Talk:Aspartame controversy

In

In the article, a "daily allowance" of aspartame is mentioned. However, I have been unable to find a reference citing what the "daily allowance" of aspartame is. Can someone make that clearer? My apologies if this the wrong place for this request; I don't usually visit discussion pages. Adambondy 06:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

According to government studies on aspartame cited in this article, the average person that consumes aspartame consumes roughly 2-10+ mg/kg of aspartame per day. The FDA's maximum daily allowance is currently 50 mg/kg/day; many other countries have 40 mg/kg/day.

On an unrelated note, I am also nominating this article to be reviewed by the Rational Skepticism WikiProject. This article is too huge to be tackled by one or two people.131.243.227.190 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Rise in Brain Tumor Rates

The claim that brain tumor rates are rising is part of the controversy, and many dispute it. This claim should be sourced to original data that can be intrepreted to support a rise, such as something at the CDC or the NIH web site.

Hello. In the scientific community, there is a claim that aspartame may be one cause of brain tumors. Scientific papers on both sides of the issue were cited. I do not think it would not be appropriate to cite original data on brain tumor rates because it doesn't even begin to clarify the issue. What is looked at in the scientific literature is only certain types of brain tumors in certain population groups and the conversion of one type of brain tumor to another. Plus there is discussion of various animal studies and in vitro studies. Unfortunately, articles on both sides of the issue often cited "rising overall brain tumor rates" in relation to aspartame when the scientific issue is much more complex than that. The scientific studies cited in the article related to aspartame and brain tumors go into great detail about the issue. Twoggle 04:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A number of the studies cited which are supposed to indicate scientists' concern over a possible link between aspartame and brain cancer actually conclude that a link does not exist and that there is no need for any revision of the safety guidelines for aspartame. Furthermore, note 4, which is supposed to cite alleged conflicts of interest, does relate to such an allegation, but the transcript actually indicates that, according to a government inquiry into the matter, no misconduct occurred.

Also, a number of the citations on this article are of poorly regarded or discredited studies, or of websites written by persons without a background in chemistry or biology, who seem to be merely repeating statistics from other sources, which they do not cite. Lack of expertise does not necessarily make them wrong, of course; only data can disprove a theory. However, since many don't have solid sources and present anecdotes as bona fide evidence, if we cannot make a judgment based upon their expertise, what basis do we have upon which to judge their claims?

Moreover, I think that there is no real "debate" among scientists about articles on the scale that this article implies, as all major reviews of the literature, including the ones recently done by both the FDA and its European counterpart specifically in response to the Italian study, indicate that aspartame is safe even in doses higher than the amount a high-level consumer might be expected to intake in a day (the ADI is ~40 mg/kg/day in many countries - less than the amount that was administered to test subjects in most studies claiming toxicity, but more than twice the 21 mg/kg/day cited by the European SCF as the upper limit of consumption expected, which is the equivalent of roughly a twelve-pack of Diet Coke [131 mg/can] every single day for a 75 kg man). The SCF study in particular is comprehensive and impressive in its rebuttal of aspartame toxicity claims, as well as the Italian rat study, and can be found [here].

Furthermore, claiming that there is a major controversy because a few persons make claims contrary to the mainstream consensus is misleading, especially when many of them are not knowledgeable in the field in which they are making claims. However, even expertise is not, in and of itself, enough to accept one's claims if they are not supported by the data. For example, Peter Duesberg, discoverer of the oncogene and Ph.D. of molecular biology at Berkeley, claims that AIDS is caused by recreational drug use and not HIV. However, nobody would say that there is any significant "controversy" regarding the cause of AIDS, because virtually all other scientists disagree with him, and his theories have been disproved by a great many scientific studies, including large studies by the CDC aimed specifically at answering his questions.

Finally, the article's style itself is far too verbose and reads in places more like conspiracy theory than like an encyclopedia entry.

I propose either deleting this article entirely, or truncating or otherwise drastically shortening it to a manageable size, and removing dubious citations or amending the text to more accurately reflect their contents.131.243.227.190 00:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a deletion or truncation of the article to be inappropriate. The issue is complex as it involves the discussion of several metabolites and claimed adverse effects. The article is barely the minimum length to discuss it intelligently (whether one agrees or disagrees with the content).

The existing article is really very simple --

a) Opening paragraph

b) Discussion of reported effects (necessary for any intelligent discussion of possible effects)

c) Discussion of each of the more most researched aspartame metabolites

d) Discussion of aspartame and cancer research

e) Resources, references and links.

There have been numerous scientists that have spoken out and published on both sides of the issue with a tiny sampling of research on each side being cited. There are also governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations that have published opinions on this issue. If a reader wants to trust the opinion of a government agency, links are provided. The same is true for non-governmental organizations and scientific research abstracts (on both sides of the issue).

Specifically to the issues you raised --

1) If there is a study cited which are supposed to indicate scientists' concern over a possible link between aspartame and brain cancer and that study does not indicate the scientists' concerns, please mention specifically which one. I doubt anyone would want a misrepresented citation!

2) Citation #4 does related to alleged conflict of interest. It is a GAO report. The reports related to several HHS government officials involved in the aspartame approval process taking jobs in companies/organizations with links to the aspartame industry during or after the approval process. It is true that the GAO did not find that these official broke any existing governmental post-employment rules (misconduct/wrongdoing). However, as the stated on Wikipedia (Conflict of Interest), "Depending upon the law or rules related to a particular organization, the existence of a conflict of interest may not, in and of itself, be evidence of wrongdoing."

3) You mention that some citations are of "discredited" studies. It is true that scientists on each side of the issue probably thinks that the other side's studies are discredited. Some web pages are cited in order to link to published, peer-reviewed studies that are not available anywhere else online. If these studies could be *permanently* housed on Wikipedia, we could point locally instead. Some citations link to governmental agencies and some to non-governmental agencies.

4) The SCF review wasn't mentioned because a more recent review was done by the EFSA (which replaced the SCF) and that review is mentioned and linked to in the article. FDA findings were linked to as well. I think that details of the SCF findings could be discussed, presenting both sides of the issue including any possible conflicts of interest on the Committee, but that would just make the article longer. The SCF review does not rebut the Italian studies on aspartame and brain cancer as those studies came after the SCF review was published.

I suggest we may be able to find common ground by you directing me and others to the study on aspartame and brain cancer that was miscited (as described above). At least we can fix that to start.

Twoggle 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On second look, the study that I had been referring to for point (1) is in agreement with the text. My apologies.

For (2), I think that it should be noted in the text that the government inquiry did not find that any wrongdoing took place.

As far as (3) goes, I can agree that both sides' studies deserve representation. However, I think that some distinction should be made between doctors and scientists in the field who believe aspartame is unsafe, such as Olney and Soffritti, and non-scientists, such as doctors in alternative medicine and activists. This is not to discredit their opinions as false, of course, but to describe Betty Martini, who was given an honorary D.Hum. in part for her activism against aspartame and is not a doctor of philosophy or medicine, as "Dr. Betty Martini, founder of Mission Possible World Health International" is misleading. This has no bearing on the validity of her points, but it'd be more correct to describe her as something like an anti-aspartame and health activist.

(4) I meant the more recent EFSA study with regards to the Italian study. Again, apologies.

One more point: After reviewing the data in the Italian study, which is one of the more convincing ones to date on the anti-aspartame side, I think that a section should be added discussing the current acceptable daily intake in the US and most European countries, and the aspartame content and average daily intake of individuals. In order to maintain even the lowest level tested in the Italian study, a 75-kg person would have to drink nearly twelve cans of diet soda every single day for life (excluding childhood, when this would obviously be lower due to lower body weight). This would also tie in to the concerns a number of researchers have raised with regards to the safety of aspartame for children, and is especially important considering that all of the components of aspartame occur naturally and are present in very many foods; i.e., the question of the safety of aspartame is a question of dosage, not exposure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.243.227.190 (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

For Item #2, I believe that if we're going to discuss the GAO findings in more detail, then it belongs more in its own summarized section (perhaps below the scientific discussions). If we do that, I think your idea is excellent as long as we're clear that the GAO addressed whether they broke existing governmental rules and did not judge whether there was a "conflict of interest" (See Wikipedia definition of Conflict of Interest). What do you think?

In Item #3 above, you raise concern about a letter cited and quoted by one person at a Non-Governmental Organization (Mission Possible World Health International). However, out of the 77 references:

56 are from published scientific research

3 are statement from scientists who have published articles on the aspartame issue

8 are from news articles

5 are from government agencies

3 are from non-governmental organizations

1 is from an aspartame manufacturer

1 reference is no longer an existing organization (was a statement from a scientist)

Three (3) of the government references come from press offices. I believe that 3 non-governmental organization references is an appropriate balance (especially with 1 manufacturer reference). One reader might think that information from the FDA or EFSA is biased nonsense and another might think that information from Mission Possible World Health International is biased nonsense. Fortunately, very few citations in the article are coming from governmental or NGO statements. Are you proposing that we get rid of all non-scientific references (e.g., NGO's, government agency statements, news articles)? The reason I ask this is that you seem to imply that only doctors and scientists in the field are the ones we should be citing. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what your standards are.

We could include a section on how pro-aspartame scientists feel that the dosage seen in certain animal experiences is so high that humans would not have to worry about aspartame at a typically lower dose. But then we would have to balance it with information about published differences in toxicity of the discussed components when humans are compared to rats/mice along with a manufacturer study showing children ingesting as much as 75 mg/kg/day of aspartame. That would be the other side of the issue.

We could also raise the claimed "naturally occurring components" of aspartame, but again, there are two sides to the issue as raised by scientists. The other side would point to research which shows drastically different effects on the blood measurements of these components when absorbed from food as opposed to from aspartame. Also, it might not make sense to claim that *all* components of aspartame are found naturally in foods unless there is research showing that the DKP and beta-aspartame are found naturally in other foods.

I think it could be useful to discuss both of these issues you raised, but it would make the article a little longer. What do you think? Do you think that a 'matter of fact', scientific discussion of both those issues is warranted?

Twoggle 05:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the majority of citations. A couple citations that I do feel are somewhat misleading or could use additional support are:

"They think that even a moderate spike in blood plasma phenylalanine levels from typical ingestion may have adverse consequences in long-term use. They are especially concerned that the phenylalanine can be concentrated in fetal brains to a potentially neurotoxic level.(28),(29) "

(28) is a government proceeding transcript, but hosted on an anti-aspartame site. The text cites a number of studies in the literature as demonstrating X or Y. This does demonstrate that at least this scientist believes what is cited in the text, but he is just giving his opinion of some studies, and it's difficult to ascertain how grounded his statements are in the data. If possible, primary sources would be much more convincing. (29) also seems to be anti-aspartame, but is apparently down. If scientists are raising this concern and studying it, it would be much more convincing to cite one of those directly than a collection of one or two persons' opinions of them.

High levels of excitotoxins have been shown in hundreds of animal studies to cause damage to areas of the brain unprotected by the blood-brain barrier and a variety of chronic diseases arising out of this neurotoxicity.(36)(37)

The concept of excitotoxicity is basic to toxicology and this is hardly a dubious statement; it should be an easy matter to pull over any number of citations establishing neurotoxicity from excitotoxins from the excitotoxin article. (36) is not an online resource and (37) is a long-winded anti-aspartame source from which it is difficult to extract the cited meaning. I don't disagree with these being included as citations, but if this statement has been shown in "hundreds of animal studies", then a great many citations which are far more convincing than the ones given should be readily available.

My issue with Betty Martini is labeling her with the grandiose title, which seems to lend her opinion undue weight. Her criticism of the study, or its inclusion, are not what bother me. I simply feel that she should be described as an activist against aspartame and other food additives (who holds an honorary doctorate, if it is felt to be necessary that this be mentioned) because language like "Dr. Betty Martini, founder of Mission Possible World Health International" makes it sound like she's the Surgeon General.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with including these as citations, I simply feel that if the language of the article implies that the statements made are supported by studies, then at least some studies should be cited. I feel ill-at-ease with saying that scientists believe X and giving the opinion of one person as proof.

As far as the dosage part goes, I feel that yes, absolutely, a section on dosage should be included. After all, the components of aspartame all occur naturally. As far as diketopiperazines go: according to the article on diketopiperazines, they are formed simply as the lactam of two amino acids - which means they are almost certainly present in most foods, and especially food that has been fermented, pickled, smoked, grilled, etc. All of the studies cited have involved significantly high dosages, with the possible exception of the Soffritti study (in which the dose is still pretty high).

By far, the most plausible questions raised by the majority of the cited research is at what dosage aspartame produces high enough blood plasma levels of its constituent products to elicit a toxic response, what this toxic response is, and whether the acceptable daily intake is sufficiently below this level. It seems that the large gap between the dosage used in almost all studies and the daily intake of the average consumer should be noted in the article, especially since many studies declaring aspartame safe refer to this gap (particularly the EFSA, etc) the most plausible and imminent danger is to people for which the toxic dose could be significantly lower, such as persons with hypersensitivity to phenlyalanine or aspartate (mood disorders or phenylketonurics), or children, who would only need to drink 3 or 4 cans of diet soda a day to reach 20 mg/kg/day.Jonroybal 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be critical of only anti-aspartame citations.

Reference 28 is testimony of scientists knowledgable in the field of study specific to the text in the article. You mention that as one of your criteria. The text is very clear that some scientists "especially concerned that the phenylalanine can be concentrated in fetal brains to a potentially neurotoxic level." This reference proves that some scientists have that concern (whether some agree with it or not). I did move the link as best I could to a neutral site per your suggestion. I replaced the other dead reference (#29) with a published paper. Other references could be added if needed.

I replaced the dead reference (#36) with a link to a review by one of the scientists involved in the discovery of excitotoxins and who has researched excitotoxins from the 1960s until recently. Reference #37 is a review written by a scientist who has published on the excitotoxins issue. The fact that it is from an anti-aspartame source is irrelevent since many of the references on the other side are from known "pro-aspartame sources." It's almost impossible to create citations without citing articles written by pro- or anti-aspartame sources or those who have taken money from one side or the other. If we are concerned with citing scientists who have not studied aspartame or its metabolites or citing pieces that are long-winded, then we should definately remove the EFSA citations.

The quoted text from Betty Martini relates soley to the Conflict of Interest issues of the EFSA review. One does not need a Ph.D. (honorary or otherwise) to discuss Conflict of Interest issues. If we are going to characterize each person commenting, then we can describe one person as an "activist," another as a "person accepting money from the aspartame industry," another as a "non-expert, government beaurocrat," etc. In order to satitisfy your concern about the Ph.D., all that really has to be done is to move the text to a neutral site and note in brackets after the Ph.D. that it was an honorary degree. That way, we're not going down the path of denigrating those who run NGO's on the issue, those who accept payments from the manufacturer, those who work in the government, etc.

I agree that giving one person as proof is not ideal. Numerous citations can be added on either side of the issue.

I have yet to see a published article showing that the particular diketopiperazine in aspartame occurs naturally. As mentioned on Wikipedia, some diketopiperazines are carcinogenic. That have been the debate about this particular diketopiperazine.

I agree that some of the animal studies have used dosages higher than would be used by humans (Soffriti studies being one exception). The 10 to 50 times higher toxicity of the components of aspartame in humans (as compared to rats/mice) would be the other side of the issue.

I also agree that there are some scientists who believe there is a gap between the dosage of aspartame that causes toxicity and the dosage ingested by humans. And there are some scientists on the other side who believe there is no gap for reasons discussed in the paragraph above and certain human studies.

Twoggle 01:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Reference 28 is testimony of scientists knowledgable [sic] in the field of study specific to the text in the article. You mention that as one of your criteria. The text is very clear that some scientists "especially concerned that the phenylalanine can be concentrated in fetal brains to a potentially neurotoxic level."

I am aware of the contents of the citation. My point was that I'd be much more convinced by the research they are citing than by their opinions alone, especially if the transcript is hosted on an obviously biased site. See below.

"I replaced the dead reference (#36) with a link to a review by one of the scientists involved in the discovery of excitotoxins and who has researched excitotoxins from the 1960s until recently. Reference #37 is a review written by a scientist who has published on the excitotoxins issue. The fact that it is from an anti-aspartame source is irrelevent since many of the references on the other side are from known "pro-aspartame sources." It's almost impossible to create citations without citing articles written by pro- or anti-aspartame sources or those who have taken money from one side or the other. If we are concerned with citing scientists who have not studied aspartame or its metabolites or citing pieces that are long-winded, then we should definately remove the EFSA citations."

I don't think you understand what I am getting at. I don't care who wrote the article or what its contents are, so long as they are accurately cited. My concern is that items hosted on biased pages could be misquoted, taken out of context or otherwise manipulated. If a cited piece is actually a government document, I'd prefer a more direct way of getting at it. As for my concern over long-winded articles, I don't think you understand me there, either. My concern with the cited article is not the net length of it but the fact that it is a very long, "raw" text document from which it is exceedingly difficult and time-consuming to verify the cited facts. The EFSA study, while long, clearly directs the reader to its summarized findings and conclusions. It is easy for the reader to quickly locate these and verify the cited facts.

"The quoted text from Betty Martini relates soley [sic] to the Conflict of Interest issues of the EFSA review. One does not need a Ph.D. (honorary or otherwise) to discuss Conflict of Interest issues. If we are going to characterize each person commenting, then we can describe one person as an "activist," another as a "person accepting money from the aspartame industry," another as a "non-expert, government beaurocrat [sic]," etc. In order to satitisfy [sic] your concern about the Ph.D., all that really has to be done is to move the text to a neutral site and note in brackets after the Ph.D. that it was an honorary degree. That way, we're not going down the path of denigrating those who run NGO's on the issue, those who accept payments from the manufacturer, those who work in the government, etc."

As far as Betty Martini goes, I'd much prefer to simply describe her as Betty Martini and leave it at that. I agree, characterizations are superfluous to her point. Also, her honorary degree is not a Ph.D., it is a D.Hum.

"I have yet to see a published article showing that the particular diketopiperazine in aspartame occurs naturally. As mentioned on Wikipedia, some diketopiperazines are carcinogenic. That have been the debate about this particular diketopiperazine."

Problems with the Asp-Phe diketopiperazine(DKP)-carcinogenicity link assertion include:

1. The Wikipedia article asserting the general link is a stub with no citations;

2. DKPs degrade at pH extremes (the stomach is pH ~2);

3. DKPs from aspartame remain at under 1 ppm in blood plasma even at very high doses and are quickly excreted;

4. A great many DKPs occur naturally in foods (although, :::::::as you noted, I haven't found any specifically citing cyclic(Asp-Phe).

Unless research exists specifically damning cyclic(Asp-Phe) as carcinogenic, the above points should be noted to counter the assertion that cyclic(Asp-Phe) could be carcinogenic by pointing out that it is at least as likely, if we are basing our judgment upon its chemical classification alone, that it is not.

"I agree that some of the animal studies have used dosages higher than would be used by humans (Soffriti studies being one exception). The 10 to 50 times higher toxicity of the components of aspartame in humans (as compared to rats/mice) would be the other side of the issue.

"I also agree that there are some scientists who believe there is a gap between the dosage of aspartame that causes toxicity and the dosage ingested by humans. And there are some scientists on the other side who believe there is no gap for reasons discussed in the paragraph above and certain human studies."

Do you have a source for the 10-50x toxicity figure, or for that matter, of the assertion that the doses used in animal studies thus far may correlate to human consumption (with the possible exception of Soffritti)? Furthermore, are these studies comparing the same toxic responses? Multiple toxic dose-response curves exist for almost any given substance, and it would hardly be fair to claim that people are "10 to 50 times" more sensitive to a chemical because they experience headache or dizziness at x mg/kg while rats take 10x or 50x mg/kg to develop, say, severe seizures or vomiting.

The sources cited from the text (which claims humans are 5-6 times more susceptible), are:

45, which shows no abstract;

46 which is one figure from an uncited study and difficult to assess due to this fact;

47, which is cited in the text as arguing for a 5-6 fold increase in susceptibiligy of humans to excitotoxins but makes no such claim in its abstract and is not available in full online;

48, which is cited in the text as stating a particular concern for aspartate excitotoxicity in young children but in fact states only that "it is reasonable to postulate the greatest involvement of [NMDA receptors, of which glutamate is a substrate] in developmental psychoneuropathology", and does not specifically mention aspartate or "concern" in the abstract, and furthermore is not available online;

36, which is cited in the text as showing "the potential long-term neurodegenerative effects of small-to-moderate spikes on plasma excitotoxin levels", which I assume refers to chronic ingestion of BOAA, which, according to the article, activates non-NMDA receptors (whereas NMDA receptors are cited in the same abstract as being the cause for concern regarding excitotoxins), and is not available online;

49 and 50, which are cited in the text as expressing concerns over "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", but only state that 2 g/kg methanol ingestion causes increased aspartate concentration in the brain (49), and that blocking TBOA-sensitive glutamate transporters results in increased sensitivity to glutamate neurotoxicity (50). (50) also notes, interestingly, that preparations of up to 1 mM Glu concentration were not neurotoxic in their study. Neither study mentions aspartame or concerns about it;

51, which not only cites an anti-aspartame Yahoo! group as being scientific (the abstract posted would be much better off cited directly), but also appears to be a citation of one of your own postings based upon the e-mail address of the poster (twoggletheturtle@...), and furthermore relates to formaldehyde and free radicals and contains no mention of either excitotoxins or aspartame, except the assertion that the author of the post makes that "excitotoxins can also cause free radical formation".

The author of this section seems to be giving his or her own interpretation of the data cited rather than repeating the concerns of others cited. Furthermore, almost all of the links from this section point to Olney studies. Have other scientists independently corroborated his assertions regarding glutamate and aspartame toxicity and excitotoxins? This would be very helpful in establishing the existence of a scientific controversy, and not merely a Peter Duesberg.131.243.227.190 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel that any suggestion you make has to apply to both the pro- and anti-aspartame text and reference, of course. All of the studies you criticized, all of the citations you criticized, all of the persons you have criticized are in the anti-aspartame portions of the Aspartame Controversy document. It would be very easy for a person to criticize the pro-aspartame studies, scientists, citations, etc. I think the editors worked very hard to present both sides of the controversy even through I and others disagree with some of the expert statements on both sides of the issue.

Yes, there are sources for toxicity differences of the breakdown products and these sources related to acute effects in rodents and humans (as well as non-human primates in some cases). I mispoke, but the differences are 5-50 depending upon the chemical being discussed. And yes, of course, the effects looked at are the same. But that does not mean that it is a perfect anti-aspartame argument without any holes just like differences in doses in animal experiments does not mean that it is safe for humans at a lower dose (pro-aspartame argument). If we had all of the answers or the arguments on one side or the other didn't have holes in it, then there would be no controversy.

Whether a citation shows an abstract or not is really not relevent. Citing a scientific paper simply means that there is evidence within the paper to back up the claim. In a very large percentage of citations, the evidence cannot be found within the abstract itself, but within the paper. That is why I always tried to link to a full paper when it is available freely online (which is fairly rare). I believe others have done the same. I have never seen any published criticism of a paper based on the citations of that paper not being backed up in the Summary/Abstract.

Reference 45 has no relevence to the differences in toxicity between humans and rodents. It was cited to show an example of excitotoxicity in non-human primates. The Aspartic Acid section has a bit of history related to excitotoxicy and it is therefore expected that Dr. Olney is cited as he helped discover that field.

Reference 46 is a chart created by a scientist funded by the manufacturer of aspartame and MSG from a book on the subject. This reference is based on multiple studies conducted by this person and other scientists. The chart was also presented as evidence in a FASEB review of MSG and, I believe, published in another more recent paper. The chart is an excellent visual and I would agree that it would be nice to move it to a neutral site and reference where it came from. I know that book references are probably fine since SCF and others have used them extensively.

It is true that one could go back and forth endlessly on the excitotoxicity issue. Some scientists will bring up other studies related to excitotoxins and non-human primates claiming no effects. Then some scientists will counter with arguments that these same studies claimed to find no effects on rodents (which we now know is not true). And then there will be more claims and counterclaims. That is why limiting it to a few claims on each side seemed to be a way to provide detailed information but not get bogged down with pages on each issue.

Reference 47 is cited related to the difference in effect of excitotoxins on humans, rodents and non-human primates. Because many people do not have access to the full, published paper (as is true for most scientific citations), reference 46 provided the chart (that was freely available from the above-mentioned book and/or submittal to the government/FASEB review of MSG).

Reference 48 does discuss potential effects of excitotoxins on infants and young children, but one has to read the whole article. The citations are created like any citation for a scientific publication -- the evidence is in the text of the article. There was a time when editors were working to revise the sections of the article that I was taking pictures of the relevent text and uploading it to Wikipedia temporarily just to show the relevent portions. I would be happy to see if I have any of those images still available.

Reference 36 is about excitotoxins in foods and it has large sections on glutamate, aspartate, cysteine, and shorter sections on BMAA, BOAA, and Domoate. While the article was written by Dr. Olney (again), there is Reference #39 which demonstrates that Dr. Olney is not alone as a member of the Society of Neuroscience in his concern ... and that there are others on the other side of the issue.

Reference 49 was a short-term study and was cited specifically as it relates to methanol exposure increasing excitotoxin levels in the brain. Yes, a large amount was used, but that is necessary I think to see effects quickly and especially in rodents which are ~10 times less acutely sensitive to methanol-->formaldehyde than humans. But keep in mind, the pro-aspartame side of the argument was also presented so that persons could see why some believe it is not a concern. Reference 50 was cited to show that excitotoxins are a significant concern as it relates to susceptible areas of the brain. These references were not specifically about aspartame, but were about excitotoxins which was the subject at hand. Since everyone agrees that part of aspartame breaks down into an excitotoxin, the research on excitotoxins is relevent (even if there are disagreements as to whether there will be an effect in humans). It would be great to take the time to list more references for each and every statement, but that has to be done on both sides of the issue.

Reference 51 could be replaced by numerous references, but it is impossible to give just one or two references that include every aspect of potential synergestic effects. One must understand a bit about the issue. But reference 49 showing an increase in excitotoxins from methanol exposure is enough for those familiar with research on excitotoxins and the retina (for example) to see that there is a *potential* synergistic effect.

Again, all of these references were balanced with references on the pro-aspartame side.

As far as Olney being cited, I see numerous citations of other authors in that section (in fact the overwhelming majority of citations are not Olney). A couple of his citations relate to the history of excitotoxicity as it related to aspartame research, so it is expected he would be cited. Reference #39 shows that Olney is not the only concerned scientist. Other references could be listed, but being the leader in the field, he has done most of the key research (as it relates to the aspartame controversy). The same could be said for aspartame metabolism studies and Stegink or aspartame and methanol studies and Tephly on the pro-aspartame side.

The DKP issue is already discussed in the article as it relates to aspartame and cancer. Citations 53 and 54 (the articles themselves) present evidence of concern as it relates to mutagenic potential and cancer from this particular DKP and citations 55 and 56 present evidence that it should not be a concern. My point about this DKP is that I have not seen evidence that it occurs naturally (although perhaps it does -- anyone know of a paper that presents this evidence).

How about we focus just on one pro-aspartame citation and one anti-aspartame citation you have problems with. Discussing too many issues at once may not be productive???

Twoggle 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"I feel that any suggestion you make has to apply to both the pro- and anti-aspartame text and reference, of course. All of the studies you criticized, all of the citations you criticized, all of the persons you have criticized are in the anti-aspartame portions of the Aspartame Controversy document. It would be very easy for a person to criticize the pro-aspartame studies, scientists, citations, etc. I think the editors worked very hard to present both sides of the controversy even through I and others disagree with some of the expert statements on both sides of the issue."

If there are any pro-aspartame citations of sources that are misrepresented or otherwise manipulated in the text in the same way that I have shown the anti-aspartame citations of sources I have thus far discussed to be, by all means, point them out. I wouldn't want misrepresentation on either side.

"Yes, there are sources for toxicity differences of the breakdown products and these sources related to acute effects in rodents and humans (as well as non-human primates in some cases). I mispoke [sic], but the differences are 5-50 depending upon the chemical being discussed. And yes, of course, the effects looked at are the same. But that does not mean that it is a perfect anti-aspartame argument without any holes just like differences in doses in animal experiments does not mean that it is safe for humans at a lower dose (pro-aspartame argument). If we had all of the answers or the arguments on one side or the other didn't have holes in it, then there would be no controversy."

Cite your sources; I've cited mine. I'm particularly interested in studies of aspartame or its breakdown products, not unrelated or possibly related excitotoxins. Toxicology is extremely substance-specific and to imply toxicity of aspartame by association with other toxic compounds in the same general compound class would be like equating poppy seeds with heroin because they both contain opioids, or, if you want to be more conservative, like comparing pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) with methamphetamine.

"Whether a citation shows an abstract or not is really not relevent [sic]. Citing a scientific paper simply means that there is evidence within the paper to back up the claim. In a very large percentage of citations, the evidence cannot be found within the abstract itself, but within the paper. That is why I always tried to link to a full paper when it is available freely online (which is fairly rare). I believe others have done the same. I have never seen any published criticism of a paper based on the citations of that paper not being backed up in the Summary/Abstract."

Relevance is contextual by necessity. I'm not trying to discredit the study because I can't see the abstract. My point is that I can't verify the text easily with online sources. For all I know (without actually digging up twenty-year-old journal issues), an offline source could say that unicorns feed on leprechauns. It'd take at least a full day of dedicated library research to verify the cited articles that are offline, and without that, I've got to take the author's word that they contain the text that the author says they do, and based upon the representation of citation content in the text I've seen thus far, I'm not inclined to do so. At least some online sources should exist if the research backing up these claims is anywhere near as ubiquitous as the text seems to imply. In particular, if a study is corroborated by future research, then other articles should point to and build off of the offline source; again, however, primary sources are always preferred as they reduce the potential for the introduction of bias.

"Reference 45 has no relevence [sic] to the differences in toxicity between humans and rodents. It was cited to show an example of excitotoxicity in non-human primates. The Aspartic Acid section has a bit of history related to excitotoxicy [sic] and it is therefore expected that Dr. Olney is cited as he helped discover that field."

But it is implied by its contrast with the starting sentence of the paragraph ("Some scientists think that humans and other primates are not as susceptible to excitotoxins as rodents and therefore there is little concern with aspartic acid from aspartame. [...] Other scientists think that primates are susceptible to excitotoxic damage[45]") that it is to be taken as arguing for human susceptibility versus rodents by association with primates. If there's no comparison, then what you are doing is stating the obvious; of course primates are susceptible to neurotoxins, if by "susceptible", you mean they have an effect at all. It makes no sense to say that some scientists believe primates are less susceptible than rodents and then say "However, others say that primates are susceptible" because these are the same statement. The first researchers were already saying that primates were susceptible in the first place. I didn't mention John Olney in this section, but will take that comment to apply to my general complaint about too many citations from him.

"Reference 46 is a chart created by a scientist funded by the manufacturer of aspartame and MSG from a book on the subject. This reference is based on multiple studies conducted by this person and other scientists. The chart was also presented as evidence in a FASEB review of MSG and, I believe, published in another more recent paper. The chart is an excellent visual and I would agree that it would be nice to move it to a neutral site and reference where it came from. I know that book references are probably fine since SCF and others have used them extensively.

If it is based on "multiple studies", cite them. Cite the FASEB study too. A single graph without context is almost meaningless. What were the study parameters? Were there any confounding factors? How confident can we be in these data, statistically speaking? I can't answer these questions from a single graph. Book references may be fine for a large task force like SCF that has access to all the world literature on the subject, but for Wikipedians such as myself, online references are preferred since, again, it would take at least a full day of library research to verify the text from print-only resources. Moreover, you seem to imply that a good deal of support for this graph should exist online. Besides, I couldn't verify the book in a library even if I wanted to, since I still don't even know what book it is from or who the author is or which data the graph is based upon.

It is true that one could go back and forth endlessly on the excitotoxicity issue. Some scientists will bring up other studies related to excitotoxins and non-human primates claiming no effects. Then some scientists will counter with arguments that these same studies claimed to find no effects on rodents (which we now know is not true). And then there will be more claims and counterclaims. That is why limiting it to a few claims on each side seemed to be a way to provide detailed information but not get bogged down with pages on each issue.

I'm not sure that what this is referring to, but perhaps I'm just missing it.

Reference 47 is cited related to the difference in effect of excitotoxins on humans, rodents and non-human primates. Because many people do not have access to the full, published paper (as is true for most scientific citations), reference 46 provided the chart (that was freely available from the above-mentioned book and/or submittal to the government/FASEB review of MSG).

If you refer to the person(s) arguing for the text cited in (47) as "they", you surely must have at other sources besides this single Olney review paper, especially in light of your argument in support of (46) and the number of excitotoxins that have been studied.

Reference 48 does discuss potential effects of excitotoxins on infants and young children, but one has to read the whole article. The citations are created like any citation for a scientific publication -- the evidence is in the text of the article. There was a time when editors were working to revise the sections of the article that I was taking pictures of the relevent text and uploading it to Wikipedia temporarily just to show the relevent portions. I would be happy to see if I have any of those images still available.

I'm pretty sure that would be unusable for the article under Wikipedia guidelines per copyright restrictions, but I'd still like to see such images if you have them. If you can't, I'd also accept another source. That seems like the easier route anyway. Surely somebody besides Olney has asserted this.

"Reference 36 is about excitotoxins in foods and it has large sections on glutamate, aspartate, cysteine, and shorter sections on BMAA, BOAA, and Domoate. While the article was written by Dr. Olney (again), there is Reference #39 which demonstrates that Dr. Olney is not alone as a member of the Society of Neuroscience in his concern ... and that there are others on the other side of the issue."

I am aware of this. However, it does not say anything (at least, not in the abstract) regarding concern about "the potential long-term neurodegenerative effects of small-to-moderate spikes on plasma excitotoxin levels", and neither does reference (39). (39) demonstrates, at best, that Olney is not the only one concerned about excitotoxins such as domoic acid and glutamate. Aspartate is not even mentioned in (39) except in the insert, and neither is phenylalanine. Again, applying concerns about some excitotoxins to all excitotoxins is logically invalid.

"Reference 49 was a short-term study and was cited specifically as it relates to methanol exposure increasing excitotoxin levels in the brain. Yes, a large amount was used, but that is necessary I think to see effects quickly and especially in rodents which are ~10 times less acutely sensitive to methanol-->formaldehyde than humans. But keep in mind, the pro-aspartame side of the argument was also presented so that persons could see why some believe it is not a concern. Reference 50 was cited to show that excitotoxins are a significant concern as it relates to susceptible areas of the brain. These references were not specifically about aspartame, but were about excitotoxins which was the subject at hand. Since everyone agrees that part of aspartame breaks down into an excitotoxin, the research on excitotoxins is relevent (even if there are disagreements as to whether there will be an effect in humans). It would be great to take the time to list more references for each and every statement, but that has to be done on both sides of the issue."

If reference (49) "was a short-term study", then by definition it does not document "chronic" exposure in the sense that the text seems to imply (low-dose, long-term exposure; i.e., the kind of exposure that people have to methanol from aspartame). The extremely high 2 g/kg dose was not an issue I raised with (49) originally, but it corroborates this point. The paper's title largely contrasts its method with that of previous researchers, who used even higher doses and shorter study periods. It would be much more accurate to describe this study as documenting "chronic, high-dose, short-term" exposure. Whether you think it is necessary (or for that matter, whether it is necessary) to use dosages that high to research methanol exposure effects in rats is irrelevant. Furthermore, this reinforces my point about needing to discuss relative dosages and dose-response curves/patterns, since it is hardly accurate to equate the effects of methanol administered at 2g/kg with methanol administered at 0.1-0.2 mg/kg (approximate dosage for an adult, from a single can of Coke). Even if you assume high intake and low body weight, AND correct for the "10x" lower sensitivity of rats to methanol, that's still a difference of roughly a hundredfold. That's like saying that drinking 600 ml of distilled water at once could be harmful because drinking 60 L of distilled water at once is very toxic and can kill you. Remember the cardinal rule of toxicology: ANYTHING is toxic at a high enough dose; thus, dose determines toxicity.

Reference (50) refers to harm from high glutamate levels and is in the specific context of inhibited glutamate transporters. Reference (49) explicitly states that retinal amino acid concentrations were NOT affected by any of their treatment regimens, and therefore it is inappropriate to apply the findings from (49) to (50). Moreover, synthesizing data to draw new conclusions or making speculations about what the results of multiple studies might imply when taken together, constitutes something like original research (at best) and is not allowed. If scientists or others have raised this specific concern, that's fine. Cite them (accurately). Otherwise, it's just your opinion.

"Reference 51 could be replaced by numerous references, but it is impossible to give just one or two references that include every aspect of potential synergestic effects. One must understand a bit about the issue. But reference 49 showing an increase in excitotoxins from methanol exposure is enough for those familiar with research on excitotoxins and the retina (for example) to see that there is a *potential* synergistic effect."

Possibly, but this is you saying this as an opinion, not a scientist (or any other person, for that matter) saying it as a fact or theory in a peer-reviewed publication (or any other publication, for that matter). Again, synthesizing data to draw new conclusions or making speculations about what the results of multiple studies might imply when taken together, constitutes something like original research (at best) and is not allowed. If scientists or others have raised this specific concern, that's fine. Cite them (accurately). Otherwise, it's just your opinion.

"Again, all of these references were balanced with references on the pro-aspartame side."

I am more concerned with maintaining fidelity to the actual findings in the scientific literature than I am with coddling one side or the other in a debate so that they are both "equal". If either side has more or better references (preferably both) than the other, so be it. Moreover, the references on the pro-aspartame side are correctly represented in the text and easily verified, which is in contrast to the anti-aspartame side.

"As far as Olney being cited, I see numerous citations of other authors in that section (in fact the overwhelming majority of citations are not Olney). A couple of his citations relate to the history of excitotoxicity as it related to aspartame research, so it is expected he would be cited. Reference #39 shows that Olney is not the only concerned scientist. Other references could be listed, but being the leader in the field, he has done most of the key research (as it relates to the aspartame controversy). The same could be said for aspartame metabolism studies and Stegink or aspartame and methanol studies and Tephly on the pro-aspartame side."

Really? Consider this question: Of the citations listed in the section I discussed, is Olney listed as an author? (45) Yes. (46) Unknown, but you said that it came from the fulltext of (47), which is by Olney, so that's: (46) Yes and (47) Yes. (48) Yes. (36) Yes. (49): No. (50) Yes. (51) Will consider it a no despite my reservations about using this citation at all.

So, the tally is: Olney: 45, 46, 47, 48, 36, 50; Not Olney: 49, 51. That's 6 to 2 in favor of papers listing Olney as an author; 5 to 2 if you don't count (46), since it is a review paper and that might have come from a reviewed paper, and not Olney; and still 3 to 2 if you only count papers on which Olney is the primary author. Furthermore, the two citations that aren't his are the same ones which I have the most reservations about with regards to their representation in the text. Olney is clearly cited more than any other author.

"The DKP issue is already discussed in the article as it relates to aspartame and cancer. Citations 53 and 54 (the articles themselves) present evidence of concern as it relates to mutagenic potential and cancer from this particular DKP and citations 55 and 56 present evidence that it should not be a concern. My point about this DKP is that I have not seen evidence that it occurs naturally (although perhaps it does -- anyone know of a paper that presents this evidence)."

Given that Asp-Phe occurs regularly in protein sequences and that proteins denature and break down when heated, it is easy to see why fre dipeptides of Asp-Phe almost certainly must occur to at least some degree in all cooked or digested foods as proteolysis products of proteins. Because Asp-Phe dipeptides readily form their diketopiperazine in solution, it follows that cyclic(Asp-Phe) almost certainly occurs exogenously in natural foods and endogenously as a proteolysis product. But this is just my opinion; I don't have a citation to prove it, and even if I did, it'd probably reduce to the same tenuous assertions of toxicity at low dose based upon higher-dose studies as are levied against aspartate and phenylalanine, so I don't have the inclination to look.

How about we focus just on one pro-aspartame citation and one anti-aspartame citation you have problems with. Discussing too many issues at once may not be productive???

I'm not required to have problems equally with pro- and anti-aspartame citations and neither is anybody else. Writing an NPOV article does not necessarily require me to have no opinion on the subject. If you can find "pro-aspartame" citations in the text which are cited incorrectly or misleadingly, point them out, and if you can find "anti-aspartame" citations with the same problem, point those out too. At present I am content to focus on the specific area(s) already under discussion in this thread.Jonroybal 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to want to get into a debate about only anti-aspartame citations and most of the criticism rests on the fact that you have not read the full papers being cited -- only a short summary (if that). I only want to discuss if there's information in the full papers on both sides of the issue that backs up the statements. If you don't have an inclination to read the papers, that's your problem. From Wikipedia article about abstracts: "It is a common misconception that the abstracts in MEDLINE provide sufficient information for medical practitioners, students, scholars and patients. The abstract can convey the main results and conclusions of a scientific article but the full text article must be consulted for details of the methodology, the full experimental results, and a critical discussion of the interpretations and conclusions. Consulting the abstract alone is inadequate for scholarship and may lead to inappropriate medical decisions."

I would be happy to discuss a specific citation and the full paper involved to start things off, but I do not find this discussion constructive. I perceive it is an ongoing attack on any citation on the anti-aspartame side of the issue. Maybe we can make a constructive discussion by discussing and fixing one citation at a time rather than taking a "shotgun" approach.

"Cite your sources; I've cited mine."

Unfortunately, you haven't cited anything related to differences in toxicity in the components of aspartame between humans and rats/mice. All I said that if there is a discussion of "high" doses used in some animal experiments, then the other side of the argument should be presented to prevent bias (POV). One of the citations, for example, might be: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=6756793&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum . If someone was to be critical of that citation or others, it is reasonable to expect to see specific criticisms based on the paper itself.

"Relevance is contextual by necessity. I'm not trying to discredit the study because I can't see the abstract. My point is that I can't verify the text easily with online sources. For all I know (without actually digging up twenty-year-old journal issues), an offline source could say that unicorns feed on leprechauns."

Most peer-reviewed, scientific publications are not freely available online. As you know, that is where scientists tend to publish their papers. One citation presented an online source with two of the most respected scientists presenting testimony. That is actually very rare that such information is available online, but you criticized the citation stating that the papers they discussed in their testimony should have been the citations. Well, if that were the case, then there wouldn't be an online source of information on that side of the controversy.

"But it is implied by its contrast with the starting sentence of the paragraph ("Some scientists think that humans and other primates are not as susceptible to excitotoxins as rodents and therefore there is little concern with aspartic acid from aspartame. [...] Other scientists think that primates are susceptible to excitotoxic damage[45]") that it is to be taken as arguing for human susceptibility versus rodents by association with primates."

You simply cut the last part of the sentence from the quote. The last part of the sentence: "and that humans concentrate excitotoxins in the blood more than other animals." [46] have a reference to susceptibility issues related to primates. While I would agree that it could be worded slightly better, the references are there to back up both the pro- and anti-aspartame side of the issue.

"If it is based on "multiple studies", cite them. Cite the FASEB study too. A single graph without context is almost meaningless. What were the study parameters? Were there any confounding factors? How confident can we be in these data, statistically speaking? I can't answer these questions from a single graph."

You also cannot answer these questions with a typical online source or abstract. You have to readthe whole studies.

"If you refer to the person(s) arguing for the text cited in (47) as "they", you surely must have at other sources besides this single Olney review paper...."

Yes, see Reference #39 cited in the same section.

"I'm pretty sure that would be unusable for the article under Wikipedia guidelines per copyright restrictions, but I'd still like to see such images if you have them. If you can't, I'd also accept another source. That seems like the easier route anyway. Surely somebody besides Olney has asserted this."

Yes, there are other references, but since you criticize every study posted without even reading the paper, what is the point? As I said earlier, if we focused on exactly one issue/citation at a time, that would make it much easier to come to a consensus, I think.

"I am aware of this. However, it does not say anything (at least, not in the abstract) regarding concern about 'the potential long-term neurodegenerative effects of small-to-moderate spikes on plasma excitotoxin levels'",

It does discuss this in the paper itself.

"(39) demonstrates, at best, that Olney is not the only one concerned about excitotoxins such as domoic acid and glutamate. Aspartate is not even mentioned in (39) except in the insert, and neither is phenylalanine. Again, applying concerns about some excitotoxins to all excitotoxins is logically invalid."

The one article you have read, I feel you are misrepresenting. "Dietary excitotoxins" are mentioned in the article. They did not list all of the dietary excitotoxins, just used one common one (MSG) as an example. The "insert" where aspartame was specifically mentioned, is an 11-paragraph article about the debate.

"So, the tally is: Olney: 45, 46, 47, 48, 36, 50; Not Olney: 49, 51. That's 6 to 2 in favor of papers listing Olney as an author; 5 to 2 if you don't count (46), since it is a review paper and that might have come from a reviewed paper, and not Olney; and still 3 to 2 if you only count papers on which Olney is the primary author. Furthermore, the two citations that aren't his are the same ones which I have the most reservations about with regards to their representation in the text. Olney is clearly cited more than any other author."

You already agreed that Olney is not the only scientist concerned with dietary excitotoxins as reference #39 shows. I looked at it in a completely different way: 18 references in that section, 5 with Olney as author or co-author, two used during based discussion of excitotoxicology, leaving 3 on the anti-aspartame side. More could be added, and if we take an approach that facilitates developing a consensus on one citation at a time, it might be possible to have time and energy to make those additions.

I am going to respond to only portions or your debate response unless you are willing to focus on only one issue at a time so that a concensus can be developed to that issue / citation. My focus is having a NPOV article that accurately presents both sides of the issue and not having endless debates. I prefer taking my time on one issue, solving it and then moving on to the next.

Twoggle 16:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Three references styles listed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:References#Embedded_HTML_links. Embedded HTML Links, Harvard Referencing and Footnotes. The text of the article seems to discourage the use of Footnotes: "Many of today's style guides require not using or recommend against using footnotes and reference endnotes to cite sources." I would prefer the Embedded HTML Links format. The other issue is that a very, very long Reference section would tend to push other sections off the page. That is why References are supposed to be put at the end of the article. However, External Links also go at the end. Since the Reference section will be extremely long and the External Links section will be shorter, I suggest putting the shorter section before the longer section. If that is not agreeable. Then I would want a link to the External Links section before the References (not just in the Table of Contents), so readers getting to the end of the article are well aware that there is another section a long ways down on the page, below the References section. Twoggle 15:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, good point to bring up. I chose to put the HTML references in the same way as other references, using the <ref name=></ref>, I do understand that that sometimes gives long references sections. IMHO, that is not a real problem, it is more that I don't like the mix of styles. For now I do it automatically, using a script that cleans up a lot of things in a page, but that indeed gives sometimes very ugly titles (but at least people know where they go when they click the link). I might be able to cut that down (I could e.g. only use the homepage as a text after the full link). Any suggestions for that? By the way, if there is an inline URL, the URL still should be also in the references section, so that does not cut it down.

Of course the External links - section can go before the references section, but both are not a real part of the article, people scrolling there already know that they get into a list of links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi! I tried the reference links with IE and Foxfire your script set up and there was something not working right because clicking on the reference numbers either didn't go anywhere except a big jumble of HTML (rather than a clickable link). I suggest that we use Embedded HTML links as described at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Embedded_Citations. It would be relatively easy to duplicate these links in the References section using the suggestions on the Embedded_Citations page and then, gradually add more detail to the Citations as they suggest. You're right about the link being in the reference section. In addition, they suggest a full citation. However, smaller type can be used and that is why I recommended putting the External Links first -- The novice Wikipedia reader may click on the reference links while reading the article, but may not realize that way, way down the page below a more detailed reference citations are some pro- and anti- and new links. Twoggle 21:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm .. I am running Opera, and did not see a problem. It is conform one of the cite-mechanisms of Wikipedia. Now I must say, there were some references in that page, that looked like a whole lot of jibberish to me, quite a deeplink. Thus far (though I have not run the script on that many pages yet), I have not heard anything. Maybe one of the links in this article is not compatible with my script, I will leave it, its OK (it is in my disclaimer here, if it goes wrong, just revert and drop me a line). See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't try Opera, but all I know is that I didn't see any clickable links, just something more akin to HTML code (in plain text/ASCII format). If there are no objections, I'll just manually go ahead and do what you were doing with the script, using the REF function, but gradually add more detailed citations. It's probably the easiest way to fix up the citations so they have more detailed information. Twoggle 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What the script does is first see if the url has the format [http://www.here.com A link about here] (so, this url has a decent description), these are left as is, just puts a <ref name="http://www.here.com"> before, and a </ref> behind (so if the same url is linked twice, it will appear only once in the references list!). Links of the type [http://www.here.com] (so without description) are converted to <ref name="http://www.here.com">[http://www.here.com http://www.here.com] (so the url of the link becomes the description, otherwise all those link will look like [1] <- this, which is non-informative in a bulletted list). Most references were of the latter format, but there was at least one very stange one .. might have gone wrong. But by all means, go ahead. I will copy the old version to my sandbox, and run my script on that, see if and what I can improve. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

US Policy Section

I cut the section because of the NUMEROUS citation requests, and a lack of citations being added over a resonable amount of time. Please add citations if replaced. Thank you. 76.20.176.60 00:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Refs

Let's expand the references into full citations rather than just pubmed numbers. I can start working on it, but it's a big job and I'd appreciate all the help I can get. Thanks! delldot | talk 18:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Vandalism

"However, the conclusions were refuted after an exhaustive, double-blind study that showed that mice, fed only sugar-free gum and diet Coca-Cola not only showed no adverse affects, but on the contrary, appeared 20%-35% slimmer and more sexually attractive."

I presume this is a joke/vandalism, so I'm deleting it. --RITZ 18:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly if there is no verifiable source confirming that this study ever took place or came to that conclusion, it's fair game for deletion, regardless of whether it's vandalism. -Amatulic 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts to Discussed NPOV sections (Methanol / Responses )

I was gone for a while and noticed that two sections had significant and NPOV edits apparently without any discussion:

1. The Responses section was edited so that all of the pro-aspartame responses were at the top and the anti-aspartame responses were buried below. Of course, that is NPOV. It is already the case that the pro-aspartame links are listed first. To also list the pro-aspartame responses first starts to make the article more like at PR piece.

2. The Methanol section was drastically changed from banter back and forth of pro-aspartame and anti-aspartame arguments to a pro-aspartame section. In addition, many of the sentences completely misrepresent the arguments. For example:

a. "There has been some concern that aspartame metabolism releases methanol." This misrepresents the concern. The real concern on the aspartame side is that the release of methanol from aspartame causes the exposure to and accumulation of significant amounts of formaldehyde while such exposure and accumulation has never been seen from traditionally-ingested substances. While the manufacturer has a response to this concern, to represent the concern as simply the release of methanol is inaccurate.

b. "This methanol is distributed throughout the body, rapidly broken down into formaldehyde and formic acid, and shuttled into the energy production pathway." This is not quite accurate and relies on an undergraduate engineering review as a reference. There has been research on both aspartame and formaldehyde exposure slowing formaldehyde adduct accumulation. In fact, some of this research has been on smokers exposed to formaldehyde. So, while some percentage of the formaldehyde is converted to formic acid, not all of it is. I'd be glad to cite other research.

c. "It is believed that...." The pro-aspartame statement is prefaced with "It is believed...." and the anti-aspartame statement is prefaced with "Some say...." implying that one side has more weight than the other. Let's be consistant.

d. "For comparison, it should be noted that the methanol content (in milligrams/liter) of a soft drink containing aspartame is 55, whereas the methanol content is 20-36 for white wines, 99-271 for red wines, 181-2425 for brandy, 16-680 for grape juice and 180-218 for tomato juice." The comparison is irrelevant since it does not matter how much methanol is in other products. The only thing that matters is if the methanol in aspartame is enough to cause chronic toxicity after converting to formaldehyde and if the methanol in other products does or does not convert to formaldehyde. The reason such chart was left out of the discussed methanol section before is that it is used as PR and not part of a serious scientific discussion.

If a comparison chart of methanol levels is included as is often done by manufacturer researchers, then the counter arguments and chart needs to be included that shows that methanol levels in some fruit juices and alcoholic beverages are far above the levels proven to cause chronic toxicity ... and therefore these researchers argue that this would be more evidence that these substances contain protective factors. So, I'm just asking and hoping for NPOV information on both sides.

Twoggle 18:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the previous "studies" section that cited research from both sides. This section also includes proper references and phrases that put the sources into perspective. The fact of the matter is that you have several public health safety bodies on the one hand and small profit making companies that sells books and other material on the other hand. --Deon Steyn 06:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate of already-entered list of organizations deleted. The list is put together in an unbiased (NPOV) way as to not denigrate any of the organizations as that is not the point of the article. Some of the organizations are smaller and some are larger. Some of the organizations accept financing or exchange employees with the manufacturer of aspartame and some do not. Some have web pages about revolving door representation or 'quackery' or many other negative things. Almost all of the organizations listed are long-running, national organizations that some people respect and some do not. The fact that all pro-aspartame links are listed first and that a pro-aspartame organization is listed first should make the pro-aspartame crowd happy even though some might consister that very slight NPOV itself. Twoggle 17:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is far from a neutral point of view to list some of these questionable sources along massive public health institutions. They have given themselves deceptively similar official sounding titles and most derive profit from their unsupported claims. To simply mix them in between the actual proper institutions is a deception, but then not to show references questioning their motives is definitely biased. The article has to show that laughable organizations such as Feingold Association with money making fads like [[Feingold Diet derive profits from their claims. --Deon Steyn 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It is simply extreme bias (non-NPOV) to denigrate certain national organizations that have thousands of members including scientists and researchers and accept other similar organizations that make statements more to your liking. My own bias is that organizations that take money from the manufacturer of a product might not belong in the article or should be buried somewhere below, but I know that in order to be NPOV, that cannot be done. For example, the main person responsible for continuing aspartame approval during the 1990s at the FDA worked with manufacturer researcher on their next generation sweetener (for pay). That doesn't make the FDA's statement right or wrong, but someone with a bias could bury the government organization since they claim the revolving door system at the FDA creates extreme bias.

It is important to remember that the Responses section was set up to list responses from a small selection of organizations on the subject that was discuss in an NPOV manner above that section. In order to do this, organizations are given equal weight -- even those public organizations that take funding from the manufacturer. After all, the Wiki on NPOV states: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Twoggle 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all responses should be listed, but there should most definitely be a distinction between organizations by their function. One the one have you have government agencies tasked with public health and safety issues while on the other hand you have private organizations with unclear motives – some of whom profit directly from their claims. No one is "denigrating" either of the two groups, it's simply a factual distinction. Furthermore this distinction is an important one, because it seems that only the private organizations seem to be against Aspartame. One could argue that either group is biased or have ulterior motives, but the fact is that the organizational distinction remains and has a definite bearing on the organizations standpoint. --Deon Steyn 06:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I believe that organizations funded by the manufacturer of the substance or their trade groups should be the distinction rather than whether they are "non-profit" or not. After all, any joker can set up a non-profit organization. Nevertheless, most of the anti- and pro-aspartame organizations listed *are* public non-profit organizations (e.g., Feingold, NHF, etc.). Rather than manipulating the order and organization to suit my own bias, I comprimised and listed pro-aspartame org, anti-aspartame org, pro-, anti-, etc.

Again, according to Wiki rules: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." Repeated attempts to bury anti-aspartame organizations (that you called "laughable") are directly in conflict with those rules. In addition, there are a myriad of ways to categorize the organizations, including as I suggested whether they have accepted funding from the manufacturer or exchanged employees with the manufacturer -- which some might consider more relevant than their tax designation (i.e., non-profit status).

If we cannot list the organizations in a non-biased, NPOV way, then we should permanently remove the entire section until a consensus can be reached. I think a comprimise of NOT categorizing organizations by non-profit status (even though almost all listed have that status) or by whether they have proven conflict-of-interest in the subject at hand is a reasonable comprimise. I even went so far in comprimising as to list a pro-aspartame organization first (even though pro-aspartame orgs are listed first in the links section). Twoggle 16:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One other thing I noticed is that the "Responses" are duplicates of some of the External Links and really should be removed if no NPOV consensus can be reached on listing them without creating extreme bias. 24.34.65.127 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One more followup.... I just reviewed a number of controversial Wiki sites related to ingesting substances. None of them had a "Responses" section, but they did have a *small* selection of external links that allowed readers to see opinions from various organizations. Twoggle 23:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not create the "responses" section, I'm merely trying to prevent bias (that in fact border on advertising) in the article. The organizations you mention (Feingold and NHF) most definitely profit from their claims through the sale of books and DVDs (things like the Feingold Diet). Worse still, they masquerade as non-profit organizations when they are not. Please also see (Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith) as no one ever attempted to "bury" the "anti-aspartame" orgs. I merely separated the various bodies into 2/3 groups, you can change the order of the groups if you like and put the anti-aspartame ones at the top, but to put someone with an official sounding name like the national health foundation next to the FDA, lens them undue credibility when they are in fact a small website selling DVDs. Why don't we just divide it into "pro" and "anti" groups then? --Deon Steyn 08:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The extreme bias put in the section is obvious. You started by calling the anti-aspartame organizations "laughable" and then burying them and the bottom. In addition, you are now inaccurately claiming that Feingold and NHF are not non-profit organizations when both are non-profit organizations. They sell books just like the organizations that you listed under non-profit organizations sell books. In addition, NHF has been around 50+ years and Feingold has been around for decades as well. Whether you agree or like or respect an organization is completely irrelevent. The same goes for me as well. It's clear from Wiki NPOV rules that they should be listed in an unbiased way or they shouldn't be listed at all.

I have removed the Responses section. I always start out by assuming good faith. However, repeated denigrating of certain large, national organizations in the talk section and then changing the previous setup (pro-, anti-, pro-, anti-, etc.) to bury the anti aspartame organizations and further denigrating them by putting the ones you don't like in their own 'special' category, makes me think that NPOV cannot be reached in this area. As I mentioned before: 1) there is no difference between the non-profits as they all sell items and they are all non-profits; and 2) non-profit status of organization is just one of many possible ways of categorizing the organizations.

I suggest we make suggestions here before we keep reverting. This will prevent constant reverts until a consensus can be reached. There is a Wiki section on Wikipedia:Negotiation. We have used it several times on this page subject before posting things to the main article page and in this way avoided constant reverts. Twoggle 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the position by Twoggle. I must say it is a strange to way to apply principles by Deon Steyn. He dismissed opinion forming organizations whose goal is to further a cause as “for-profit” because they don’t give away their material for free but sell it. At the same time, he sees industry lobby organizations as non-profit and impartial. MaxPont 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

MaxPont, you are not seriously going to call U.S. government health organizations such as the FDA, CDC and NCI "lobby groups" are you? That is patently false! They are large organizations tasked with public health that don't have to rely on commercial funding. Admittedly that doesn't always equate with honesty or integrity (in fact some would argue exactly the opposite).... and this has always been my point: it is interesting and important to distinguish (at the very least) between government funded and private. Whether we put the one group first and then the other doesn't matter (for the record the gov ones were first, because it was an easier edit since they were mostly at the top and accusations of trying to bury is patently ridiculous). Either way, I support the last edit of user Twoggle to rather remove the section in it's entirety (who is doing the burying now :-), because it doesn't contribute much. Furthermore, it is quite difficult for the rest of the world's readers to appreciate, decipher and read between the lines when Americans wade in with corporate conspiracies theories etc. --Deon Steyn 06:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest section

I didn't see a single conflict of interest in the whole section. Tenuous connections between high level officials are not "conflicts of interest" especially when you realize that any high level officials are both corporately and politically connected. After all a dollar is a dollar, see, no conflict there!

This article is very poor

For instance, at the moment it's a link farm. It's also very POV. I'm going to put the tag on and remove excess links for a start, it should only have a couple pro- and a couple anti-Merkinsmum 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide specific paragraphs/sections where boths sides of the issue are not presented fairly. Other Editors have commented positively, but it is certainly possible that there are POV sections where both sides are not presented clearly! Twoggle 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Waited nearly two months. Removed tag until requirements for POV tag, specifically 2nd paragraph of NPOV Dispute page, are met.Twoggle 19:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Books- only a couple of important ones need be listed, for each point of view. Not every book ever published about it:)Merkinsmum 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, I *restored* the top few links for each section as those that were listed at the top, for the most part, represented the most authoritative links and links with the most scientific discussion/resources.Twoggle 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What a mess. In case editors here don't know, we do have a PMID template. You only have to type in PMID followed by the number. Also, see the infobox on my userpage for a script to generate a reference for any PMID - it's listed under PMID template in the userbox on my userpage. Just enter the PMID, and it gives you a fully-formatted reference. (Click on the drop-down menu in the first box to get to PubMed instead of drug database.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very hopeless at cites so please bear with me and I'll try to swat up. Sorry:)Merkinsmum 22:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to let you guys that are working on this page know that you've done a great job improving it. Most "controversy" pages have huge NPOV problems, whereas this one is pretty good all around. Good Work! GravyFish (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Independent opinion on this link

http://www.1800naturalhealing.com/aspartame-ant-killer.html

I'd like an independent opinion on inclusion of this link in external links section. I removed it twice and it comes back without explanation. Maybe I shouldn't remove it, or maybe :-) the owner of the site is watching the page.

I'm personnally anti-aspartame. But here is what I still think about that site:

219.94.56.185 and Sovind need not apply. 70.80.113.243 05:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all scientific and not useful in wikipediaKnorrepoes 10:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting link as are many on the web, but we recently reduced the number of links on both sides of the issue to the major links on the Net. Twoggle 20:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FDA approval process (removed)

I've removed [2] the following text:

FDA approval process

{{tl:inappropriate tone}}

The head of the FDA, Jere E. Goyan, was removed from his post on the first day of Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981). Previously, Goyan refused to approve the legalization of aspartame, due to the studies documenting increase of cancers in rats. Reagan appointed Arthur Hayes, MD, (FDA Commissioner 1981-1983) Commissioner. He legalized aspartame a year later. Reagan supporter Donald Rumsfeld was president and later CEO of G. D. Searle & Company from 1977 to 1985. Arthur Hull Hayes MD was a defense contractor before he was head of the FDA. In November 1983 Hayes was under fire for accepting corporate gifts. He quit and joined Searle's public-relations firm as senior medical advisor. Searle lawyer Robert B. Shapiro, renamed aspartame NutraSweet. Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million bonus. Shapiro later became Monsanto president.

Several members of the FDA board left their jobs after stevia (aspartame's main competitor then) was banned in 1991. They were all hired at Nutrasweet in higher paying jobs, according to national records. Dr. Michael Friedman quit the FDA when Jane Henney was selected to become the permanent FDA commissioner (1999). Friedman elected to sign with G. D. Searle as a senior vice president at a purported $500,000 a year. He later accepted a position with Monsanto.

It's poorly sourced (two advocacy websites) and amounts to yellow journalism. We don't write innuendo in Wikipedia. --82.18.8.94 20:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there indications that this is not true? Nikola 21:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reliable source confirming these allegations, which is why I removed much of the same garbage from the main aspartame article way back in April 2006. Some seem to feel that the existence of a separate "controversy" article provides license to include whatever wild stories have been in distribution about aspartame, but the standards for the wiki remain the same for all articles.Bustter (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Hull Hayes

Somrthing else I removed is back -- the accusation that Arthur Hull Hayes was paid off with a job for Searle has come back as a job with Searle's PR firm. This job does not appear in any of the AHH bios appearing on the web, and the source is aspartame critic Mary Nash Stoddard, The reference dies not offer a web link to its source, but here it is:

http://www.aspartamesafety.com/Article9.htm

This amounts to no documentation at all; it is merely an accusation from a severely biased source. Stoddard says this is a matter of public record, so cetainly a better source should be available if she's not mistaken.Bustter (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There are news articles where Dr. Hayes' work with the Searle PR firm is mention, but I put the text back with a GAO reference that lists his work with the Searle PR firm. I agree that it's better not to editorialize that he was "paid off" or "not paid off" and just state the facts here. Twoggle (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, my previous examination of that document was too cursory. Primarily, the document is exculpatory, but it does confirm the consultancy by Hayes on page 9 of the pdf (numbered 7). Is there a proper format for adding page numbers to citations? It may help to avoid similar errors in future.Bustter (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld

The Health Concerns section in the Aspartame article mentions Rumsfeld as part of the controversy ("possible conflicts of interest involving CEO Donald Rumsfeld in the approval process"). That section has the present article as the "main article" link, but here there is no mention of Rumsfeld. This clearly needs to be fixed one way or the other. Since this article is about the controversy, and Rumsfeld's name certainly features abundantly in the controversy whether he was actually involved or not, it seems to me there should be some mention of it here. 195.159.217.98 13:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC) (Nick)

I agree, and there's been plenty of time to remedy this. I'm removing the Rumsfield reference in the Aspartame article. Bustter (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for Replacing Reference 19 in Article

Suggestion to replace this reference with:

Posner, Herbert S., "Bio-Hazards of Methanol in Proposed New Uses," Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Volume 1, Pages 153-171, 1975.

Kavet, Robert, Kathleen M. Nauss, "The Toxicity of Inhaled Methanol Vapors," Critical Reviews in Toxicology, Volume 21, Issue #1, Pages 21-50, 1990.

Shaham, J., Y. Bomstein, A. Meltzer, Z. Kaufman, E. Palma, J. Ribak, "DNA--protein Crosslinks, a Biomarker of Exposure to Formaldehyde--in vitro and in vivo Studies," Carcinogenesis, Volume 17, Issue #1, Pages 121-125, 1996.

Wantke, F., C.M. Demmer, P. Tappler, M. Gotz, R. Jarisch, "Exposure to Gaseous Formaldehyde Induces IgE-Mediated Sensitization To Formaldehyde in School-Children," Clinical and Experimental Allergy, Volume 26, Pages 276-280, 1996

Main, D.M., T.J. Hogan, "Health Effect of Low-Level Exposure to Formaldehyde," Journal of Occupational Medicine, Volume 25, Pages 896-900, 1983.

These references, along with the existing reference #18 address the three points mentioned. Twoggle (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Changing the suggestion for replacement Reference 19 as follows. The point of the sentence is to show what particular experts have stated. In this particular sentence, it involves the anti-aspartame side of the argument. As one example, a reference to an journal article about aspartame and methanol by Dr. Woodrow Monte was given (Reference #18). To replace reference #19, I propose a reference by Dr. H.J. Roberts who had numerous journal publications before becoming a clinician and focusing partly on aspartame. While the originally-suggested references do relate to methanol's effects, they are not statements from "experts/scientists" specifically about aspartame and methanol. References by Dr. Monte (Reference #18) and my suggestion, Dr. H.J. Roberts do provide proof as to what the anti-aspartame crowd believes. My suggestion for the H.J. Roberts reference is: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=nlmcatalog&cmd=retrieve&dopt=expanded&list_uids=1104712

Twoggle (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

against, isn't there a more recent article on this topic than 1975 or 1990 ??? Considering the amount of work done on aspartame a more recent article should be there...Knorrepoes (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One editor suggested changing Reference #19, so I thought I propose some suggestions. The reference related to what certain experts believe: "Other experts/scientists believe ...." My first suggestion above was a number of peer reviewed references providing evidence to back up these experts' beliefs. These references are both newer and older than some of the pro-aspartame references. They are the type of references cited by both pro- and anti-aspartame scientists as well as government and non-government organizations.

However, my revised suggestion (as stated above) is to replace Reference #19 with a single Reference showing (along with Reference #18) that some scientists/experts believe the statement made in the sentence:

"...(a) fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain protective chemicals such as ethanol that block conversion of methanol into formaldehyde, while beverages with aspartame contain no "protective factors"; (b) exposure to very low levels of methanol and formaldehyde have been proven to cause chronic toxicity in humans; and (c) the low levels of methanol and formaldehyde in natural human metabolism are tightly-controlled and small increases above these levels can contribute to chronic poisoning."

These are the types of references provided for the pro-aspartame side -- namely, a couple of references demonstrating that there are scientists on the pro-aspartame side that believe:

"that the metabolism of aspartame does not damage the body because: (a) the quantity of methanol produced is too small to disrupt normal physiological processes; (b) methanol and formaldehyde are natural by-products of human metabolism and are safely processed by various enzymes; and (c) there is more methanol in some natural fruit juices and alcoholic beverages than is derived from aspartame ingestion."

What does everyone think?

Twoggle (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

removed a "self-reported case on the internet"

Is it just me, or does self-reporting on Wikipedia (which demonstrates an obvious ignorance of how this site works) somewhat discredit the medical conclusions drawn by the person concerned? I suppose he/she might have been a brilliant medical scientist intimately familiar with the subject, but it still makes the poster look a bit foolish. Whatever happened to pattern recognition? (Says the anonymous commenter who is probably breaking the talk page pattern at this very moment. Oo! Irony!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.111.3 (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Section about political moves to ban or restrict

A new section should be added about poltical moves to ban Aspartame. Use this ref to start with: [3] MaxPont (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! Information about similar situations in New Mexico and the UK could be included. However, I believe that it should go below the scientific sections since the scientific controversy has been ongoing since the 1970s and I think it has more interest to the readers. Twoggle (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename

I propose we rename the article from “Aspartame controversy” to “Aspartame conspiracy theory”, because frankly, there is no aspartame controversy. — NRen2k5, 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is still a controversy in the scientific literature. See, for example, "Direct and Indirect Cellular Effects of Aspartame on the Brain," European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 8 Aug 2007, pp. 1-12 or the Soffritti studies or on the other side of the issue, the Ajinomoto review in Critical Reviews in Toxicology in 2007. On the political front, there were hearings this week in Hawaii on a bill to ban aspartame sale. A similar bill was before the New Mexico legislature not too long ago. So, there is a controversy there as well. And online there are clearly controversies, in my opinion. So, I think the title should remain as it is. Twoggle (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You’re right. — NRen2k5, 10:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New scientific study to be integrated

From European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, "Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain" Reviewed here [4] MaxPont (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

More to integrate: A controversy in the UK involving supermarket Asda [5] MaxPont (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Quotation Changes

Its nice to have consistency in quotations, but each template and wikimarkup has its own advantages and disadvantages; each has their own role to fill. It also doesn't make an argument stand out more than another, I think that is just a subjective view. The quotation scheme will not make the article POV.68.148.164.166 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about reverting your edit; it looked like you added some editorial comments, but what happened was the diffs got shifted to make some text look new. I just tried to revert myself but you beat me to it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld and conspiracy theories

I reverted the addition of these to See also. There's a topic above on this. It might be good to add this (referenced) to the article, but I don't see much use to just tossing it in See also. The main article has two references on Donald Rumsfeld and the COI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#cite_note-18.II 02:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "PubMed8939194" :
  • [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8939194&dopt=Abstract ncbi, PubMed 8939194]
  • [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8939194&query_hl=2 ncbi PubMed 8939194]
• "PubMed3574137" :
  • {{cite journal |author=Stegink L, Filer L, Bell E, Ziegler E |title=Plasma amino acid concentrations in normal adults administered aspartame in capsules or solution: lack of bioequivalence |journal=Metabolism |volume=36 |issue=5 |pages=507–12 |year=1987 |pmid=3574137 |doi=10.1016/0026-0495(87)90052-7}}
  • [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3574137&query_hl=11 ncbi PubMed 3574137]
• "PubMed7854587" :
  • [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7854587&query_hl=41 ncbi PubMed 7854587]
  • {{cite journal |author=Olney, J. |title=Excitotoxins in Foods |journal=Neurotoxicology |volume=15 |issue=3 |pages=535–544 |year=1994 |pmid=7854587}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Government Studies and FOIA Data

Repeated attempts have been made to remove U.S. FDA Government research and data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (obtained by Freedom of Information Act) as a reference to the [aspartame] and [Aspartame Controversy] articles. Research and data provided by the U.S. Government meets the criteria for Reliable Sources. I would hate to see Wikipedia have a policy that no U.S. Government research or data be used as references.

The Bressler study had it's scientific finding just like numerous other government references in the articles. We will have to remove all text and references related to aspartame and government findings if we cannot include the Bressler study and, for that matter, studies on both side of the issue produced by the U.S. Government. That would include any FDA and European Food Safety findings as well. I would prefer to keep government research findings mentioned in this and other Wikipedia articles.

The data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and obtained from FOIA requests has been discuss in books and available for years. Many people have copies of these documents. I did not see any Wikipedia rule for not using U.S. Government reports obtained with a FOIA request.

Now if the whole issue is that these Government documents happen to reside on a domain that is not considered independent, then that has been something that has already been raised and dealt with and we can move these documents to another domain (archive.org for example). In addition, images of the original can be posted along with the text for verification. These documents can be obtained from the FDA. Pre-approval research and documents are not freely available at government web sites, but can be ordered.

Let's try to find a solution to using government documents as references here before moving the conversation to another part of Wikipedia.Twoggle (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a discussion was started about [aspartame] and [aspartame controversy] on a Wikipedia page unrelated to aspartame. There was no consensus reached in those very short discussions. However, my understanding has been that this has always been the page to discuss edits to these articles.

If there is some objection to government references and Editors of the article disagree, then I think it is best to discuss the changes before. If it is just a matter of the domain or the format of the government document, then please take the steps recommended by Wikipedia and clarify and discuss it. Twoggle (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Updated thoughts: In order to edit the government references (or remove all government references completely), I think a discussion is absolutely necessary so we can understand each other's concerns. It's almost impossible to fully express or understand each other's concerns in the "Edit summary" of the Edit/Revert to the article. If we use the Talk page, we may be able to keep govenment references and keep the article from becoming extremely one-sided (i.e., POV). Twoggle (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Toggle, the FDA is a reliable source, no doubt, but riddle me this: how do you know that the "Bressler Report" over at http://www.presidiotex.com/bressler/index.html is authentic? Who even maintains that website, and how do you know that they've faithfully transcribed the report from the actual FDA document obtained by FOIA (if it really exists) to the html shown on the website? And how do you know the website's interpretations of the FDA findings are valid? Whose interpretations are they (i.e. "The Bressler report is one of the most damning documents about aspartame in existence. .."--according to whom)? Presidiotex.com is self-published source and certainly has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy and thus is not a reliable source. If you can find the Bressler report or even some official mention of it on the FDA website (fda.gov), in the public docket (www.regulations.gov), in the federal register (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/), or in the archives of a newspaper, then maybe that could be used as a source. But what we've got right now is some anonymous, self-published website claiming that there's such a document as "the Bressler report" and offering not actual scans of the document (except for a lone, disembodied table of dubious provenance and relevance), but an unverified transcription of it as well as some interpretation by an unknown individual with unknown credentials. WP has higher standards than this. Yilloslime (t) 16:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"how do you know that the "Bressler Report" over at http://www.presidiotex.com/bressler/index.html is authentic?"

Because I and many others have taken the time to order a copy from the FDA / US Government.

"Who even maintains that website, and how do you know that they've faithfully transcribed the report from the actual FDA document obtained by FOIA"

I do not care so much what is on that website. I do care that U.S. government documents can be used as references and made available as a resource for Wikipedia readers. Anyone can order this report using the existing law (FOIA), so it is available to those who want to obtain it.

"If you can find the Bressler report or even some official mention of it on the FDA website...."

I can order the Bressler report as many have. I don't think it has to be in one of the select locations you have mentioned. I have seen it mentioned in various goverment documents (GAO document, hearings, news articles, state resolution, etc.).

I agree about moving it off that site and even offering a scanned version and maybe a text version for easier reading. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you would like to see a scan and have it moved to an independent site. If that's the case we can take care of it without removing any government references! Twoggle (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is has to be a reliable, published source. Is this published by the fda? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is published by the FDA. The FDA asked a team of their scientists, led by Jerome Bressler to conduct this review and publish the results. As I said earlier, it is mention by the GAO, state legislatures, US government hearings, news articles, and by scientists who have written on the subject. However, it cannot simply be downloads off a government site, but it can be ordered. The same it true for some studies, other government documents, some news articles, some books, etc.

Tom, do you agree that if we move it to an independent site and offer a scanned copy as well (as well as perhaps links to mentions to the report ... or not) that this will solve the problem? Thanks! Twoggle (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If its the work of the Federal Gov't, then it's not copyrighted, and you should be able to scan it and upload it to commons.wikipedia or wikimedia.org for all to see. Yilloslime (t) 17:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if you don't upload it to wikisource (the more appropriate place), it is perfectly acceptable to cite an off-line ref. That should be better than using a dubious web-source. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource--that's the one I was trying to remember! Yilloslime (t) 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Like Rifleman says above. With or without scans, we need detailed publication data. Title, author, dates, publication numbers, etc. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Bressler findings were cited extensively throughout the GAO report: GAO/HRD-87-46, but even they did not mention provide all of the citation data. These are internal FDA documents. I can scan the top page which mentions the priority of the investigation, the date, distribution list, and has Jerome Bressler's signature. In addition, the GAO report can be cited as well since the Bressler Report is used to list concerns and this GAO report quotes a selection of these concerns. I could also scan the summary of findings of one of the studies since that is only eight pages long. Twoggle (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with citing GAO/HRD-87-46 and the pdf linked there. The "internal FDA documents" sound like they are by definition not published. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• "U.S. GAO - HRD-87-46 Food and Drug Administration: Food Additive Approval Process Followed for Aspartame, June 18, 1987". Retrieved 2008-09-05.

Okay, the FDA documents were published for CFSAN at the FDA. Twoggle (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Any luck with title, author, dates, publication numbers, etc.? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes & No. As I mentioned, it was published for use by the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) -- at their request, not for the general public. Author: Jerome Bressler, Date of investigation: 4/25/1977 - 8/4/1977, date of report: 8/7/1977. No external publication # needed though to obtain report. A request asking for the 8/7/1977 FDA report by Jerome Bressler on study E-77/78 (P.T. 988573) for the FDA Bureau of Foods is all that is needed. That is how everyone else has obtained it from the FDA. Maybe I should scan some of the initial pages when I get back into the office next week? Then you can see what I mean. What do you think? Twoggle (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like there is no published document called the "Bressler Report." Does anyone cite it in their academic papers or include it in a bibliography? Do no libraries have it? Whatever you would scan would be the same as what's already up at presidiotex.com, dorway.com, and rense.com, wouldn't it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Links

In September 2005, in order to avoid spamming anti- or pro-aspartame links, the discussion came to a consensus to list a small number of prominent links on each side and relevent to what was discussed in the article. This was to prevent the article from becoming an industry PR piece or an anti-aspartame tirade. I think we need to stick to this, otherwise the article will degenerate into a competition between pro- and anti-aspartame forces (as it has been in the distant past). Twoggle (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that approach, but for now I've replaced one with another to keep it 'even'. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We tried just a list of links, but it was a mess of POV links. I suggested alternating pro- and anti-aspartame links in the list, but ended up agreeing with someone who wanted to separate them out. The original idea was to cycle the links so that pro-aspartame links would not always be listed first. Then the list of links got way to long and Editors just kept adding to the list on both sides. In addition, a long list of links is unfair to the side that gets pushed down the web page. So, the consensus was to try to limit each section to the list of most prominent links on each side. I focused on suggesting links that provide huge repositories of information on each side. Twoggle (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)