policies:
- "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses" [WP:SOURCES]
- i can't understand why Orangemarlin is talking about fringe theories, but "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." [WP:FRINGE]
- "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles". In the list following "Reviews of the Ramazzini claims found numerous problems with the study" to ignore such an important study as that made by EPA (there are others, check google scholar) is a clear attack to its scientific reliability WP:SOURCES
- to increase NPOV of this page, "Wikipedia articles should cover all major and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources." WP:RELIABLE
- "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." WP:RELIABLE
all these policies are ihmo for inclusion of J. C. Caldwell, J. Jinot, D. DeVoney, J. S. Gift, [Evaluation of evidence for infection as a mode of action for induction of rat lymphoma], Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, Volume 49 Issue 2, Pages 155 - 164, Published Online: 19 Dec 2007, and for the removal of Magnuson 2008 (Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven) (Karloff (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

Again. WP:WEIGHT. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I support Orangemarlin's trimming of the Ramazzini section, which was clearly getting out of proportion and becoming a POV coatrack.

On "Peer-reviewed articles ARE NOT PRIMARY SOURCES! So please stop deleting important sources showing what's really thinking the scientific community! Is it really impossible to discuss such facts here?": Peer-reviewed articles are indeed primary sources unless they are reviews, i.e. secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a debating society; that's what the primary literature is for. The Ramazzini studies became notable via coverage in secondary sources; response from the mainstream scientific community is warranted under WEIGHT; further back-and-forth using very low-impact journals is not. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

GAO87 - recommended reading - Other sources?

I would like to ask editors working this page to read GAO,‘HRD-87-46 It is available here : http://archive.gao.gov/d28t5/133460.pdf I plan to add information from that document and from the hearings and testimony surrounding the failed 'The Aspartame Safety Act of 1985' as proposed by Howard Morton Metzenbaum. I have thus far not been able to find the transcripts or text of that Act and any help would be greatly appreciated.

I would also like to ask everyone involved to stay calm and avoid making hasty deletions without discussion on this page, thank you.Unomi (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Government hearings are not reliable sources per WP:MEDRS. A simple mention of the hearings is sufficient. The last thing I want is politicians deciding medical and scientific conclusions. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is pretty much exactly what has happened, the original experiments that were submitted in 1973/4 were found to be 'deficient' which led to the original marketing ban. The taskforce and UAREP reviewed the experiments and found them to be problematic to the degree where the task force questioned Searles ability to conduct research into the safety of their products. The FDA taskforce and the UAREP were charged with 'authenticating' the experiments, which in this context simply means that the data that searle had on file matched the data that they submitted to the FDA in the first place. From the GAO87: (the 1975 taskforce found) serious deficiencies in Searle’ operations and practices which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’ integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine or characterize the toxic potential of its products.” and They(the 1975 taskforce) believed the FDA should conclude whether the results from a study could be used in evaluating a product’ toxic potential. So basically in spite of these discrepancies : The PBOI used its authority to refuse Mr. Turner’ request for a retrospective quality review of Searle’ studies because it believed CFSAN and UAREP had already resolved those questions. How had they 'resolved' those issues? From the GAO87: In carrying out its review of the aspartame studies, UAREP noted that when the Searle studies were performed (1970’ few standards for laboratory work were required. Therefore, UAREP stated it reviewed the studies using methods and interpretation common to research laboratories around 1970. I don't know if that included rolling up and dropping acid or not but it certainly does not inspire the greatest of confidence. The GAO87 lists numerous discrepancies for EACH of the experiments and while it states that individually these discrepancies did not result in statistically significant differences.. yet from the GAO87: Hazleton Laboratory performed the Multigeneration Rat Study reviewed by UAREP. UAREP noted “the consumption of aspartame was from 25 to 38 percent lower than planned at certain stages of the study.” However UAREP found “fewer discrepancies or problems in this study than in most of the other studies [it] reviewed.

Based on the above outlined 'authentication' and apparently the 'persuasive Japanese Brain study' Commissioner Hayes overruled the PBOI and allowed Aspartame in solid foods.

GAO87 states: However, GAO did not evaluate the interpretation of the scientific issues raised or the adequacy of FDA'S resolution of issues on the studies used for aspartame’ approval, nor did it determine aspartame’ safety

Also: According to the department lawyer on the panel, the Commissioner could not use the Japanese study as support for aspartame’ approval. In his decision, the Commissioner stated he had sufficient evidence to make a final decision and the Japanese study merely provided addi- tional support for his conclusion

Basically what all this points to is that Aspartames access to the market is based on the acceptance of flaws found in 15 studies initially submitted to the FDA in 1974. This is truly mind boggling, and looks to be a matter of public record. I am looking for the transcripts of Metzenbaum et al for more sources, I would also be very interested in finding out exactly what happened to the proposed bill. Unomi (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Finding out" on your own, even if you use government documents to do so, is difficult to do successfully without overstepping some basic Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:OR. In controversial articles such as this one, it's always best to edit using independent coverage of the events in secondary sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved

Does anyone have a near exhaustive list of these tests?
Does anyone know why the PBOI was 'compelled' to base its judgment on no more than 3 studies regarding oncogenicity?
Does anyone have a link to the Japanese brain study which apparently is so persuasive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs) 08:35, 8 March 2009
Unomi (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why the pro-aspartame people use the statement "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" in their defense. You know what the most thoroughly tested additive is (non-food though)? Nicotine. And if you didn't know it, that's not safe either. Immortale (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that the talk page is not to be used as a discussion forum. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't make me report you, Keepcalm, the sentence "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved" is in the lead of the article and I and Unomi question its validation. Don't come to my talk page lecturing me about not using wikipedia for discussions. This is a valid issue for the article. Immortale (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is attributed to a WP:RS. Stop being disruptive. Verbal chat 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Immortale, nicotine has nothing to do with this article, although you are certainly welcome to report me for anything you like, even a heinous 1RR violation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest edits by keepcalm

this is rather uncalled for.
Line 8 : serious deficiencies in Searle’ operations and practices which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’ integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine or characterize the toxic potential of its products.” That is a DIRECT quote from the FDA 1975 Task Force. You can find it on page 83 of GAO87
Significantly Three of the five panel members reviewing the brain tumor issue did not believe Searle’s studies conclusively showed aspartame did not cause brain tumors. This is stated directly in GAO87, it is notable and important in terms of underscoring the controversy.

Of 67 scientists who responded to a 1987 questionnaire by the US GAO, all but twelve were "generally" or "very confident" in the safety of aspartame. 26 said they were "somewhat concerned" and twelve had "major concerns" about aspartame's safety.
VS
In 1987 a questionnaire was sent to 96 researchers by the US GAO, of the 67 respondents 43 claimed to be involved in Aspartame research and 26 claimed no aspartame research experience. Of the 43 researchers that had Aspartame experience 9 had 'Major concerns; little if any confidence in aspartame's safety', 12 were 'Somewhat concerned' and 20 'Few if any concerns' 2 did not respond to the question. Of the 26 with no claims of Aspartame research 3 had 'Major Concerns', 12 'Somewhat concerned' and 9 'Few, if any concerns'. Of the 67 respondents 32 indicated that further action should be taken, this ranged from 'require additional warnings or quantity labels' (22 respondents, 15 of which claimed Aspartame research experience), to 'Withdraw the approval for use of Aspartame in any food product(10 respondents, 7 of which claimed Aspartame research experience).
Which one would you say conveys the most meaningful information? Please note that the 'middle case' reads 'I am somewhat concerned about the safety of Aspertame; I am generally confident in the safety of Aspertame' which kind of makes me glad that the GAO doesn't consider itself scientifically competent. The washington post article is not generally accessible, the GAO87 is and it would seem that WP gathers the information, it is used to source here, from the GAO87. I will endeavor to recreate the tables from the GAO87 for this article in the future, leave the detailed questionnaire summary in the interim.

NutraPoison and Sweet Misery are relevant in terms of highlighting the controversy, please note that they are not used as sources, they are not 'endorsed' simply topic relevant links.

I am going to undo your deletes, please discuss here before deleting in the future. Thank you.

If anything it goes the other way: don't make additions (especially slanted ones) without discussion. The burden is on the one who adds the material to justify it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have justified it, please read the section you just posted to. If you take objection to my justification, discuss it here. What makes you say it is 'slanted'?

There is nothing 'slanted' about it, it reflects the information in the GAO much closer than what you have reverted to. Both lines that you seem to take objection to are DIRECT QUOTES FROM GAO87. The rewriting of the section regarding the questionnaires is much more accurate than it was before.

Again, if you choose to delete my edits please leave cogent explanations. Thank you.

Advice regarding original research was left above and, it would seem, ignored. Regarding the external links, please see WP:ELNO. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific in regards to what it is you consider Original Research. I added 2 direct quotes from GAO87 and I included detail from source regarding the questionnaire data. Where is the 'original research' ? Unomi (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the external links please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO#Links_to_be_considered #3 Again, the external links are not used as source, they are directly relevant to 'Aspartame Controversy'. Unomi (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR. As for your external links. Not worthy of discussion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I truly cannot see what it is about using direct quotations from GAO that makes you consider it Original Research. Please be specific. Also, 'not worthy of discussion' is mighty poor form. Obviously a documentary regarding 'Aspertame Controversy' is relevant to 'Aspertame Controversy'. Unomi (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CIVIL for good measure. Oh, and you're approaching tendentious editing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I am new here, please spell it out for me in plain English as you seem to have all those rules down pat. Thank you for your assistance and understanding. Are you telling me that GAO87 is NOR/NPOV/WEIGHT/MEDRS/FRINGE/VERIFY ? also I do not see how you can accuse me of bad faith and then try CIVIL on me. I am adding content, this is all from the GAO87, if you have not read it, this would be an excellent time to familiarize yourself with its contents Unomi (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The tendentious editing was a nice touch, please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive Unomi (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sniff. Sniff. Damn someone forgot to wash some socks out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Separate section for GAO87

I am considering creating a new section on GAO87 just after Approval in the US, is everyone ok with that? This would let the section on scientific studies come into its own and probably clean up the appearance of the article. Looking forwards to your response Unomi (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"...is everyone ok with that?" Hint...if you haven't gotten the message by now...you aren't getting support and just asking this question after the edit warring you have been involved with is a rather disruptive action. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not really sure what you mean, there was an issue with reverts and deletions which hopefully you will be able to address more fully, in order to reach a consensus on what we consider fit to include. What do you find problematic about including information from the GAO87? Please spell out your concerns. Do you believe the GAO87 is a faulty source? You really do need to answer this question, consensus is not about everyone 'liking' the content, it is about NPOV/NOR and what we consider valid sources. If you wish to have a say in this matter you *must* partake in the discussion. I am hoping that you will be open to reasoned discourse in this matter, sincerely Unomi (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

[First paragraph copied from my talk page.] You need to get that consensus before you do anything more about this. You should have been blocked by now, so you are very lucky that you've been treated far better than you deserve. Even if you were to get support elsewhere at Wikipedia (I see you have been forum shopping....a questionable and sanctionable practice here), you will still have to come to consensus with the editors who are editing that article. Even if you place what you think is a perfect edit in the article, it can and will likely get removed if the other editors don't support it. If you work in a collaborative manner with the other editors, and develop TOGETHER with them a version they find acceptable, then you can feel relatively certain that your hard work will be there tomorrow, and that THEY will defend it, because it is also their version. The edit warring has to stop. This is not the place to "right great wrongs". What you wish to add contributes nothing to the article. The source has already been used and summarized, and an article shouldn't depend too much on one source, especially an old and very outdated one like that. It's really only of historical interest, and the history of this controversy has already been covered pretty well.

The next step really isn't necessary, since I have answered your concerns with my last two sentences. If you insist on proceeding (which might be considered disruptive, but .....):

To proceed with the process of gaining a consensus, start a new section and place your proposed addition there. Then discuss that first version with other editors. If you all can come up with a revised version that is satisfactory to all, then you can proceed. Until then you're stuck here on the talk page. You see, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle only has one round. It isn't meant to be repeated. Repeating it can get you blocked pretty fast. You're already on borrowed time. You've been engaged in an edit war and need to stop it and discuss. Now's the time. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi and sorry

I am sorry for reverting multiple times. I know now that there is no justification to keep reverting. I am new and I believe that the material should be mentioned. Someone told me that I should ask the Fringe noticeboard on if this information can be added and how it could be added. I am going to post there and I would like others to participate in the discussion. Thanks Unomi (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The fringe board post is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Need_some_help_over_on__Aspartame_Controversy TIA Unomi (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference to research

• [15]

Has quite a few links. However, be sure to try to determine the reliability of the sources. (See also WP:MEDRS.)

In looking them over I was surprised that: Hustler did an article on this? (You're kidding.)

So a quick search later, and found several pages having the same text. The below being one such example.

• [16]

Enjoy : ) - jc37 09:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The story thus far - for jc37

Well, I hope I don't get banned for honoring your request as good as I can..
Basically I was bored, skimmed for large google vids and came across 'Sweet Misery', I decided to see what wikipedia had to offer on it and found it to be extremely thin.
I decided to read some of the sources and came across some oddities in terms of the 'interpretations' and 'selective information' that was published on the WP entry. So I decided to add some direct quotes, some of which were incongruous with the existing text, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aspartame_controversy&diff=275927280&oldid=275878804 . These were lifted verbatim from the GAO87, properly referenced with page numbers etc. So I could not understand why it was being reverted, I asked for clarifications but got merely NPOV without any justification as what it was they considered NPOV, I thought that they believed that I had made it up, so I asked them to refer to GAO87 and put the changes back in. I then tried to find help in resolving the issue as the reverting editors seemed to refuse direct communication, by this time I was in the unfortunate position of having exposed myself unwittingly to 3RR. I figured, ok, so I will stop editing that section and add other information that I felt was relevant to the article. I figured that this would probably eventually blow over and we would find consensus, so I devoted myself to creating the full tables for the questionnaire data as this would probably the least contentious way of delivering the information therein. This was not well received.
I took the advice to seek advice on fringe, an editor who had previously been involved stated on there that we were sorting it out. Here on the talk page he suggested(albeit with a caveat) that I create the section that I wanted to add so we could work out suitable content together. I found this positive and constructive and proceeded to do so as well as creating a meta section for further discussion, I figured that clearing the air would be a good start and tried to introduce myself and my position to my co-editors in an attempt to restore civility and rational discourse. That was not very well received either..
Anyway, that is my perception of the events that led up to this, hopefully other editors can add their perspective on this as well. Unomi (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sweet Misery - A Poisoned World

Can someone explain to me why http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-566922170441334340 is not suitable as a related link?

Because of WP:NPOV. In other words, it's cruft, not befitting an encyclpedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this an entry on "Aspartame controversy" ? as such shouldn't references and sources that pertain to that 'controversy' be admitted? No one is saying that everything in the documentary is true, merely that it exists and is relevant to the entry "Aspartame controversy". For you to say that it is 'cruft' smacks of original research. I am going to put the reference in the article as it *is* indeed relevant to "Aspartame controversy". 125.26.244.225 (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the link to a professional documentary that is about the ASPARTAME CONTROVERSY belongs in an article about the ASPARTAME CONTROVERSY. Besides that, the documentary contains interviews with a variety of people who are mentioned in the article. Very informative for anyone who wants to know more about the ASPARTAME CONTROVERSY. And the link is valid according to Wikipedia policy (meaning that every link to google video or youtube is judged per case) Immortale (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel comfortable calling it 'professional' just yet, but it is certainly notable and an artifact of the controversy surrounding aspartame. Unomi (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

request for comments regarding proposed minor restructuring and addition of information from GAO87

As per Fyslee's recommendation I am asking for discussion and co-editing of a proposed restructuring that would see GAO87 have its own section rather than being bundled rather haphazardly together with 'Scientific Studies'. I propose that the first paragraph of 'Scientific Studies' is merged into this proposed section, the sentence

“ Of 67 scientists who responded to a 1987 questionnaire by the US GAO,[1]:16,76-81 all but twelve were "generally" or "very confident" in the safety of aspartame. 26 said they were "somewhat concerned" and twelve had "major concerns" about aspartame's safety ”

is tortured English at best. Perhaps we can do something to reduce the size of the tables holding the questionnaire results.

I ask you to add content to the above section but to contain commentary and discussion to this section. I also wish to take this moment to make something clear, I take exception to being called an 'advocate'. If anything I am a consummate skeptic, my wish is merely that the information that is available in sources (such as GAO87) are represented correctly and with NPOV. I hope that we can all take a step back and try to avoid a 'Us vs Them' attitude. While it is true the first information that I have added could be construed as an effort to 'support' the claims of those that hold aspartame to be dangerous, bear in mind that I had little time to add anything else before getting embroiled in controversy of my own. In due time I hope to add to the body of evidence that holds aspartame harmless, but first the basic points of the controversy must be rendered clear.

This is my first experience with wikipedia and as such I had a touch of excitement regarding the whole thing, I hope it will continue to be exciting but hopefully less combative as we move forwards. I ask for your patience and support. I apologize in advance if this is taken to be soapboxing or whatever, I am here to stay and I might as well introduce myself properly (Hi).

GAO87 is, as far as I know, the most recent in-depth look at the history of FDA approval of aspartame. It has been signed off on by HHS, NutraSweet Co. and obviously the GAO. It contains a distillation of the findings of the 1975 task force, the UAREP, PBOI and 1980 FDA panel. There is to my mind very little reason to discount it. While it is true that it is used to source a fair few things, this only underscores its relative importance. Where possible we should (perhaps?) attribute them to the primary source whereas GAO87 acts as a secondary source.

Please bear in mind that this is an article on 'Aspertame Controversy', the onus is on us to debunk it, not bury it. Thanks again Unomi (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to be civil or nice to you any further, since you have pushed and pushed and pushed. First, the report is 20 years old. Second, it is not a reliable source. Third, hundreds of studies that are reliable supersede the report. Fourth, you are attempting to give undue weight to an unreliable, outdated, and unscientific report. Finally, we don't have to debunk anything--if it can't be supported by reliable sources, it does not exist. The controversy has been debunked, and you have provided NOTHING, absofuckinglutely NOTHING to counteract that. You are wasting our time, and you should stop. Once again, I insist that you read WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, etc. Finally, please read WP:NOTAFORUM. You are attempting to use this discussion as your personal soapbox. STOP. NOW. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering WP:WL is not allowed and because some people here seldom read the links that are refered to, it means:

1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy;

2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its principles;

3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express;

4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

This article has been a long effort by some biased editors who believe that Aspartame Controversy is fringe and don't allow anything that disprove that. Fact is that only when I brought in NEUTRAL editors, they would conclude these biased editors were wrong. But among themselves they act like a mob. Now, when I look at other wikipedia articles that contain some kind of controversy, for example the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlanding_hoax, there is far more space, arguments, sources accredited to the side that believes the hoax is true. In the aspartame article it's not allowed. The above mentioned Poll, even though 20 years old is completely valid, UNTIL you find a newer poll that is equally or more valid (meaning that at least 67 scientists who have worked with aspartame participated). I can already tell you that such a newer poll doesn't exist, so this poll is the only independent source that shows where the scientific community stands regarding aspartame. The majority of the studies done by the industry, if they are hundreds, are not reliable sources. Most studies didn't last more than 1 or 2 days. You cannot determine long-term effects by doing so. You can only turn up the numbers in statistics and claiming that yet another study shows aspartame is safe. Wikipedia visitors are smarter than that and they will look for more reliable articles outside Wikipedia. Immortale (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok. After adding the section below, I started scrolling up.

Hard to tell what the heck is going on. (And honestly not sure if I should wade into it...)

If willing, would someone be so kind as to neutrally summarise what's going on? - jc37 09:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This article, like many articles on fringe science or pseudoscience, has two regular groups of editors: one group deriving its edits from the broad medical literature, which defines the point of view of Wikipedia on such topics, and the other group advancing the fringe position, placing weight on minority studies by dismissing the wider findings as, in their opinion, flawed. Because this article is about the controversy, fringe positions that would not receive much if any coverage in the main article, Aspartame, should be described, but care must be taken not to lend too much weight to these positions and also to describe the "mainstream" (scientific) criticism of them. The result of the tension between science and pseudoscience is often an uneasy detente.

Occasionally, a new editor with a passion for the topic arrives, displaying an uncanny familiarity with Wikipedia and a propensity for tendentious editing, such as rewriting large portions of the article with a decided slant, adding external links in contravention of WP:ELNO, filling the talk page with homemade tables of data from original research, edit warring over reversions, requesting comment before familiarising him/herself with Wikipedia guidelines, reporting single edits by others to the 3RR noticeboard, etc. That seems to be what is going on. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I did not approach this article as a 'fringe science or pseudoscience' article, simply as as an article, I think alot of this tension would be resolved if parties involved took a NPOV in this regard. It is very hard to disregard the well documented and widely reported fact that aspertame has been the center of controversy, the desire to exclude well sourced information regarding this is worrying.

It is a gross misrepresentation to say that 3 direct quotes and a 'copy' of tables constitutes either orginal research or 'rewriting large portions'. Unomi (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT - In an effort to ascertain the WP:RS of GAO87 I have opened a section over on WP:RSN. I have also opened a section trying to find out the applicability of WP:OR over on WP:ORN. I ask editors involved to read and understand WP:DRNC, WP:NINJA, Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive, information suppression and WP:CIVIL. So far the unsurprising response has been that GAO87 is WP:RS. I also wish to impress upon the editors that the rules of wikipedia apply, no matter if it is 'fringe' or not. Feel free to assist in the constitution of the GAO87 section. Unomi (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The General Accounting Office report is absolutely a WP:RS, and no one has disputed its RS status. It is also a primary source, over twenty years old, and should not, as you propose, have its own section in the article per WP:WEIGHT. Further, your data mining of the report is original research. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The GAO87 is indeed 22 years old, an oft cited reference in this article and in the aspartame article, are you suggesting that we should strike it as a reference? I wager not. It is also only a primary source, in this sense, for the questionnaire data, the rest of the report acts as a secondary source regarding the process with which aspartame was approved. The information regarding the questionnaire data is already represented in the article but in such torturous English that it borders on WP:PN clearly this needs to be presented in a way that is more clear and correct. I think your opinion that it should not have its own section is premature. It is clearly an important document in the history of aspertame. It also very elegantly is able to summarize 'the story thus far' from the POV of 1987 GAO.

I fail to see what it is that you consider 'data mining', are you talking about my attempts to improve the article by providing the direct quote from the FDA Task Force's regarding their opinion of the quality of Searles' studies?

Or the simple statement of fact that 3 out 5 panelists did not feel that Searle had proven that aspertame did not cause cancer?

I would wager that the direct reproduction of the questionnaire tables is the least contentious and best quality conveyance of the information which we already include but is currently formulated in a decidedly POV form.

It is clear that these 3 items fanned the flames of the controversy, to not include them would be WP:POV, and go against WP:NPOVREASON and WP:DUE. Unomi (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:WEIGHT. Oh, and WP:NOTAFORUM. Possibly, WP:SOAP. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to qualify what you mean by WP:WEIGHT I am not psychic, please also note WP:BATTLE particularly the line reading :

“ Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. ”

I have repeatedly tried to engage with you in good faith discussion but you are bordering on overstepping WP:NOTLAW ignoring WP:YESPOV claiming ownership and invoking WP:NAM Please take a deep breath, consider WP:DGF and lets move forward, please start by addressing the queries I have directed at you regarding your failure to engage in constructive debate. It is impossible for me to address all the implications of WP:WEIGHT without being accused of WP:SOAP and 'inappropriate discussions on talk pages'. You are making the claim, you carry the burden of evidence. Unomi (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering is going do nothing for you. We have all given you more than enough good faith, and you have pushed the community's patience. You are using this discussion section as a forum for an agenda that is not making sense to me. The GAO report is hardly a reliable source, it is outdated, superseded by dozens of studies. You are giving it weight, when it really has no place in the article but a brief mention. Get this in your head--aspartame has no effect on the human body. In fact, it is simply a couple of amino acids, which are fundamental building blocks of human life. Time to move on single purpose account. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear OM, could you clarify what you mean when you say 'We'?

Could you also clarify which agenda you feel that I am 'pushing'?

You seem to be in conflict with User:keepcalmandcarryon and the majority of editors here and in the wider community when you state that GAO87 is not WP:RS, perhaps you could clarify your position further.

I am not a scientist, I don't claim special knowledge regarding aspartame, I further fail to see the relevance when discussing the inclusion of information regarding the historical statements made by PBOI and the FDA. I hope you take the time to explain your position and claims.

The statement 'aspartame has no effect on the human body' is a curious one, and I think you probably failed to qualify it properly, I hope you take the time to do so. Thank you. Unomi (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sniff. Sniff. Damn, those socks really do stink. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT - Orangemarlin, you seem to be deliberately derailing efforts at improving the article, I am also curious as how you can use my talk page to accuse me of violating WP:NPA and then repeatedly calling me a sock puppet, I see you have now made the allegation official here. I hope that clears the matter up. Now please address the issues raised in the manner of a reasonable, intelligent adult. Thank you. Unomi (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Approval in the United States

In paragraph 2, the sentence

The board decided that further study was needed on a postulated 
connection between aspartame and brain tumours, and revoked approval of aspartame.

could be construed as being a synthetic (WP:OR) and POV reading of the material in the cited reference. Two The points at which the GAO report summarizes the conclusions of the PBOI are:

• pages 4 "The board concluded that aspartame did not cause brain damage but believed the aspartame studies did not conclusively show[emphasis mine] aspartame did not cause brain tumors."
• page 44 (on the Rat 2-year study) "...do not rule out an oncogenic effect of aspartame, and that, to the contrary, they appear to suggest [emphasis mine] the possibility that aspartame, at least when administered in the huge quantities employed in the studies, may contribute to the development of brain tumors."(quote from the PBOI's report as printed in the federal register)
• page 47, "thereby reinforcing the PBOI members’ belief that aspartame could be a tumor-causing compound. As a result of the findings from the Two-Year Rat Study and the Lifetime Rat Study, the PBOI concluded in October 1980 that Searle’s aspartame studies did not provide sufficient evidence to prove aspartame’s safety. Therefore, it revoked the regulation approving aspartame and suggested that further studies be performed to determine the carcinogenic potential of aspartame before it was allowed on the market.[emphasis mine]"

I think a more neutral representation of the GAO's presentation of the PBOI's opinions and decision following consideration of the 3 rat studies might be:

The board decided that the research appeared to suggest that aspartame may contribute 
to brain tumors and revoked approval of aspartame, pending further study.

If there is no objection within 24 hours, I will make the change. --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What is it with this GAO presentation. It's 20 years old, it's been superseded by research that has conclusively shown that aspartame has no effect whatsoever. And it's on the market. And millions of users are alive and kicking. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to put aspartame on trial. We are not here to prove it's safe or unsafe. We are here to report the CONTROVERSY. How many food additives do you know that made it all the way up into world-wide political investigations? The food industry protects aspartame the same way the tobacco industry protected nicotine. The political approvals were done by individuals with financial ties with the food industry. That is controversial. Independent scientific research shows dangers with aspartame consumption, ever time again, while industry-sponsored research shows a happy picture. The Burdock review is presented as a valid representation of aspartame research while at the same time it's a fact it was paid by Ajinomoto. Bernadette Magnuson admits she is being paid by Coca-Cola to go on a world tour to inform the people about the good they done. This is being ignored while I get accused of slander. Verbal didn't even look at the evidence presented in the 10-minute video as he replied within 5 minutes when I mentioned it. And that's the problem with some of these editors here, they are so busy jumping from one Wikipedia article to the other that they don't READ the evidence. Now it's like a circus where everyone is throwing Wikipedia terms at each other. If aspartame was safe beyond any doubt, why are they still doing so much research every time? Immortale (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SV Resolution's assessment that this sentence could possibly use a tweak, but I object to the proposed language. One can't prove a negative, and one would hope the review board scientists realised this, even if the report writer(s) did not. Taken together, the quotes from the PBOI indicate that they were uncomfortable with the level of uncertainty and thus recommended further studies. In my opinion, "The board decided that the research appeared to suggest that aspartame may contribute to brain tumors and revoked approval of aspartame, pending further study" is too strong, and should be changed at least to "The board decided that the results of the research did not conclusively rule out the possibility that aspartame, at least at very high doses, could contribute to the development of brain tumors and revoked approval of aspartame, pending further study." That is, if it's changed at all. I frankly don't see any more POV/OR problems in the current version than in the proposed version.

This thread is a good illustration of why secondary sources are so valuable to the project. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SV R that passage should be changed, I also agree with Keepcalm that the proposed change does not reflect the statement of the PBOI as I understand it. As I understand it the board had concerns with the quality of the studies and did not agree that they showed aspartame to *not* cause cancer. That does not necessarily mean that they felt that it *did* cause cancer, merely that it was unclear either way.

I think saying that 'one cannot prove a negative' is a strawman argument, the FDA requires that proper studies are done that if carried out correctly would show that there is no increase in effect(cancer etc.) with increases in dosage of the chemical that is under study. Clearly the FDA does believe that it not about 'proving a negative' but about ruling out a 'positive', and the studies failed to do so(in the opinion of the PBOI). This should be reflected accurately and with NPOV. For example:

The PBOI revoked approval of aspartame because it believed additional studies were needed to show that aspartame does not cause brain tumors.

I think it is simple, to the point, NPOV and is verbatim from GAO87 which *is* an RS secondary source. I also agree that the sections brought up by SV R from the GAO report support that an NPOV sentence could be phrased more strongly than mine, but in the interest of broad consensus I think we should leave that for later discussions.

Unomi (talk) 03:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again read WP:WEIGHT. GA087 is NOT a reliable source, since it is not a scientific, peer-reviewed study. Furthermore, apparently aspartame is on sale, completely safe. Now Unomi, you have exceeded WP:TEND by a lot. By so much, that you have no usefulness to this project. You are a WP:SPA. You violate WP:NOTAFORUM. You have not read WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and any number of other issues. I suggest you go edit another article, because you are beyond annoying. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalm, it was 20 years ago. What we know now about these things far surpasses a government body that had more political problems to deal with. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that you properly understand what the article is about. You seem to be taking an exceedingly narrow view of it. I am not claiming that aspartame is not safe, please try to understand that. I am trying to address the fact that there is/was a controversy over it, the safety of aspartame is not the issue here. To the extent that I am only editing on one topic, much of that would have to be attributed to having to counter your flurry of allegations about myself and now also about the WP:RS of GAO87. I think it is time that you either help us with wording or excuse yourself. Please see the 2nd to last item of characteristics of WP:TEND editors. Please also read what WP:CON means specifically: Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome. What might be construed as attempts at asserting WP:OWN is troubling. Also note that GAO87 is not subject to WP:MEDRS in this context as it makes no medical or scientific claims, merely summarizes the process of approval. Unomi (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not supersede other guidelines. For example, you could not come to a consensus to give undue weight to an unreliable source. Oh wait a minute, that's what you're trying to do. Except you can't gain consensus. Oh, BTW, the GAO report is not only not a secondary source, it barely qualifies as a tertiary source, and is more like ....something else. Oh, that's it, a political report. That is, worthless. Now stop. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus *is* about the guidelines. You continue to claim that GAO87 is an unreliable source, WP:RSN disagrees with you, you may want to take it up over there. Your speculations regarding if it is a secondary or tertiary source is specious considering that we already include the information but sourced to Washington Post. If you want argue that GAO reports are politically biased you should probably have some good verification to back up that claim. I suggest you take it to RfC. In short, help us find out how best to include this information or get guidelines introduced that indicate that GAO reports are widely discredited. The undue weight issue seems to be linked to your understanding that GAO reports are unreliable, so unless make your statement more precise I will consider the matter resolved. Unomi (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what occurred on WP:RSN, it is a form of disruption. You are currently in a minority and have no made a good argument, and have so far only displayed a love of alphabet soup, forum shopping, and selective editing. Verbal chat 09:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

How did I misrepresent it? GAO reports are WP:RS(reliable sources). The alphabet soup thing, I apologize, it must be because I have been fed so much of it from OM. Forum shopping you need to explain further, a series of issues have been raised that needed to be dealt with separately. I am also not sure what you mean by selective editing, please explain. I am also *not* in the minority in terms of policy. Verbal please follow the example of keepcalmandcarryon and apply yourself to edits, not editors. Unomi (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

At this time, I elect not to make the proposed edit, as there is no consensus to accept the proposal. It seems to me that there is no consensus on what the article is supposed to be about, or what types of sources are the best ones to use. KeepCalmAndCarryOn recently said "This thread is a good illustration of why secondary sources are so valuable to the project", while OrangeMarlin said "GA087 is NOT a reliable source, since it is not a scientific, peer-reviewed study", and Unomi said "I am not sure that you properly understand what the article is about."

I propose that we abandon discussion on this topic/thread, "Approval in the United States", and my proposed change, and instead get back to basics by working toward consensus on what this article should be about. --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to work for consensus on purpose/focus of this article

A user has requested mediation on this issue. Tealwisp (talk) is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Please continue discussion here. Tealwisp (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental disagreement on what this article should be about. It seems to me that, without consensus on the purpose or focus of the article, it is difficult to reach consensus on almost any edit anyone might propose making to the article.

Therefore I propose that we first choose a focus for the article. I further propose that we begin with a simple "show-of-hands" to see if we have consensus on working toward consensus. Can all interested parties respond to this thread only with agree or disagree, and perhaps a one-line comment. If we have consensus, then we can proceed in another thread to propose what we think the focus of the article ought to be. Below, as an example, I have just agreed with my own proposal. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree If we can agree to work for consensus on the purpose of the article, I'll post my ideas of what it might be. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you cannot have a vote on consensus--either it exists or it doesn't. First of all, consensus does not trump NPOV, WEIGHT, and about a half-dozen other policies. You are not going to gain "consensus" when one group wants to violate basic principles of Wikipedia, and the other group wants to stand on things like WP:MEDRS. And we're not going to vote. So either propose some language that moves down the fine line between bullshit and scientific evidence, or stop this "vote to agree to do something silly." I have a better proposal. Let's vote to see who thinks NPOV rules. And let's vote to see who agrees that NPOV is established by reliable sources, etc. And let's vote to ignore all commentary from sockpuppets. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree.

I am also seeking mediation to help us sort this out. Unomi (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Does that remind me of anyone? Oh, and isn't this thread in violation of WP:FORUM? Please stick to improving the article. Policy based editing is the way forward, and collaboration would be helpful. To that end, if SPAs would get more experiance on other articles and use policy as a guide for their edits, rather than WP:ADVOCACY, then we could probably make progress. Verbal chat 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I keep smelling socks. I wonder why. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

To Collaborate or not to collaborate

I do not think it is silly to resolve a dispute by first agreeing to work collaboratively. I tend to agree with User:Fyslee's statement that collaboration makes NPOV work. Seems like a basic tenet of the Wikipedia community. I was hoping to simply get a statement from interested parties that they are willing to work in a good-faith way to collaborate. You know, shake hands and make a fresh start. If that is not possible, it seems like a serious problem for Wikipedia. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Once the sockpuppets are blocked, good faith will abound. As for collaboration, NPOV in science articles is supported by reliable sources. Collaboration is not useful, when sockpuppets, tendentious editors, and POV-pushers are around. There are no rules that we have to collaborate with them. Now what is your point here? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am reading that as 'No collaboration from OM. Personally I agree that collaboration is the only way forward. Unomi (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration is fabulous, but it doesn't trump Wikipedia guidelines. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See above. This thread should be closed. Verbal chat 20:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please continue discussion here. Tealwisp (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fuck no. Typical of the mediation cabal, some POV-pushing individual whines and whines and whines, and you people come over to do nothing helpful. I will manage this article to NPOV. Do it here, don't do it here, you aren't helpful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way, the whining individual is an abusive sock. Let the RfCU process play out, then we can be done with this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, its nice to see you abide by WP:CIVIL, avoiding WP:BATTLE and not contributing to more WP:DRAMA. You make us all proud. Unomi (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

CIVIL does not trump NPOV, MEDRS, and others. Sorry buddy, I hope someone can teach you that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV, MEDRS, NOR, etc are not talk page guidelines, they are content guidelines. In this case, they are trumped, by virtue of not being cards. Tealwisp (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Teal, I understand that you are trying to help, but your intervention has been naïve and unhelpful. Either contribute to the discussion about improving the article and stop enabling sockpuppets, or leave this page. Of course NPOV etc do not apply to the talk page, but the talk page is not a forum, and there is no point discussing edits or sources that cannot be used, especially after they have been repeatedly discussed and dismissed. Verbal chat 07:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is no longer relevant. Unomi is indeffed. Immortale has time to think about his transgressions before coming back. The good faith, NPOV, non-sockpuppet master, non-whining editors don't require much mediation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I implore you to return to the mediation effort and partake in good faith. Unomi (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unomi, I implore you to find something else to do. You bore the hell out of me. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Canada

Why was this section removed? Doesn't the Canadian government have weight? Shouldn't we mention at least one government in the world who took the Ramazinni study serious and is investigating it seriously? As it is now, the Ramazinni section is POV, suggesting that no one has taken it seriously. Immortale (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

John Nevard made the last edit which indicated that he agreed with keeping the information here. I agree that we should retain the information as per John Nevard, but I am not going to put it back in myself until everything has settled down and I have tended to my work and family. Unomi (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As they have taken no further action, it's pretty obviously that they don't take it very seriously at all. It really needs sourcing from something other than a press release. Nevard (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What this article ought to be about

I think the article needs a focus or purpose. All interested parties need to come to consensus on that, at least, or they surely won't be able to come to consensus on anything that might be added.

I can think of two ways to focus this article. If you can think of others, please propose them here. In a separate thread/section, interested parties can discuss them. Probably, there will be some consensus.

1. The truth about the safety of Aspartame, as supported by the preponderance of peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

2. The history of the controversy about the safety of Aspartame, including the history of concerns about aspartame's safety, as documented in mainstream news magazines, and reliable sources like the NYT and news magazines, Snopes.com, government repots, and medical websites. Other magazines (Hustler, for example) may be cited to document that the popular media has published consipiracy theories regarding Aspartame's approval process.

--SV Resolution(Talk) 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

First, science doesn't deal in truth. It deals in testing hypotheses and stating a conclusion. Please don't pretend to know how to write a science article, when your statement starts with the word "truth." Second, no--those are not reliable sources. We can find a whole host of reliable sources that describe the history, which is done in the article. We should not give weight to a controversy that only exists in the mind of a few people in the real world. This is a medical article first, not a public conspiracy article. I have no clue what you're trying to do, but it's not helpful.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't like my modest proposal #1? Maybe I should have used a smiley. Can you succinctly summarize that statement of what the article should be about, and call it 3.? --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For help on how to write an article, see WP:TUTORIAL. Verbal chat 20:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is perfect as it stands. A sockpuppet master and all of his little sockpuppets have caused this trouble. Nothing further needs to be done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

3. This article is or becomes a WP:MEDRS article. Further deweight or remove some non-WP:MEDRS content. Start a new Controversy article, where all those minority views and conspiracy theories belong. --SV Resolution(Talk) 01:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A POV fork????? No way. That's giving way too much weight to the controversy. The fact is that the controversy exists only in the minds of conspiracy theorists. There is a long-term tradition of treating fringe theories in the main article, unless they're notable. Like Homeopathy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

#2. Of course, in addition to giving the history of thought on each of the topics of concern, the article should reference reliable sources that synthesize the preponderence of peer-reviewed scientific evidence in order to present the most widely accepted expert opinions on each concern. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC):Please see WP:MEDRS. The article already does so. What are you trying to do here? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think everyone agrees that this is or ought to be primarily a medical article. I thought Aspartame was the medical article, and this article was created to cover certain topics that would not be appropriate in Aspartame. I wouldn't suggest an article that gives credence to junk science, fabricated claims, or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, only an article that acknowledges that these claims have been made in the popular media. These are elements of the Aspartame controversy. If the claims are in the popular media, I think they are notable, and I think they belong here. Certainly not in Aspartame. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why have you started so many threads about the same topic? Would you please consolidate? This article is primarily medical, while aspartame is primarily food chemistry and economics. This article needs to cover the interval in the scientific research between the controversial approval and the major research studies, and also needs to balance the coverage on the Ramanazzi study, which has some scientific support. II | (t - c) 19:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, only the "Health concerns" section of aspartame is medical, and it is very brief. I can see your point that there is call for Wikipedia to have a medical article on Aspartame. Is there a place in Wikipedia to cover the wild-and-wooly history of anti-Aspartame claims? This stuff is out there in the popular media all the time. It's at least as notable a Britney Spears or Batman. Books have been written about it. Where does coverage of the story of the Aspartame Controversy belong? --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you not see where I said this article is primarily medical? OK, it's got political conspiracy theories and conflicts of interest as well, but the medical shit goes here. Please consolidate all your threads. II | (t - c) 19:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I did see where you said this article is primarily medical. I don't think there has been consensus on that. I see I may have gone overboard with the new sections, trying to avoid mixing lists of things with discussions of those things. Not sure how to consolidate the threads, after the fact, without making a mess of it all. I'll look to avoid that in the future. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to stick to WP:MEDRS. There is nothing to debate. Verbal chat 20:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we should look at other controversy articles for some guidance, for example Global Warming Controversy and Moon Landing hoax. I think it is clear that if this article remains strictly a 'medical controversy', which it is not, some editors will take it upon themselves to ensure that there is no mention of anti aspartame propaganda such as content of GAO reports(irony). We should be documenting the claims of 'evidence' and 'misconduct' by the minority view(as this is a minority view article), fully and correctly and then counterbalance that with the evidence of the majority view. I believe that is a matter of policy, it also happens to be the most effective way to defuse scare mongering and conspiracy theories, but that is not exactly germane to the points I am making regarding policy. Unomi (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Quit the tendentious discussion. It is a medical article. Sniff sniff.....still a dirty sock around. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please state your case in mediation Unomi (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this...NO. Please read WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:POINT, and others. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 09:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read those and I have stated my doubts as to whether they apply in the way that you think that they do. Please address those issues that I have raised. A starting point could be here.Unomi (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So you admit to not understanding perfectly well written Wikipedia policy. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) If we forked the article, then there could be one article that says, at the top, something like "this article is about what the bulk of medical evidence says about the safety of aspartame. For more information on current research into the safety of aspartame, conflicts of intereste and alleged conflicts of interest, conspiracy theories, internet hoaxes, discredited theories, see ...." This would make it easier to maintain the medical article. The logical place for all the trouble would get pushed into the "controversy and fringe theories" article. That's where discussions about whether, for example, "Sweet Misery" is notable enough for a mention ought to go. Certainly, it doesn't belong in a WP:MEDRS article. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Unomi (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good solution. It may be a necessary solution unless the owners of this article start thinking about the big picture or are blocked for refusing to do so. But an encyclopedia article should normally treat all aspects of a topic and this one doesn't seem to be so big that it needs splitting. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about the controversy, so notable views, however "wild and woolly", could be included (with reliable sources, of course). As coincidence would have it, there was a feature on this very topic on a well-known AM radio show last night in the United States. The interviewed opponent of Aspartame claimed, amongst other things, that Aspartame was responsible for most cases of mental illness and a host of other medical problems, from cancer to seizures. She stated that she spends every minute of her day advancing her anti-Aspartame agenda. To the extent that this anti-Aspartame movement is featured in reliable sources, its views could certainly be included here (rather than at Aspartame itself). However, WP:MEDRS, while not applicable to every aspect of this article, dictates that the notable views of certain anti-Aspartame conspiracy theorists (such as the woman featured in the radio show last night), be balanced by medical consensus. It wouldn't do to state the most "wild and woolly" viewpoints without also stating that they have no basis in current medical opinion.

I don't see a need to split the article. And a documentary like Sweet Misery should be included only when its notability is clearly established in secondary sources. This is an issue separate from the WP:MEDRS requirement to place such fringe sources in the context of prevailing medical opinion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I do think it is the best solution, to my mind the medical aspect is almost secondary to the historical one, but then I must admit that I am not that well read in terms of the proposed mechanisms or effects, nor the studies. So far I simply have not had time to read up on it. What does seem clear is that as long as it is in the 'medical section' for whatever reason, the history of the controversy is deemed by some to be dependent on what WP:MEDRS sources say, which will of course be next to nothing, after all why would WP:MEDRS sources deal with the history. Even post-orangemarlin-histrionics the article as a whole will face that issue. Keepcalmandcarryon gives me much hope that I will be proven wrong however. The thing is that as a 'medical article' the weight will, and should be, on the physiological side at the 'cost' of detail on what contributed to the existence of the controversy in the first place. I 100% agree with keepcalmandcarryon in terms of balance regarding medical consensus as long as that balance does not stand in the way of stating the points of controversy. For example the 1975 task forces statement regarding the quality of searles studies.

The point of balance is that the majority view is aptly represented, not that the minority view is 'pared down'. Can we all agree on that? Unomi (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. Yawn. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sweet Misery" doesn't belong in a WP:MEDRS article, as it is not a reliable medical source. It may not be sufficiently notable for any Wikipedia article. There is no "hard news" since the Ramazzini studies and rebuttle the industry-sponsored panel, and the statements from various government and UN agencies that followed, and the failure of Hawaii and New Mexico's bills to ban aspartame. But the controversy still pops up in op-ed, newspaper letters to the editor, and radio and TV talk shows. It isn't dead, and it shouldn't be mixed up with a medical article. Is there some way to cover the controversy as controversy without mixing it up with the medical article? --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to an earlier discussion where the rationale for this idea that a medical article may not be mixed with a political article is given? It seems to leave a partial content fork as the only option to deal with what is probably the more notable topic in general. I am not saying it makes no sense; in a sense WP is a general encyclopedia plus many specialised encyclopedias, and some topics will receive very different treatment in two encyclopedias with different orientation. But I don't think there is much precedent for this.

As a mathematician I sometimes feel that non-mathematician editors are damaging mathematical articles by insisting on prominent coverage of aspects that the experts are not interested in. This can lead to a lot of friction, but also (rarer) ultimately to a much improved article that everybody is proud of. Could this be a similar situation? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

@SV Resolution: Yes, and in my opinion, the article already does this. For example, the views of Betty Martini, probably the most prominent anti-aspartame crusader by virtue of her internet hoax and frequent AM radio appearances, are covered in detail. One could argue that they need more fleshing out, since her views are even more extreme than indicated in the article (she seems to attribute most mental illness, seizures and headaches etc. to Aspartame), but I don't think there's a major deficiency in the article in this regard.

What Unomi is trying to do is to give undue weight to a personal perception that decades-old primary documents of regulatory agencies lend support to Betty Martini. That is, Unomi is not representing the actual, verifiable views of the anti-aspartame crusaders using reliable sources, but is supplying what would seem to be original research. If these views are both common amongst the anti-aspartame fringe and notable, then reliable sources will have covered them and it will be a trivial matter to add them to the article with little controversy. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there are many ways to frame this article that will lead to various conclusions as to what it should or could contain.

Personally I do not believe that Betty Martini is particularly central to the story of the Aspartame Controversy, but I do not claim special knowledge. From a google search on her name it seems that Betty Martini got involved ca 1992. The GAO87 report makes it clear that there was at that time already a controversy. It uses that very word in its executive summary regarding the Aspartame approval process. Betty Martini and other fringe activists are just a sideshow story, as it were. They may be notable enough to warrant coverage, but it is a fairly recent thing. Please see this FDA interview with Alexander M. Schmidt (former FDA commissioner) which describes how it was a 'big deal', how Walter Sheridan (of Jimmy Hoffa fame) took to the Searle case.

“ So he picked this up, and we had a set of hearings on the integrity of the investigative process that led to, finally, recommendations from us to the Justice Department to prosecute certain individuals in Searle. That led, eventually, to a massive shake-up in Searle. Particularly when management of Searle changed and Don Rumsfeld went in: he cleaned house at Searle. It resulted in the prosecution and conviction of people in some contract labs. And it resulted in the establishment of the good laboratory practice regulations and a work force to police universities and contract labs and pharmaceutical houses, in the conduct of their animal and clinical experimentation. The need for this program was discovered and it was established while I was there. ”

So it clearly was not a 'non-event', that we now perhaps focus on Betty Martini is unfortunate, perhaps akin to having the article on Sarah Palin be about 'Nailin Palin' or whatever. Controversy references: New York Times 1987, New York Times 2006, New York Times 1984, New York Times 1983. There are many many more. The majority of mainstream attention is in fact not on Betty Martini, nor the hoax, neither which I have been able to find any NY times hits on, except as a comment on a news article. And only secondary mentions on personal websites regarding the Times Magazine article. Perhaps Keepcalmandcarryon will care to create an article on Betty Martini and/or the hoax, but personally I see no real reason to include her or the hoax here apart from as a bit of trivia. Unomi (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

A good way to avoid original research is to use New York Times articles and the like instead of interviews and government documents, which are primary sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironically it was my who came up with the GAO poll in the first place by quoting The Washington Post. I've used references from major newspapers, which were removed. I've used references from peer-reviewed journals, which were removed, one of them from the exact same journal, the exact same section as a reference that's allowed in the article (because it's positive towards aspartame). I've used references from official government documents, which were removed. References that give aspartame a positive spin don't get the same scrutiny and some of them wouldn't be allowed if it was negative towards aspartame. And if documents from government agencies are not allowed for being primary sources, why is the article full of references to them, when they show aspartame is safe? That's the old double standard again. Immortale (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

@Keepcalmandcarryon I am still not convinced that GAO87 is to be understood as a primary source, I agree that for the tabulated questionnaire data, it could be construed to be. However :

“ Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ... Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. ”

I take this to mean that we can in fact reproduce the tables. The rest of the report acts as a secondary source offering a narrative regarding the approval process, GAO is understood to be a Reliable Source for this. I don't really recognize the issue you take keepcalmandcarryon. If there are sections of the report that you deem inappropriate please let us know. Unomi (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that I am not hell-bent on getting the full tables in the article, but we clearly need a non WP:PN worded substitution for the stutter that we have now. Perhaps you could offer one keepcalmandcarryon? Unomi (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Unomi deserves an apology

This started as a response to a comment by Keepcalmandcarryon about Unomi. I considered his comment to be factually correct, but unfair. Obviously, once I had finished the long passage below there was a huge edit conflict.

Let's have a look at Unomi's very first sequence of edits (diff), and specifically at what was immediately reverted (diff):

Block 1	before Unomi's edit	after Unomi's edit
Text	although minor inconsistencies were found, they would not have affected the studies' conclusions.	although they uncovered “serious deficiencies in Searle’ operations and practices which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’ integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine or characterize the toxic potential of its products.”, they would not have affected the studies' conclusions.
Source	GAO87 executive summary (page 4): After reviewing 12 Searle aspartame studies, the university pathologists noted that although they found a number of minor discrepancies there were few, if any, discrepancies that would significantly affect the studies' results. For the remaining three studies, FDA stated that data problems noted would not alter the conclusions. FDA concluded that the studies were of sufficient quality to be used to assess aspartame's safety.	Introductory paragraph of GAO87 Appendix III ("Eleven Aspartame Studies Investigated by 1975 Task Force", p. 83): uncovered “serious deficiencies in Searle’s operations and practices which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’s integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine or characterize the toxic potential of its products.” However, the task force said that unreliability in Searle’s animal research did not imply its animal studies provided no useful information on the safety of the products, such as aspartame.
Evaluation	The original article text misrepresents the source. (Few if any significant effects misrepresented as no effects.) Unomi's version still has the misrepresentation but is closer to the source by means of a quotation to the task force findings that was considered sufficiently significant by the GAO87 authors to quote it literally. This quotation (correctly) undermines the misrepresentation. (Note: It's not clear to me from the executive summary whether the 3 studies were better or worse than the 12 studies; perhaps this is what motivated Unomi to look in Appendix III.)
Block 2	before Unomi's edit	after Unomi's edit
Text	—	Significantly "Three of the five panel members reviewing the brain tumor issue did not believe Searle’s studies conclusively showed aspartame did not cause brain tumors."
Source	—	Introductory paragraph of a section ("Panel Did Not Reach a Consensus on the Brain Tumor Issue", p. 82ff) of Chapter 5 in GAO87. Literal quotation from p. 82f plus the framing word "significantly".
Evaluation	Unomi added one anti-aspartame sentence literally from GAO87.
Block 3	before Unomi's edit	after Unomi's edit
Text	As a result, Hayes approved the use of aspartame in dry foods.	On July 18, 1981 Hayes overturned the Boards decision and reapproved the use of aspartame in dry foods citing persuasive data.
Source	FDA1996: "In 1981 after extensive review of the record by FDA scientists, then Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes approved aspartame as a food additive."
Evaluation	Unomi added unsourced redundant details (July 18, reapproved).
Block 4	before Unomi's edit	after Unomi's edit
Text	Of 67 scientists who responded to a 1987 questionnaire by the US GAO, all but twelve were "generally" or "very confident" in the safety of aspartame. 26 said they were "somewhat concerned" and twelve had "major concerns" about aspartame's safety.	In 1987 a questionnaire was sent to 96 researchers by the US GAO, of the 67 respondents 43 claimed to be involved in Aspartame research and 26 claimed no aspartame research experience. Of the 43 researchers that had Aspartame experience 9 had 'Major concerns; little if any confidence in aspartame's safety', 12 were 'Somewhat concerned' and 20 'Few if any concerns' 2 did not respond to the question. Of the 26 with no claims of Aspartame research 3 had 'Major Concerns', 12 'Somewhat concerned' and 9 'Few, if any concerns'. Of the 67 respondents 32 indicated that further action should be taken, this ranged from 'require additional warnings or quantity labels' (22 respondents, 15 of which claimed Aspartame research experience), to 'Withdraw the approval for use of Aspartame in any food product(10 respondents, 7 of which claimed Aspartame research experience).
Source	GAO87 (p. 16,76-81), but mostly Washington Post 1987, "Most Scientists in Poll Doubt NutraSweet's Safety".	GAO87 (p. 16,76-81).
Evaluation	The original text is factually correct but confusing (26 researchers are counted twice, as "generally confident" and "somewhat concerned"). [17] The Washington Post is a better source in that it establishes noteworthiness, but it is not freely accessible. The original text does not seem to accurately represent the nuances of the sources: Note the title of the Washington Post article and the only relevant sentence in the GAO87 executive summary, Twelve of the 69 scientists responding to GAO'S questionnaire expressed major concerns about aspartame’s safety (p. 3). Our article gives this result a positive spin by focusing on the respondents who were confident. It's interesting that Aspartame experts were more critical than the others. I would say this need not be mentioned; whether it can be mentioned in the absence of evidence that it played a role in the controversy is a question of policy interpretation that I believe does not have a clear answer. Unomi added excessive detail including this interesting distinction, and cherry-picked "somewhat concerned" from the questionnaire option "somewhat concerned; generally confident".
Block 5	before Unomi's edit	after Unomi's edit
External links	–	TV documentary "Sweet Misery" on Google Video Article "NutraSweet – The NutraPoison"
Evaluation	The video looks like a potential copyvio, in which case the link falls under WP:LINKVIO. Both documents are very relevant to understanding the extent of the public controversy. With proper framing they could be used as a source for new, functionally equivalent, text in section "Internet rumors and activism" that could replace what is currently sourced only to about.com. This would replace an unreliable secondary/tertiary source by a reliable primary source. But merely dumping the links unframed under external links is problematic.

Unomi's edit in block 1 made the article more neutral. (I would say more NPOV, but that's generally abused to mean POV.) Since the previous text violated NPOV by misrepresenting the nuances of GAO87, I argue that block 2 was also a change towards neutrality. Block 3–5 were all problematic for reasons unrelated to (N)POV. Apart from that, block 4 started with a biased text and introduced the opposite bias, while block 5 was problematic because it lacked framing.

Overall this looks like a good start for a new editor. (Yes, a new editor. It's easy to find out on one's own – by having a closer look at this talk page and the article, by looking at Unomi's editing hours, and by googling for "unomi" – why the checkuser result was so strongly negative.) Unfortunately the initial feedback he got wasn't constructive: Partial/total reverts, and no attempts to show him how to correctly address the real problems he had identified. Moreover, valid policy-based arguments (mostly by Keepcalmandcarryon) were mixed up with somewhat questionable ones, and even borderline silly ones (quoting from a government document that is already being used here is OR?). Finally unfounded assumptions of bad faith:

• "Please see WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CIVIL for good measure. Oh, and you're approaching tendentious editing." [18]
• Unomi looks up WP:TEND, presumably to check whether he is a tendentious editor. Under WP:TEND#Characteristics of problem editors he finds: "You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first." Naturally he is interested and follows the link in the ensuing paragraph: "There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. [19]" Resulting in the following after a total of 20 minutes of research:
• "The tendentious editing was a nice touch, please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive" [20]
• This unexplainable insider knowledge (someone who follows the policy links in a typical Orangemarlin post whose sole intent was to intimidate? pull the other one) leads to the first sockpuppet accusation:
• "Sniff. Sniff. Damn someone forgot to wash some socks out." [21]
• After this, several users reinforce their opinion that Unomi must be a sockpuppet by repeating it over and over. There are no substantial arguments. The unfounded belief (pro-science editors? ha!) is used as a convenient excuse to shut down communication completely.
• Checkuser comes out as totally unrelated. [22]
• But of course the conclusive (see above under "pull the other one") evidence trumps the checkuser finding. [23] So the accusation is repeated again, again, and again.
• Guess the word that is missing here: "Xs have been characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other expertsc […]." [24]

--Hans Adler (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: The misrepresentation of GAO87 was introduced recently by Keepcalmandcarryon by this edit. Since a superficial reading of my long post above may not make this clear (and I am aware there is a danger of WP:TLDR-type reactions): I am not accusing Keepcalmandcarryon, who I believe has kept calm throughout this and has given necessary and meaningful feedback to Unomi. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to lay out these diffs and carefully and civilly frame recent edits and events. This article has become a tough place for an editor to learn. It's tough to balance the need to properly represent the current medical opinion with the need to properly represent the history of the changes in medical opinion as well as the history of minority opinions. Trying to do all this in the same section, let alone paragraph or sentence, is nearly impossible.

Would it help to separate the article into sections: "Medical" and "History and controversy". We can use Template:About hatnotes to keep things clear. This would avoid the problem of having to choose between misrepresenting cited sources and misrepresenting the preponderance of medical opinion in some sentences.

Good editors uninterested in "medical" can work solely on a good, neutral "History and controversy" without worrying about giving undue weight to minority or fringe opinions in the "medical" part of the article. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying and neutralizing the Ramazzini study

So, what are the concerns mentioned in the recent revert [25] by Keepcalmandcarryon? Noting Keepcalm's history of reverting without discussing (see a talk section of orthomolecular medicine), I'll simply be reverting back in a couple days if no reasons are provided. We actually don't just play alphabet soup on Wikipedia; we discuss.

Additionally, there's a serious issue of neutrality in this section ever since Orangemarlin removed the report in Science that 12 scientists had published a letter (PMID 18085059) to the FDA defending Soffriti's work. Previously Keepcalm removed Soffriti's rebuttal and questions of conflicts of interest. In Soffriti's rebuttal [26], he points out that independent EPA scientists published an article defending Soffriti's work. Additionally, James Huff (one of the aforementioned scientists) and another scientist published another peer-reviewed article (PMID 18085058) defending the work. The 12 scientists have expertise in cancer; Abdo worked for the NTP, Davis with the NRC, Froines was a director at OSHA, Camargo is a prof at Harvard Med, ect. Ultimately the lack of NPOV is about as bad as it comes. II | (t - c) 07:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ramazzini section has been trimmed a lot since Keepcalm started. They even used the argument that it's just one study so why give it so much attention. But it's the largest study ever conducted on aspartame, and not only that, but by independent scientists. As the section is now, it's biased and only gives room for critics. Magnusson's letter is mentioned but lets present the whole picture here and mention the reply it got from the same journal. And the 12 scientists mentioned by II and Canada that has ordered the raw data to investigate. Ordering and investigating raw data is an expensive undertaking and they wouldn't do that if the whole study is flawed. Immortale (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there could be a host of problems with the article as it stands, but perhaps we could tackle one problem at a time? Please weigh in on the section above regarding the GAO questionnaire, thank you Unomi (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but note that an uncontradicted revert can easily be presented later as "consensus". Since this is about accurate presentation of the current medical dispute it's probably worth a closer look later. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ramazzini study is clearly not the largest study ever conducted on Aspartame; in addition, it was performed in rats and many criticisms have been presented. Is there a minority of scientists who feel that Aspartame is potentially dangerous? Yes. Should their position be accorded greater weight than the balance of the scientific research, including the large-scale studies in humans? No. No amount of personal insight into the drawbacks of these studies from II (or claims about my or other editors' reversion behaviour) will change that this issue, unlike the historical controversy, is quite clearly a matter of WP:MEDRS and isn't up for a vote. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You've completely failed to engage my original edit or back up your "WEIGHT" and "OR" reasoning. Did you even read my edit? That edit did not add any mention of the scientists who back up the Ramazzini study. It simply noted that there were two studies, and that the main difference was a lifetime observation period (a point made by Soffriti and acknowledged by all sources). I also noted that it contrasted with earlier rat studies. I didn't even mention the other point brought up by Soffriti, which is that there was a much greater statistical power in his studies. This is a point which probably should be mentioned -- the slight increase he observed would not have been statistically significant in the earlier small studies.

The scientists supporting Soffriti is another issue. Please engage in discussion rather than making vague points or I'll revert. II | (t - c) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalm, are you an expert on aspartame? Your statement that the Ramazzini study is "clearly" not the largest study is false. Could you point to a study that is larger? And every additive that's allowed or not allowed on the market is based on rat studies. In the US, the FDA base their policy on it. Do you think they do tests on humans to determine toxicity? In society rats usually don't consume aspartame, that's the only valid conclusion you can draw. Immortale (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @keepcalmandcarryon Those criticisms should be presented. We are not here to decide what is right or wrong, but to present the 'evidence'.

At this point I support II's pending revert. I also welcome keepcalmandcarryon to submit balancing studies.

Totally offtopic: I am not really comprehending the issue with the rats, I understand that they are more PKU sensitive, but 2 of the 3 cancer studies that Searle submitted were on rats. Are you saying that they are not valid? Unomi (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the reliable source for the claim that the Ramazzini study is the largest to date on Aspartame? And no, I have not said that rat studies are useless. I merely point out that large studies of humans have also been performed. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You state that the Ramazzini study is "clearly" not the largest one but when asked for references to bigger studies, you cannot mention one. To quote Ramazzini: "The long term bioassay on aspartame conducted in the laboratories of the Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of European Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences "B. Ramazzini", represents the largest, most comprehensive carcinogenicity study ever performed on aspartame, both in terms of number of rodents and dose levels tested." And it took 7 years! Unless you come with other references of larger studies that disprove this statement, we treat it as the largest study on aspartame. The poll you refer to performed by the Cancer Institute where half a million people participated got some serious and scientifically valid criticism, which you removed from the article. Immortale (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is the largest study. And Ramazzini's statements, published in the most prestigious environmental health journal, are certainly reliable for such a statement. II | (t - c) 00:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are using a primary source from authors whose bias and indeed professional competence have been questioned in the peer-reviewed literature. In contrast, literature reviews show that studies involving tens of thousands of human participants have been done. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The article would be immeasurably improved by a good source stating that Soffritti et. al are incompetent in the Ramazzini studies. My impression of Magnusson's critique of the studies was that is was very like the usual back-and-forth between groups who had come to different conclusions. The usual Bold, Challenge, Review cycle. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose that we keep IIs edit that we are all now taking turns reverting over.. those that are against it please state your case.

I am also seriously considering requesting mediation, again, are there any opposed and if so why? Unomi (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalm, if you refer to the Cancer Questionnaire by the National Cancer Institute then it was never peer reviewed. The participants filled in the papers during a 12-month period, using their memory (!), mailed out only once over several months. Aspartame is named in only one of 56 questions: "'Over the last 12 months when you drank coffee or tea, what kind of sweetener did you regularly add? Mark all that apply.'" (Sugar, honey, Equal, aspartame or saccharin)." Calling this survey a scientific valid aspartame study is ridiculous. Some secondary sources to verify from The New York Times and here Immortale (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) As a kind of informal mediation attempt, allow me to comment on substance rather than form, i.e., are results of the Ramazzini study likely correct or not? Doing the study over the full natural lifespan of the rats seems to be the right thing to do, and using a large population likewise. This potentially allows uncovering effects that could not be observed with more restricted earlier studies. Why, then, were these studies discounted by EFSA, FDA and NZFSA? After reading Magnuson et al. 2007 it seems to be clear: The effect was small and weird. The rats were kept in several rooms, with potentially different temperature, humidity and pollution, and the different groups of rats were not distributed over the rooms. The lifespans of the rats were generally unusually short, including the control group. The rats that got aspartame ate less and lived longer than the others. It seems that the only real use of this study is as inspiration for further studies that avoid these mistakes.

Based on this, I think that the treatment of the Ramazzini study before ImperfectlyInformed's edits is about right. And I am saying this as someone who avoids all artificial sweeteners as a matter of principle. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you Hans, I think that is exactly the kind of information that we should have. I think the whole idea of a paperless encyclopedia is that we can make all this information available. There are no length or 'attention' issues IMHO, we aren't counting on selling bottom page banner ads. I could be wrong.. Unomi (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have no idea how reliable Magnuson et al. is, and I can't argue why it should be more reliable than conflicting information. Basically it's just that by reading this, together with knowing the decisions by the various food safety authorities, I was convinced that the study isn't a good one.

There is also a spectrum between an encyclopedic article and an indiscriminate collection of random information. It can be hard to agree on where to draw the line. I believe many Wikipedia editors become more selective the longer they stay with the project. Personally I think if we come to a decision that a study isn't conclusive, then as a matter of our editorial discretion we should give it less weight rather than spending a lot of space debunking it. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler on this point (and I, too, avoid artificial sweeteners). The more space we give to the reportedly flawed studies, the more space we must devote to satisfying WP:WEIGHT. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Rats

1,800 Sprague-Dawley rats, but how many Wistar rats? And what color were they? This organized supression of The Truth by the Rat Trust has to stop. The article won't be complete until it specifies the number and sub-species of all the rats used, not just the Sprague-Dawleys. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

??? --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the minutia about the rats should go. Too much of this article is original research from primary sources, synthesized to support the Aspartame-is-poison thesis. The article should describe the controversy, citing reliable secondary sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The number of rats should be mentioned; this was larger than previous rat experiments. The Ishii study had 860 Wistar rats; I think the previous Searle studies totaled a few hundred. I agree that the Ramazzini study should be discussed in the context of earlier rat studies. I wikilinked Sprague-Dawley simply because I thought readers might find it interesting to be directed to a discussion on lab rats. It can't hurt, offers some background on animal models, and some readers (such as myself) would likely find it interesting. II | (t - c) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that the type of rats seems a bit distracting, interesting read though, the number of rats has been cited in the mainstream press and is relevant. As far as I can see on pubmed there are only 2 relatively recent reviews of aspartame that state it is completely benign both are funded by burdock. The most recent review when searching for 'aspartame' states in its summary : 'scientists disagree about the relationships between sweeteners and lymphomas, leukemias, cancers of the bladder and brain, chronic fatigue syndrome, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, autism, and systemic lupus.'. But I am not ready to cite that as a good source. When looking at the most recent studies in pubmed it seems clear that there are third party studies that seem to indicate deleterious effects of Aspartame on brain function and DNA. Stating that does not equate 'Aspartame-is-poison'. The constant feet dragging with regards to adding information and enhancing the article as a whole is getting slightly tired. Unomi (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

II thank you for the wiki link I managed to learn something today :) 'dark tears' oh my. Unomi (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's cut the conspiracy theories: the review in question is a high-quality comprehensive review and includes numerous well-respected authors. It was been peer-reviewed by other scientists. I'm also not sure how many "recent reviews of aspartame" one would expect to see; aspartame is probably the most-studied recent food additive, and with few exceptions, its safety profile is unremarkable: acute toxicity, carcinogenesis, neurotoxicity etc. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not 'conspiracy theory' to state that they were organized by burdock. There seems to be a number of recent studies as I have pointed out above, that is the whole point of science. I wish I had access to the review so that we might be able to give proper weight to what it says. Unomi (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Although you don't have access to the review, you first derided it as funded, then organised, by "burdock". As stated in the review, the survey was requested by the Burdock Group and performed by experts in the field who did not know the identity of the sponsor. Your implication that something underhanded was going on is disturbing and borders on a BLP violation because of what it means for the reputable author-scientists.

As for weight, secondary sources such as comprehensive, peer-reviewed surveys are given more weight than original research from primary articles, particularly when the authors of the primary publications in question have been criticised for poor methodology and potential bias both in the peer-reviewed literature and by national panels of experts. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to understand that I am reading this as a 'skeptic' should. The burdock website lists the 'CritRev' as something that their staff researchers have contributed to. When someone bothers to read our sources and they see burdock and they google it, as I would wager most people who go that far would, wouldn't it strike them as odd that we don't mention it? I am not saying that burdock or the researchers did anything wrong. I think that would be extremely embarrassing should such a thing later come to light. What I am saying is that the article should be free from POV and above claims of bias. Stating the lengths they went to to ensure impartiality does not hurt the article.

I have absolutely no problem with giving weight to the reviews you mention, but I object to it taking the form of writing 2 sentences about the reviews and then demanding that no more than a sentence is given to 'other' studies(pardon my poetic license). People read encyclopedias because they want to learn, I think it would be unfair to abuse them of the opportunity. Citing 'methodological weaknesses' is a very poor substitute for stating what they were. Now give me back my tinfoil hat. Unomi (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientific study numbers

Hi,

Of 67 scientists who responded to a 1987 questionnaire by the US GAO, all but twelve were "generally" or "very confident" in the safety of aspartame. 26 said they were "somewhat concerned" and twelve had "major concerns" about aspartame's safety.

Those numbers don't seem to add up. If all but 12 were "generally" or "very confident", how can 26 have been somewhat and 12 major concerned? Also wouldn't 26+12 be more than half of the sample, which I think would imply an opposite conclusion? --SLi (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See Block 4 in the large table in the section above. There were only 3 options, one of them "somewhat concerned; generally confident". --Hans Adler (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is why we don't generally use primary sources. The "survey" was poorly-designed and the results open to use by both pro- and anti-aspartame sides to "support" their views. I would favour tossing any reference to this rather silly and unscientific questionnaire. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this is a good example for why we should use primary sources when they are available. Not to quote-mine them, but to understand obscure passages in the secondary sources that we are primarily using. And so that we can decide not to follow the secondary sources where they misrepresent the primary sources. Anyway, this primary/secondary/tertiary language is often not helpful at all. E.g. for "serious deficiencies in Searle’s operations and practices which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle’s integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine or characterize the toxic potential of its products" it is clearly a secondary source, because it selectively quotes this passage from an earlier report. One could also argue that GAO87 contains primary (Appendix I) and secondary (executive summary, introduction) sources on the survey in one document. Throwing the word "primary source" around is not helpful; what we need is common sense.

I am convinced that something like "Of 67 responding researchers, 12 had major concerns, 26 were somewhat concerned but generally confident in Aspartame safety, and 29 were very confident in Aspartame safety" would be much more NPOV than what we currently have. Or perhaps "Researchers' opinions on the safety of Aspartame were divided, but overall more positive than negative". On the other hand, reporting the Aspartame researchers/Others distinction from p. 70 of GAO87 would be a good example of OR, provided it hasn't been reported elsewhere in this detail. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler in the above, for completeness I offer this version:

Of 67 responding researchers, 12 had major concerns, 26 were somewhat concerned but generally confident in Aspartame safety,
 and 29 were very confident in Aspartame safety. Thirty-two respondents indicated that further actions should be taken,
 ranging from 'require additional warnings or quantity labels' to 'Withdraw the approval for use of Aspartame in any food product'.

I believe that this is NPOV and reflects the information in GAO87. I wouldn't be against striking the last line if it is deemed too lengthy. Unomi (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If the decidedly unscientific survey that seems to be so important here has had coverage in indubitably secondary sources, perhaps it's worthy of inclusion. If not, it's not notable and there's little reason for it to stay. Is it notable? In addition, I'm not sure that formulating our own definitions of primary and secondary sources (much less which sections of a document are more or less primary) is a good use of "common sense". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The article currently covers it, gives the impression that most scientists trusted the safety of Aspartame, and uses the Washington Post article "Most Scientists in Poll Doubt NutraSweet's Safety" as its source. This apparent contradiction may be because the WaPo's article wasn't as sensationalist as its title, or because our article misrepresents the WaPo article. I can't read the WaPo article, but when I get the time I will look into this article's history to see if this looks like one of the many cases where an originally precise rendering of a source was later mutilated without removing the citation.

The entire primary/secondary source business has been contentious from the start. What it means depends critically on various factors, making it very difficult to apply. If you simply assume that your intuitive reading is the only reasonable one this is bound to lead to serious problems when someone else's intuitive reading is different. Basically it's just a framework that structures discussions about sources. Instead of discussing directly which sources to use for what, we discuss which sources are primary/secondary/tertiary for certain purposes. But it's not a silver bullet that magically solves most source discussions by giving an objective answer. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It was cited in and used as basis for an article in the Washington Post titled: Most Scientists in Poll Doubt NutraSweet's Safety.

As for to what degree it represents the 'Truth', we will never know. But per WP:VERIFY we are not in a position to judge that.

I agree that the matter of Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources can be murky. In a way every document is a primary source of itself, but thats not really useful. The wikipedia entry acknowledges that distinction between primary and secondary is subjective and contextual. As per policy regarding sources : "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, ". But any kind of synthesis or analysis should be left to secondary sources: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims". I take this to mean that we can have the information from primary sources (properly referenced) but we can't try to explain or extrapolate. Also from policy : "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense". Unomi (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Having the information from primary sources" presupposes a selection process. What you select depends upon your personal bias. This is why secondary sources are preferred, and why a gradient of secondary sources, going all the way up to academic, peer-reviewed secondary sources, has been established. It really isn't all that complicated. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

After all this lecturing I really feel entitled to ask: Could you please comment on this edit of yours? --Hans Adler (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, as I understand it you agree that it is in keeping with policy and guidelines to include the material, but you have concerns regarding NPOV? Selection is always a concern and it applies no matter what the source is. Do you believe that any of the proposed revisions by Hans Adler or myself are misrepresenting the information in GAO87? If so please state how so. Unomi (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

@Hans Adler: I'm sorry you feel I've been lecturing; I've simply tried to explain my understanding of the primary/secondary source guideline. As for the edit you feel entitled to ask about, you're probably right: I settled for explaining things in what I felt was a more readable fashion instead of removing the original research entirely.

@Unomi: I have reservations about including the material at all, except to the extent it is reviewed by more reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have been lecturing myself. Anyway, my reading of your edit is that you replaced an accurate rendering of the content of what we agree is a primary source in this context by a biased one that contradicts the plain language of the source. Absence or not of the word "significant" is very significant here. And it is my understanding that your edit introduced the main problem into this article which Unomi wanted to fix. To fix the problem, it would have been enough to simply add the word "significant" where it belongs; Unomi tried to do more than that, and all circumstances considered I think we can't blame him for that. (In fact, even the previous version was arguably biased in that it didn't convey the strength of the criticism of Searle's studies that is obvious in GAO87.) A mistake like yours can happen with a secondary source just as well as with a primary source. It's not original research to report what a key primary source says; it's original research to report it with a tendency that is not present in a plain reading of the source, unless backed by a secondary source reading the primary source in this way. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So, where are we? I will put Hans Adlers version in for now, the material exists in the article, notability has been established, it comes from a RS and it reflects the source with NPOV. Unomi (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's another secondary source for the GAO Poll from The New York Times Immortale (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)