![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The deconstruction page is about how to decide if a source is 'credible', lets leave it at that. To what degree the nancy merkle letter is notable outside of the deconstruction exercise is debatable. But if it is to stay it should be presented NPOV, saying it is a 'one sided debate' is not NPOV, nor factual. Unomi ( talk) 23:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi SV Resolution,
first of all I like your post: thank you for the clarity on it. Second I have to say that I'm not in place to discuss all the topics you touched but I have got some idea about Soffritti. It's a matter of fact that the world's standards did not change after the Soffritti studies but this doesn't mean that there are no issues (demonstrated or not yet demonstrated) about aspartame. A matter of fact is that Soffritti pointed out that according its research the aspartame is carcinogenetic. A matter of fact Magnusson, paid by the aspartame maker, said that the Soffritti made mistakes. A matter of fact is that nobody did a long run research (as Soffritti did) on the effects of aspartame. A matter of fact is that a following research showed that
"Conclusions: Government agencies, drug companies, and the chemical industry should conduct and compare the results of 2-year bioassays of known carcinogens or chemicals for which there is equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity with longer-term studies, with and without in utero exposure. If studies longer than 2 years and/or with in utero exposure are found to better identify potential human carcinogens, then regulatory agencies should promptly revise their testing guidelines, which were established in the 1960s and early 1970s. Changing the timing and dosing of the animal bioassay would enhance protection of workers and consumers who are exposed to potentially dangerous workplace or home contaminants, pollutants, drugs, food additives, and other chemicals throughout their lives."
I would like to see reported in the article the facts. Do you think that I'm asking too much? -- Calgaco ( talk) 15:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I read the criticism about the Ramazzini's paper but, in my understanding, nobody addressed the main flaw Soffritti pointed out: the discharge of allegation of the carcinogenicity of the aspartame it is because the rodents are killed within 110 weeks. Moreover the studies criticized by Soffritti were based on small samples. Do somebody knows if this is true or wrong?
After my reading of the above mentioned criticism I'm quite puzzled because instead of reading a counter study on a large sample that examines the rodents after a longer time the critics just said this or that, in the Soffritti's paper, is wrong. I don't think that this is a good "scientific" method to prove that the issues raised by Soffritti are not valid. Does anybody has more knowledge about the controversy? If not my proposal is to amend the current version mentioning that the criticism to the Soffritti 's findings did not address the main issues reported by it.
Please let me know. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.8.17 ( talk) 11:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have found this
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10716/abstract.html
"Conclusions: Government agencies, drug companies, and the chemical industry should conduct and compare the results of 2-year bioassays of known carcinogens or chemicals for which there is equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity with longer-term studies, with and without in utero exposure. If studies longer than 2 years and/or with in utero exposure are found to better identify potential human carcinogens, then regulatory agencies should promptly revise their testing guidelines, which were established in the 1960s and early 1970s. Changing the timing and dosing of the animal bioassay would enhance protection of workers and consumers who are exposed to potentially dangerous workplace or home contaminants, pollutants, drugs, food additives, and other chemicals throughout their lives."
I think that this goes on the direction of the Ramazzini's study...
Moreover I found that the following
About "Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven doi:10.1289/ehp.10881" it is written that "The authors received payment from the Burdock Group during the preparation of an expert review of the safety of aspartame. The Burdock Group managed the independent review, which was financially supported by Ajinomoto Company Inc., a producer of aspartame."
More in general it seems that Magnuson and Williams’s were sponsored entirely by Ajinomoto, the manufacturer of aspartame.
My proposal is to add this information to the article
This version seems to have more information about the critique of the Ramazzini study, I don't see why we don't include it.
Unomi (
talk)
03:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tom harrison, please don't delete what you don't like because you don't like it. Here, in the talk, please explain your reasons. Thanks-- Calgaco ( talk) 07:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Calgaco -- I think this article is not a place for the amount of detail you put in about the Ramazzinni studies. I think that section should be pared down again, by quite a bit. The purpose of this article is not to present enough info. from the sources to convince anybody, but to briefly review what's out there, tell what the current state of the scientific back-and-forth is, help readers figure out where they can go to read more. I think "slight but statistically significant dose-dependant..." is a pretty good summary of the Soffritti results. Some of the same people who signed the CSPI letter to the FDA also authored the opinion piece in favor of full-lifetime toxicity studies in rats. Interestingly, the Davis et al. note "concerns regarding the questionable quality of other earlier negative studies" (referencing Davis), but don't mention criticisms levelled against the Soffritti aspartame studies, which makes it look like the commentary is not NPOV. The letter and the commentary are a double dose of documentation that the same group of people are convinced the Soffritti study is important. The commentary of Davis et al. may or may not be as valid as the commentary of Magnusson et al. -- not our job to have an opinion ( WP:OR) -- so it may be appropriate to give both sides about the same weight. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 17:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi SV Resolution: As usual I like your posts. I agree with the principles you stated like "the purpose of this article is not to present enough info. from the sources to convince anybody" but , on the other side we should mention the relevant facts.
Do you think that you could be able to summarize the 8 items quoted above in a couple of sentences? I think that this will make happy everybody. -- Calgaco ( talk) 17:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
In a controversial [1] 2006 publication, the European Ramazzini Foundation Institute reported [2] a slight, dose-independent, but statistically significant increase in several malignancies of rats, concluding that aspartame is "a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake". [2] After reviewing the foundation's claims, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [3] the US FDA, [4] and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) [5] discounted the study results and found no reason to revise their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame. A comprehensive review of aspartame safety stated that the Ramazzini studies were flawed in several ways and that the researchers had misdiagnosed lesions as malignancies, [1] while another study stated that the Ramazzini researchers ought to have improved upon the methodologic and conceptual weaknesses that had been present in their earlier paper. [6] Other researchers have defended the statistical power and experimental design of the Ramazzinni study while criticizing earlier studies [7] [8] Some popular news outlets accused scientists who criticised the Ramazzini studies of conflict of interest, [9] and the Ramazzini Foundation continued to claim carcinogenic effects. [10]
CritReview
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).pmid16507461
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Magnuson2008
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Number=
ignored (|number=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I fully agree with Unomi "I am all for more detail, I doubt that II or SV R would write a section that exhibited POV, intentionally or otherwise. I hereby endorse all efforts for adding more detail until otherwise noted".
@SV I was for a proposal of a new version of the paragraph here in the talk but I will not revert your changes.-- Calgaco ( talk) 08:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Keepcalmandcarryon please try to understand that maybe your opinion is just one opinion hence try to follow the discussion in the talk. Thank you.-- Calgaco ( talk) 09:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Keepcalmandcarryon I'm sorry to ask you an additional effort but you have to explain your reasons to me and to some more users that above just mentioned their perplexities. Thank you for keeping you calm,--Calgaco (talk) 14:29, 26 March
The comment above about synthesis of primary sources still applies, with corresponding concerns about due weight. Tom Harrison Talk 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Some users are trying to discuss. If you have anything more to say please give way. Thank you -- Calgaco ( talk) 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr Tom you made a major change deleting a lot of point that you don't like without a word in the current discussion hence you have the build the consensus. Thank you for your understanding. -- Calgaco ( talk) 16:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The change you claim I did it was sic et sempliciter the previous version of this article. Please don't keep blaming. -- Calgaco ( talk) 16:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J; et al. (2007-09-01). "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies". Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 37 (8): 629–727.
doi:
10.1080/10408440701516184.
PMID
17828671. {{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Does anyone have a copy of this paper? Which Soffritti studies do they review?
Thanks -- SV Resolution( Talk) 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Soffritti et al reported a "small but statistically significant" and dose-dependant risk of malignancy associated with aspartame use. In real life, size matters. Several studies have found statistically significand and dose-dependant risk of malignancy associated with consumption of red meat, for example.
The EPIC paper on meat, fish, and colorectal cancer in humans reports that 50-year-old residents of Europe who eat < 20g red and processed meat per day have a 1.28% probability of developing colorectal cancer in 10 years, while those who eat >= 160g/day have a 1.71% probability. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to compare this to Soffritti's results without doing a lot of WP:OR that I wouldn't really know how to approach anyway. Experts -- is this a dead-end idea for an encyclopedia article? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 13:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm for all kind of criticism but in an ordelry manner:
Please don’t forget to quote the following facts
Thank you, -- Calgaco ( talk) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this is off the topic of the magnitude of the effect reported by Soffritti et al. Do you think, based on the Soffritti papers, that we can make a statement about the magnitude of the increased risk Soffritti would expect at ADI, 2xADI, etc? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see here http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/pdfUpload/Eur%20J%20Oncol%20Vol%2010%20107-116_2005.pdf and let me know if it helps. -- Calgaco ( talk) 20:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
To whom is concerned from http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/pdfUpload/Environmental%20Health%20Perspectives_Vol%20116_%206_June%202008.pdf
*First, Magnuson and Williams imply that our findings (Soffritti et al. 2007) should be discounted because the incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in the high-dose group “were within or near the reported historical control ranges.” As reported in our
study (Soffritti et al. 2007), the incidence of lymphomas/leukemias observed in both sexes treated with 2,000 ppm aspartame is nearly double the concurrent control (Soffritti et al. 2007). The suggestion that concurrent control data should be ignored is contrary to the widely accepted standard of good laboratory science.
- Second, Magnuson and Williams attribute our findings (Soffritti et al. 2007)
to some kind of bias (i.e., infection) that would affect only treated animals but not the controls. We have responded in detail to this hypothesis in our article (Soffritti et al. 2007) and in an earlier letter (Soffritti 2006). To support their assertion, Magnuson and Williams mislead readers by stating that “the lung was often the site of lymphoma again in this [second] study.” However, we actually reported that we observed the diffusion of neoplastic tissue not only in the lung but also concurrently in various organs (liver, spleen, mediastinal and other lymph nodes). (Soffritti et al. 2007) Infection as a mode of action for induction of rat lymphoma has been recently examined by a group of scientists at the National Center for Environmental Assessment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Caldwell et al. (2008) found that a careful examination of available information does not support the hypothesis that the observed lymphomas/leukemias in the ERF bioassays are a general effect from infection. The reports of chemically-induced lymphomas/leukemias by the ERF seem to be chemical specific.
- Third, the idea that we must provide a “biologically plausible explanation” for human or rodent carcinogens is a timehonored approach to postpone or prevent the application of regulatory measures to minimize carcinogenic risks. The reality is that this explanation is quite often unknown, as is, in general, the mode of action behind the carcinogenic process.
Regarding Magnusson et al. it is written
The authors received payment from the Burdock Group during the preparation of an expert review of the safety of aspartame. The Burdock Group managed the independent review, which was financially supported by Ajinomoto Company Inc., a producer of aspartame
Hope that this helps. -- Calgaco ( talk) 16:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tom, I think that most of people here understand you point of view. You have the right to think what you like. The issue is when you insists to mould the article in the way you think. This is POV. For example I have tried to show here in the talk that Magnusson has been paid by the aspartame producer and your answer is, instead to reply, to edit the article in this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Aspartame_controversy&diff=280044695&oldid=280030545. As already mentioned please try to build the consensus instead of causing flames. Thank you for considering that. -- Calgaco ( talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The incipit before was
now is
This article is called "Aspartame controversy" so before it was neutral now you have anticipated something that should be explained in the following of the article because safe is a "conclusion". I think that you may realize yourself how POV it is. -- Calgaco ( talk) 18:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Your reference is a secondary reference to a primary refence already present in the incipit. You should not multiply the references to the same study. I think that this way to act is clearly POV. -- Calgaco ( talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that you missed the point. I'm not talking about sources I'm talking about references. Let me try to be more clear: if I quote the same research 10 times because 10 newpapers has written 10 times about it I'm wrongdoing. I cannot disseminate in the article 10 references to the same research. Is that clear? -- Calgaco ( talk) 18:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tom I m considering myself a man that likes peace. I have tried to explain unsucessfully what should be fair. I will not revert your last edit and I will leave the judgement to the communnity. Mayby somebody else will propose the “right” version. For today I wish you the bests. -- Calgaco ( talk) 19:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
In the lead it says: "The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of controversy regarding its safety since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974." But in the section "Origins of the aspartame controversy" it starts with: "The controversy about aspartame safety finds its origin in some individual scientific studies, as well as in rumors spread over the internet." The source for this statement is taken from an article at about.com, written by David Emery, who describes his experience as: "Professional credits include stints as a freelance journalist, staff writer for a TV sitcom, and contributing editor of a satirical newspaper. Mr. Emery first won recognition in the online world as an arch commentator on the outer limits of Net culture with Iron Skillet Magazine, "a compendium of offbeat views run through the blender of the author's savage sense of humor ... [with] on-target skewerings of strange ideas" (Houston Chronicle). He has covered urban legends and folklore for About.com since 1997." Quite the expert we want to bring into this article to make important statements on aspartame, right? He uses the Nancy Markle letter as the main proof that the controversy is a hoax.
The second source mentioned is from Time Magazine, from about the same time and using again the reference to the Nancy Markle letter as proof to ridicule the entire controversy. The author Christine Gorman used to write columns about health for Time and is by no means an expert. Real newspapers such as the New York Times have reported regularly prior to 1999 about the controversy but are ignored here. Not even 60 minutes from december 1996 is mentioned (60 Minutes is a valid source in wikipedia I just learned). We need to have a better description about The Origins of the Aspartame Controversy. Immortale ( talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that "false" first and "factually inaccurate" was added. This led again to a chain of edit and undid. My point here is to ask for a general agreement to avoid such a kind of “fights”. My proposal is to leave the article as much neutral as we can by avoiding using adjectives. For example in this specific case we should avoid using expressions such as false, true, wonderful, etc. My proposal is to:
All above should be done without taking side and, hence, avoiding to anticipate any judgment/final conclusion. I hope to find a common agreement on this. -- Calgaco ( talk) 12:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi SV, you made an example. This article refers to the controversy so, in some way, we should talk about it in a plain way. Can we agree please to do it without any flame? -- Calgaco ( talk) 14:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with that: it is a very good example on how to neutrally report facts. Thank you. -- Calgaco ( talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Verbal, I'm using facts and wikipedia's guidelines. You know that, that's why you avoid discussions and start making character comments instead. Just now you added an identical reference, to imply more weight. You also added the dubious reference again to Aurora Saulo Hodgson Extension Specialist in Food Technology, Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences who wrote an opinion piece for some journal at the University of Hawaii. She doesn't use any sources in her writing, so it's not verifiable. And these sources are supposed to be the best there is to find to explain the controversy as a hoax? So you have a comedy writer, a health columnist and a "Extension Specialist in Food Technology". Since when is grabbing for straws a wikipedia policy? These aren't scientific experts who have published their statements in peer-reviewed journals. Or does that rule only count for editors who come with negative findings on aspartame? Immortale ( talk) 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I made a timeline to help me understand the sequence of events in the Ramazzinni section, and to help get the article back into order, with the refs glued back onto the statements they belong with. I think it would be awkward to have it right on this talk page, so I've created a subpage for References for Ramazzinni section
This subsection confuses me. As a subsection of Aspartame controversy#Origins of the aspartame controversy, I would think it would explain how certain scientific studies got the controversy started. But I don't think it does that. The pieces of this subsection:
Should Aspartame controversy#Scientific Studies summarize the scientific studies that were considered as part of the approval process, and how they contributed to the controversy? Searle studies? "The Japan study?" Other early studies? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we really have to parrot the industry example of the 21 cans for an adult? We already established that aspartame is present in at least 6000 different products, and these aren't all drinks in a can. It's marginalizing the consumption of aspartame while in reality besides drinking from a can, it can be in yogurts, chewing gum, sweeteners, the list is long Immortale ( talk) 20:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Part of the early controversy, as raised by Senator Metzenbaum, was around the Chicago US attorney office. I have added some of this information, from the congressional record and a WSJ article. I see now that I have neglected to mention Metzenbaum's role in this controversy. As he held Senate hearings and commissioned the GAO to write two different reports, I think his role in this controversy is notable. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the earlier Congressional Records or the letters between him and Orrin Hatch, in which he spelled out his concerns over the quality of Searle's safety studies and the appearance that Searle had quashed a Federal grand jury investigation by getting their lawyers to hire a couple of US attorneys from Chicago. Some of these materials are republished on dorway, but I hesitate to link to reprints there, even though I think they probably reproduced these items accurately. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 18:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on a timeline at User:SV_Resolution/aspartame_controversy_section. It's a mess. Not everything is in timeline order, and some of the references are a mess, too. If anyone wants to help work on cleaning it up and putting it into Talk:Aspartame_controversy/Timelines, in a "Origins of controversy" section for our reference, that'd be a great help. I'm still trying to understand how Metzenbaum got involved. Maybe it was a letter from Olney? I'm thinking that, the more organized our references are, the more likely that this article will STAY improved, once we get it that way. Wishful thinking -- SV Resolution( Talk) 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
What about that notice of neutrality dispute? Can anybody give a short list of items from the article that are not covered appropriately? Can we work on them, one by one, and cross them off the list? And then remove the dispute tag? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I didn't get any quick objections, I'm going to propose that, if there are no objections after 7 days, we remove that neutrality dispute template. As I see it, editors of various points of view can agree on several things about this article
If we find that there is consensus on the neutrality of most sections, we can turn out attention to any problematic sections. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
A source which is used in this article is being discussed at RS/N: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Journal_.22Regulatory_Toxicology_and_Pharmacology.22 II | ( t - c) 17:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest a suitable wording for noting funding sources for reviews and critiques of scientific studies? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
A 2007 safety evaluation funded by aspartame producer Ajinomoto[5] found that the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates...
@Verbal -- you have twice reverted statements like this, from two different editors. Please discuss. Perhaps you can make a good suggestion for how the article should address the issue of COI and reliability of industry-funded scientific publications as it pertains to the aspartame controversy. Certainly, the high incidence of this topic in the blogosphere and at anti-aspartame web pages is a testament to the fact that it is an important component of the controversy. I don't think Aspartame controversy is the only place editors are struggling to grapple with the problem of how to represent these sources. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"Verbal (talk | contribs) (51,739 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by ClubEd; Get consensus first for such edits."
Right then, do we have a consensus that it is not a contentious alteration to leave in the statement asserting that aspartame has been determined safe according to the "the weight of existing scientific evidence," as long as the COI is mentioned? Or is it less contentious to remove that line altogether? ClubEd ( talk) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree.-- Calgaco ( talk) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
About point 1 please find below my personal opinion:
More in general: it is really relevant to mention that the guidelines and the protocols were issued 40/50 years ago and that means (at least) that they are outdated. This implies that the supposed safety of the goods sold is not based on "the best practices"... -- Calgaco ( talk) 19:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
To Scientizzle, on the edit showing that the panelists were unaware of their sponsor: I think this is an appropriate edit, however, I'm pretty sure that I have responded to this point several times, and I know other people have. Since you have science in your name, I'm guessing you're not terribly credulous. The review was done by the Burdock Group. This is a company whose main job is to facilitate regulatory approval for its clients. Ajinomoto paid them some money (we don't know who was aware of their payer); William Waddell then selected the panelists, who were presumably paid a fair sum. To say that there was no potential bias here is absurd. Whenever one hires a company which serves the industry and has a reputation of helping its customers to maintain, there's a strong possibility of bias in the selection of reviewers. This is evident in the fact that the main reviewer chosen was Magnuson, who works at a similar company (Cantox International, a company which works to " facilitate timely approvals"). Anyway, this was a fairly crude attempt to reduce industry bias which probably had a negligible effect. I'm not saying the paper is wrong in any respects, just that the assertion of "no bias" is ridiculous. This method of deflecting the bias attack is one we'll no doubt see more of in other areas, and it's one that isn't taken all that seriously, as evidenced by the fact that EHP required the Magnuson and Williams to disclose their conflict of interest without any excuses. II | ( t - c) 23:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
<undent>All involved editors: Have we resolved the neutrality dispute in the Ramazzinni section of the article?
Sorry to backtrack a bit, but I notice that the footnote to the very neutral sounding "A 2007 safety evaluation found that the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener.[5]" does not mention that Ajinomoto is an aspartame producer, nor does the Ajinomoto wiki page mention anthing about aspartame. To the casual reader, this fails to even hint at a COI. Should we not revert back to the edit "A 2007 safety evaluation funded by aspartame producer
Ajinomoto found that..."?
ClubEd (
talk)
14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link).Older versions of this section referenced the CDC study of the FDA's collection of adverse effects reports attributed to aspartame. I think they got cut for bad writing or bad references. There are primary and secondary sources for this:
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) report from the CDC researchers, with list of reported symptoms.{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |subtitle=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) page 198 "After examining ARMS system data, Tollefson et al. were 'unable to find a consistent link between any particular variety of headache and the consumption of aspertame.' ... the authors noted that case reports such as those received by the FDA are often accepted as evidence of a causal link without adequate documentation of the alleged reaction and without eliminating other possible causes"{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) (Section 7 deals with Aspartame and Headache){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) -- "did not support the claim that the occurrences of the seizures were linked to consumption of aspartame".What I don't have is a good source stating why the FDA's and CDC's analysis of these reports became controversial. Betty Martini seems to feel that there is something wrong with the FDA's handling of adverse effect reports for aspartame, and that these reports prove that aspartame is harmful. But I cannot find any reliable source that says these reports prove anything at all.
Is there a wikipedia article on scientific and medical controversies and conspiracy theories, with discussion of the logic errors often found in Betty Martini's writings? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 17:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Please offer your view: Have we resolved the neutrality dispute in the Reported Adverse Effects section of the article?
"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;" I added citation needed tags to both of the above statements. JasonAdama ( talk) 20:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The NZFSA source appears to be from the New Zealand equivalent of the USFDA. This should make it reliable for the purposes of this article, yes? Especially as it is being cited in this section for the existence of studies and approval regulations; the language could potentially be tweaked.
The source states: Aspartame has been authorised for many years in many countries following thorough safety assessments. It offers a safe, low calorie option for anyone who wants or needs to limit their sugar intake; and unlike sugar, aspartame does not contribute to tooth decay. ... However, there is no scientific evidence of any significant adverse affects from aspartame when it is consumed at sensible levels. Even with high doses, the metabolites of this sweetener do not accumulate in toxic amounts.
The article stated: Several large scientific assessments of available research by expert panels have refuted the claims of negative health effects attributed to aspartame.
I changed this to: Food additive safety evaluations by many countries have led to approval of aspartame, citing the general lack of adverse effects following consumption in reasonable quantities.
This seems reasonable to me, but improvements in wording are welcomed.
This source is also being used to support the statement: Based on government research reviews and recommendations from advisory bodies such as those listed above, aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide.
The number more than ninety countries is not supported, but the remainder of the sentence is. I have not checked the HealthCanada source just now, but this does not seem an unreasonable use of the NZFSA source. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I'm inclined to believe that Health Canada is accurate in its statement that at least 90 ocuntries have approved aspartame and/or stated that aspartame is safe. There is some difficulty here separating statements about the preponderance of evidence/majority/mainstream view on the safety of aspartame from statements about the history of the controversy. Perhaps you can help. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 14:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree this article is not neutral in tone or content. My main concern is to make the community of contributors more aware that there is much recent research in peer-reviewed mainstream journals that raises entirely reasonable doubts about the safety of aspartame, and its inevitable, quickly formed cumulative toxic products in humans: methanol, formaldehyde, and formic acid, as well as the protective role of adequate folic acid levels for most people:
aspartame, caffeine, MSG, alcohol may cause migraine headaches, C Sun-Edelstein, A Mauskop, The New York Headache Center, Clin J Pain 2009 June: Rich Murray 2009.05.25 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.htm Monday, May 25, 2009 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1573
formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines, the first case series, Sharon E Jacob-Soo, Sarah A Stechschulte, UCSD, Dermatitis 2008 May: Rich Murray 2008.07.18 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.htm Friday, July 18, 2008 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1553
Dermatitis. 2008 May-Jun; 19(3): E10-1. Formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines: a possible connection. Jacob SE, Stechschulte S. Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Aspartame is a widely used artificial sweetener that has been linked to pediatric and adolescent migraines.
Upon ingestion, aspartame is broken, converted, and oxidized into formaldehyde in various tissues.
We present the first case series of aspartame-associated migraines related to clinically relevant positive reactions to formaldehyde on patch testing. PMID 18627677
re huge reduction in preterm births: folic acid prevents harm from formaldehyde and formic acid made by body from methanol in alcohol drinks and aspartame, BM Kapur, DC Lehotay, PL Carlen at U. Toronto, Alc Clin Exp Res 2007 Dec: Rich Murray 2009.05.12 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.htm Tuesday, May 12, 2009 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1572
"Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority, to enjoy peace, joy, and love by helping to find, quickly share, and positively act upon evidence about healthy and safe food, drink, and environment."
Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@comcast.net 505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
http://RMForAll.blogspot.com new primary archive
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages group with 140 members, 1,573 posts in a public archive
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/messages group with 1197 members, 23,476 posts in a public archive
( talk) 10:51 pm MST, 25 May 2009 (MST) Rmforall ( talk) 04:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree this article is not neutral in tone or content. It needs to include evidence from independent studies that show the negative effects of the chemical. It looks like someone is getting paid to maintain this page as part of their job description at the company.
Vorpaul (
talk)
09:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Ditto on the neutrality problem here, it almost sounds like a pay job--the incredible detail, the massive references to medical studies, and the complete lack of mention or reference to almost anything on the other side is quite telling. Where is any reference to www.dorway.com, www.sweetpoison.com, www.naturalnews.com/aspartame.html, etc.? Where is mention of the numerous FDA scandals? Is there any discussion about whether this is another "smoking is ok for you" and "mercury in vaccines doesn't do anything" propaganda job? 219.69.16.77 ( talk) 15:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)grego
Did NutraSweet pay someone at Wikipedia to write this article? Why was the initial monkey study in 1969, which results were withheld from the FDA, not mentioned? Or the MBR report detailing rat autopsies in 1972? Sadly, I'm not surprised Donald Rumsfield was President of G.D. Searle & Company... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.109.71 ( talk) 19:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is clearly written in favor of Aspartame. I also agree that the Sweet Misery documentary contains very notable information and sources that lend considerable credit to reports of serious health side effects and collusion between members of the FDA and the makers of Aspartame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.77.7 ( talk) 08:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well. The tone is definitely not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 ( talk) 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, more information about the papers published by the scientific community in peer-reviewed articles should be added, and the request made by important toxicologists to the FDA to review the last findings from Istituto Ramazzini should be cited in the lead. Letters from scientists in COI should be removed from the page. ( Karloff ( talk) 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC))
There absolutely should be mention of the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto. I think this information is vital and speaks volumes of the credibility of Monsanto's biased research and the forced decisions made by the FDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.10.125 ( talk) 05:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I too agree that this article seems unbalanced, also, going over the history of this article it seems that a substantial amount of information that would be beneficial for the debate has been taken out. While seemingly specious sources and references have been kept in: http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/FST-3.pdf is unreachable at the moment but by reading it via google's HTML cache I can see that it does not seem a source of good information: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:AywoCftL8ocJ:www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/FST-3.pdf+FST-3.pdf . It has no sources and seems to contain information that is in direct contradiction to scientific research. For example: Claim: Aspartame causes increases in appetite and weight. Compare to http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight. 125.26.244.225 ( talk) 05:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
These disease hypotheses, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the approval process—which were refuted by an official US governmental enquiry[6]—have been the focus of vocal activism and conspiracy theories regarding the possible risks of aspartame. Is that a joke? if you read that source you will see that at least 5 of the people involved with Aspartame while at working at HHS were later employed by Grocery Manufacturers of America, National Soft Drink Association or directly working for Searle as legal counsel. How do you manage to interpret that as 'refuting' conflicts of interest? Unomi ( talk) 15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
this assertion needs some sort of backup, or justification. Merely stating something does not make it true, and is unworthy of a wikipedia article. "However, the nitrosation of aspartame or the DKP in the stomach likely does not produce chemicals that cause brain tumors" Stuff like this should be summarily removed when not backed up. Where does "likely" fit into an article like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerhug ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A just-passing-through reader of this article (for instance, me) gets the impression that there is no mainstream scientific evidence or opinion that sees cause for concern regarding aspartame. I guess those working on this article need to reach consensus as to whether that is an accurate reflection of the situation. There are after all false controversies where partisans claim there's significant authoritative dissent (e.g., global warming, evolution). DavidOaks ( talk) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The study gets cited a lot in context of not so good science being misinterpreted for scaremongering, but not very much for its science. This should inform our coverage of this aspect of the controversy. Please make specific suggestions for wording that would satisfy WP:NPOV. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to drop out of this process indefinitely. I'm sorry that I haven't finished what I started here. Anyone who finds the /Timelines useful, please contribute. Yes, it is tedious work. I know the rest of you can work those "unbalanced" and "POV" tags off the article by collecting and using reliable sources anyone can agree on.
The "origins of the controversy" (non- WP:MEDRS) section may be the right place to better represent the anti-aspartame side of the controversy. Using reliable sources to document notability. Not many people read the rmforall blog, for example, and it gets no news coverage. The 2007 NZFSA press release said of "anti-aspartame compaigners" that "claims being made – and widely reported in the media – are doing a great public disservice", which means that the newspaper articles must be there, and that the activity was notable enough that the NZFSA felt it needed to adress the issue. Where are these sources?
Following the major rewrite that started at the end of last year, I think this article is coming along. It is now full of reliable sources, and the medical sections follow WP:MEDRS. Look at that subtle change to the description of the FDA's reaction to Soffritti's work.
Although the article is about a controversy that generates plenty of inflammatory rhetoric, I know it is possible to find consensus among wikipedia editors who understand that the job of an encyclopedia editor is to string reliable sources together into a coherent (if boring) article that is generally free of inflammatory rhetoric. It is not our job to make the article "tell the truth", only to make it report what is known, according to the reliable sources.
Thanks to everyone who has improved the article. I have enjoyed some collegial and congenial moments. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 16:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, this has previously been in the article, but was removed because it lacks a verifiable source, it needs contextualization, and we need to know when it was lifted, IF the alert ever really was given:
I have moved it to here until we can find such a source. Then it can be readded. This has been a part of the anti-aspartame conspiracy theories for some time, and considering how these conspiracy theories have often contained fabrications and misunderstandings, we need to be quite certain about the nature of this alert. -- Brangifer ( talk) 13:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight, this [6] was a good faith edit made by Maxpont that was an attempt to satisfy the consensus reached on this talk page. Verbal reverted it, then later put the paragraph back in with a different header. KCACO did not act properly, in that he did not move the article, as decided by consensu, but deleted it. And left it like that. It is right there in the history of the article. -- stmrlbs| talk 05:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Verbal reverted [7] a request for a cite for this sentence "Years later, a misleading and unverifiable hoax chain letter spread over the internet, increasing popular awareness of the incident and stoking the controversy" with the reason, "the cite is below". Let's see, there are 90 cites below. Care to say which one is the source for the statement about a hoax email? -- stmrlbs| talk 07:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems with all the information available about this controversy, that this is giving undue weight to one part. I think a reference in the introduction and more about this in the Internet rumors and activism section is enough coverage. It certainly doesn't belong in the origins.. the controversy existed before the Nancy Markle email. -- stmrlbs| talk 01:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
^ While I find this link appropriate in and of itself (and rather funny, in a ridiculing-the-tinfoil-hats kind of way), is it really required? I mean, it's obviously biased (in favor of empirical evidence and burden of proof, but still), and seems a very coatracky way to teach people about the importance of verifiable sources. Isn't it enough to simply not link to fringe sites, and explain why (as has been done on this page already)? -- Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 18:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
KCACO (keepalmandcarryon) made these edits:
[9]. As MaxPont said in his edit summary to change the headers back to the NPOV headers they have been since SV's version, the controversy should be reflected in the text. Plus, KCACO did a bit of weaseling with changing the 1992 date to "early 1990's", then placing it before the "1991" edit, to make it appear that the Airforce warning was published, then the study came out after the warning. The reverse is true. The 1991 study with 13 pilots was published, then the 1992 warning article came out.
Verbal supported KCACO's version by reverting efforts to correct this with the edit summary NPOV. I requested discussion, and Verbal reverted again without discussion. So, I'm documenting why I made the edits I did here.
--
stmrlbs|
talk
19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Aspartame is apparently banned in Europe for children's products (whatever that means) according to [10] and [11]. I haven't seen other sources for this, can anyone else shed some light? If this is the case, this should be mentioned in the "Approval outside the US" section. Greenman ( talk) 23:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Who is Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe S.A.S., and are they a reliable source? They are the owner/registrant of Aspartame Info (reference 20 in the article: [3]) -- stmrlbs| talk 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I see Maxpont removed QG's tag with the edit summary:
The problem is that (1) this isn't "the Air Force" writing, but someone writing an article in an AF rag. (2) The AF is not writing about itself (this isn't the AF article). (3) The author is writing about aspartame, something the AF can hardly be considered an expert on, nor can the author. (4) This is a medical subject, so MEDRS applies. The citation can only be considered an opinion published in an AF publication. I'm not saying it can't be used, but just noting it's nothing official, nor can it be considered medically accurate when it contradicts the evidence. -- Brangifer ( talk) 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This removed the tag but did not explain how this article passes MEDRS. An opinion from an article fails MEDRS. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the weaknesses with this article is that it fails to identify the controversy clearly, which is surely its purpose. This article is not about aspartame as such, but around the controversy. Put simply, it's that many people believe aspartame to be harmful, yet it has been approved and is claimed to be safe in most of the world. It's the gap between these two views, the reasons for them, and the differing methods used to justify each, that form the controversy.
The controversy mirrors many others in that people have differing standards and different tolerances to risk. A claim such as "aspartame is harmful" is impossible to debunk. One cannot with complete reliability claim that "aspartame is safe". However, you can debunk specific claims such as "aspartame leads to immediate insulin spikes". People's tolerance to risk plays a role here. Some feel that anecdotal evidence, or personal experience of harm, is enough to warrant caution, even if the mechanism is not (yet, they'd say) understood. They claim that reliable long-term studies have not been done, so it is irresponsible to claim safety when there is so much anecdotal evidence. They use the smoking example, where evidence of harm started to trickle out, but for a long time it was actively suppressed by tobacco companies. Others say that the burden of proof should fall on those claiming harm, rather than safety. They say that it's easy to mistakenly make associations - scientific rigour is needed to discern whether the claims are correct or not.
Much of this is political, social and psychological, not just scientific. These are the areas the article should be covering.
So, specifics about the article? The first sentence "The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of controversy regarding its safety since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974" is a good start and is clear. However, the second sentence, "Some scientific studies, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the sweetener's FDA approval process, have been the focus of vocal activism, conspiracy theories and hoaxes regarding postulated risks of aspartame" goes wrong. The subject shouldn't yet be "scientific studies", but rather setting the context about the differing beliefs and risk tolerances, about where the burden of proof lies, etc, as mentioned above. The controversy, I believe, isn't about scientific study X was subject to a conflict of interest, or claim Y was a hoax. That's the language used to argue the differing viewpoints of the controversy, not the controversy itself. Greenman ( talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You are saying we cannot call some of this controversy because most of the anti-aspartame activists are not currently engaged in an ongoing debate, strife, or drama with someone on the "other side". So you might classify things as follows?
-- SV Resolution( Talk) 15:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
For those who feel there is no controversy, perhaps a look in the dictionary might be of some assistance. The word is defined as a state of prolonged public dispute or debate usually concerning a matter of opinion. The term originates circa 1384 from Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus - "turned in an opposite direction," from contra - "against" - and vertere - to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against.". A public anti-aspartame campaign based on differing opinions, whatever the accuracy of those opinions, is of course a controversy. Just because one may feel the evidence is weighted strongly on one side of the debate does not mean a controversy does not exist. As I alluded to above, there's a clash of cultures and methodologies amongst the editors here. Scientific articles deal much more with absolutes, evidence, and so on, and are in that sense easier to write, but in writing articles about social phenomena, additional tools are required. Greenman ( talk) 16:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.
Since 1974, aspartame, a food additive marketed under the brand name NutraSweetB, has been the subject of controversy. Concerns have been raised about the quality of the research supporting its safety and the long-term effects that increased consumption could have on the public. As a result of these controversies, Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum requested GAO to investigate the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA'S) approval of aspartame in 1981.
<- Apropos nothing, here is a very old version that ScienceApologist edited. Unomi ( talk) 23:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
toThe artificial sweetener aspartame has been questioned regarding its safety since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974.[1][2][3] Some scientific studies, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the sweetener's FDA approval process, have been the focus of vocal activism, conspiracy theories and hoaxes regarding postulated risks of aspartame.[4][5][unreliable source?]
. I'd take out the word "many" and replace with "some", but it's better starting with something clear that the current mess. Greenman ( talk) 23:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of public controversy regarding its safety and the circumstances around its approval.[citation needed] Many studies have recommended further investigation into the possible connection between aspartame and diseases such as brain tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma.[1][2][3] These findings, combined with alleged conflicts of interest in the approval process, have engendered vocal activism regarding the possible risks of aspartame.[4][5] In 1987 the US Government Accountability Office concluded that the food additive approval process had been followed for aspartame.[6] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asserts that the safety of aspartame is "clear cut" and "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved."[7]
QG, you're being disingenuous. MEDRS applies ONLY to scientific nitty-gritty, but according to Wikipedia's intent and the NPOV policy, articles must cover all significant POV regarding a subject, including those which aren't discussed in MEDRS. While the mainstream scientific community doesn't dispute the safety of aspartame, and it's pretty much only @#$cases who fall for the conspiracy theories, the now-absurd controversy does exist in the real world, and we document it in the Aspartame controversy article using all relevant sources that discuss that controversy, which obviously will include some fringe sources and non-MEDRS sources. Please stop your disruptive arguments. We've seen this behavior before and it needs to stop.
As to the sources used, they are reliable for this purpose. Even though the controversy itself has been shown to be without legitimate scientific basis, it does exist in fringe circles, and that controversy is widespread and has been commented on by reliable sources which document the existence of the controversy, and set the record straight about its inaccuracy. QG, it's time to stop what amounts to a campaign that destabilizes and vandalizes an article that documents a very real controversy, absurd as that controversy may be.
Since your changes and additions of vc tags undermine the very basis for having this article, you should start an AfD rather than vandalize the article. If it can be shown that there is no controversy in the real world, and that the claimed controversy isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then this article should be deleted. I definitely believe you are totally wrong on that count, and doubt you'd have success with an AfD, but at least you'd be following proper procedure, rather than edit warring, violating 3RR, and generally destabilizing the article. You have been quite disruptive on both this and the Aspartame article and you need to go and do something else for awhile and never come back, unless you are willing to follow NPOV and cease edit warring. -- Brangifer ( talk) 13:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In 1987, at the request of Senator Metzenbaum, the GAO compiled and published GAO/HRD-87-46. The US Government Accountability Office concluded that the food additive approval process had been followed for aspartame. [4] A draft version of the report was made available to the Department of Health & Human Services which agreed that the report accurately and fairly represented the FDA's actions regarding the approval of aspertame.
As part of the 1987 GAO report a questionnaire was sent to 96 researchers in order to obtain opinions on aspartame's safety and current research. Sixty-nine responded, a summary of their responses is given in the following tables.
Respondents' Opinions on Aspertame's Safety
[4]: 70
Opinion on aspartame's safety | Aspertame researchers a |
Others b | All Respondents |
---|---|---|---|
Major Concerns; little if any confidence in aspertame's safety |
9 | 3 | 12 |
Somewhat concerned; generally confident of aspartame’s safety |
12 | 14 | 26 |
Few, if any, concerns; very confident of aspertame's safety |
20 | 9 | 29 |
Did not respond to this question | 2 | 0 | 2 |
Total | 43 | 26 | 69 |
a Individuals who said they have conducted research on aspertame's safety.
b Individuals who said they have not conducted research on aspertame's safety.
Of the 69 respondents 32 indicated that some action should be taken on aspertame to modify or inform the public.
Note that the numbers in the table below do not add up to 32 as respondents could indicate more than one action.
Respondents' Opinions on Actions That Should Be Taken To Protect Consumers
[4]: 71
Actions | Aspertame researchers a |
Others b | All respondents |
---|---|---|---|
Require additional warning or quantity labels on products containing aspertame |
15 | 7 | 22 |
Increase public awareness of the concerns about aspartame |
13 | 7 | 20 |
Provide more information to medical personnel on suspected adverse reactions to aspartame |
12 | 7 | 19 |
Limit the use of aspartame to certain populations |
12 | 4 | 16 |
Limit the types of products containing aspartame |
8 | 4 | 12 |
Withdraw the approval for use of aspertame in any food product |
7 | 3 | 10 |
Other | 6 | 3 | 9 |
a Individuals who said they have conducted research on aspertame's safety.
b Individuals who said they have not conducted research on aspertame's safety.
The Methanol section is particularly problematic, and a good example why the article is POV. There are uncited statements of fact in favour of the point of view that aspartame is harmless, and also no context. The section needs to explain the allegations otherwise it's floating arbitrarily. "Opponents of aspartame claim that asparame forms methanol which in turn causes..." etc etc. Then the studies (cited) casting doubt on these assertions can be added. To just launch into debunking without any context defeats the purpose. Greenman ( talk) 19:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This news item from Reuters should be added to the article: [15] MaxPont ( talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ref to be included: "Woolies ousts aspartame in own foods" [16] MaxPont ( talk) 20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There's another uncited claim in the Aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine section. However, the nitrosation of aspartame or the DKP in the stomach likely does not produce chemicals that cause brain tumors. If no-one can back this one up, I'll remove it as well shortly. Greenman ( talk) 11:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder that we have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy/Timelines#References_for_Ramazzinni_section (UTC) Unomi ( talk) 02:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit made this change:
This change had several problems. First, the 1994 study is indeed small. Come to think of it, it is an old primary study, and as per WP:MEDRS there is no need to be citing primary studies when we have high-quality reviews on the topic. Second, the 2002 review is not a "by the NutraSweet company": it is by two dozen authors, most of whom are not NutraSweet employees. Third, we have no reliable sources saying that the 2009 review is "independent". Fourth, the 2009 review did not report any "association" with migraine headache: on the contrary, it says "Although some studies found that aspartame did not cause more headaches than placebo, other evidence suggests that aspartame may be a headache trigger in people who ingest moderate to high doses (900 to 3000 mg/d) over a prolonged period of time." (The "evidence" in question is the 1994 Van den Eeden study, and Loehler & Glaros 1988, PMID 3277925.) This is not a statistical association, nor is it a connection between migraine in general and aspartame.
Given the many problems with this edit, I have reverted it. I suggest that further edits be based more closely on what the sources actually say. I also suggest that the article stop citing primary sources like Van den Eeden et al. 1994 ( PMID 7936222), given the wealth of more-recent reviews on the topic. Further reviews that should be consulted include Taylor 2009 ( doi: 10.1053/j.trap.2009.03.008), Magnuson et al. 2007 ( PMID 17828671). Eubulides ( talk) 06:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The current article does a poor job of explaining the actual controversy, and is still strongly edited towards defending aspartame and disparaging opposing voices. I have done a number of edits to move this to a NPOV by simply stating the controversy, removing irrelevant material, and requesting citation of a study. These were immediately reverted by BullRangifer without explanation. It would be helpful to discuss any issues on this talk page and work together to clean up this article and move it closer to a NPOV.
There are still edits to be done to move this to a NPOV, some of which I'll outline here for discussion:
The hoax chain letter continually referenced throughout the article is still notable but hardly defines the controversy. For instance it is mentioned in the first paragraph of "History of the aspartame controversy", however before this hoax email circulated consumer groups and scientists were already raising concerns, culminating in a 60 minutes story which would be a far more notable event for raising popular awareness: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5805190307148690830#. If no-one disagrees I propose editing in the 60 minutes story as a pointer to increased popular awareness of the controversy.
Characterization of studies and individuals still biased: The Ramazzini study is "controversial" which is fine (as the EFSA and FDA raised issues with it) but the National Cancer Institute study, which was less comprehensive and arguably more flawed, is not introduced as "controversial". Arthur Hull Hayes is just introduced as "FDA Commissioner" even though in the context of the controversy he is seen as a political appointee, whereas John Olney is a "scientist and anti-GM activist". I would like guidance / discussion from others on how individuals and studies on both sides of the controversy should be introduced.
The "comprehensive review" critical of the Ramazzini study which is referenced in the article was funded by Ajinomoto, a major manufacturer of aspartame, and conducted by Burdock, of Burdock Group (whose core business is in assisting food additive manufacturers in getting additives approved). In the context of the controversy this is highly notable and should be noted within the body of the article wherever it is referenced, not just the footnotes.
Finally, I would also mention that a major factor in the controversy is the stark difference of opinion coming from industry-funded studies (of which 100% support the safety of aspartame), vs independent scientific studies (of which 92% find aspartame could potentially cause adverse effects) - at least these are the figures that were reported (and presumably verified by the BMJ editor) in a British Medical Journal letter in 2005. This aspect of the controversy deserves its own section, but additional references need to be found to demonstrate the differing of scientific opinion. Fxsstm ( talk) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
We currently say: "In 1997, due to public concerns the UK government introduced a new regulation obliging food makers who use sweeteners to state clearly next to the name of their product the phrase 'with sweeteners'." This is misleading. The BBC article used as a source states that at the time this regulation was widely ignored. I believe that's still the case. I lived in the UK until this summer, and eventually I got used to the fact that "no added sugar" is used as a euphemism for "so incredibly sweet due to artificial sweeteners that you are not going to like it". Initially I sometimes bought such products because I didn't find the tiny ingredients list and there were no other hints about the sweetener, making me think they were natural products that didn't need such a list.
Any ideas how to fix this without giving undue weight to this minor point? Hans Adler 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I see the first as editorializing and introduction of editorial POV, while the last is a statement of fact. Two edits seem to confuse the issue:
I'm going to restore the previous version and let's see if a consensus forms to change it. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
After merely reading this section I expected to agree with Fxsstm. Having read the diffs as well: I don't. This reference (EHPLetter) consists of two letters: 1) Aspartame-funded researchers Magnuson and Williams attack the Soffritti study. 2) Soffritti defends his study's finding that aspartame can cause cancer in rats. (The same set of two letters is currently being referenced in two consecutive footnotes: once for the first letter, and once for the response.)
Arguably we could consider this evidence sufficient to call the Soffritti study "controversial". We can also assume that if Soffritti contradicted the Magnuson/Williams letter, then Soffritti will also disagree with the Magnuson et al. safety review, its findings, and particularly with the weight it gives (or rather does not give) to Soffritti's own results. But IMO that wouldn't be enough to call the entire Magnuson et al. review "controversial", and anyway, it would by improper synthesis for us to draw such conclusions and make them explicit in this way. Hans Adler 07:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
QuackGuru appears to be taking issue with a separate point. That is not being debated here, so I will make an edit to make the source of 'controversial' explicit by linking directly to the Soffritti response, and also by removing the additional footnote he also takes issue with. -- Fxsstm ( talk) 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
According to Fxsstm, a letter is not RS. A letter is not equal to a review. This is a MEDRS violation. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Fxsstm believes a letter should be removed. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Another editor beleives a letter is an opinion. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The sentecne is still original research. Confounding two references together in the same sentence is plain wrong. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I made this change. No evidence has been given the reference meets MEDRS. Improper synthesis should be removed. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
While no one should ignore MEDRS, it is not applicable in this instance. The fact that needs verifying (whether or not it is controversial) is not a medical fact. This has been pointed out to you above, as well as previously elsewhere. Please stop with the tendentious editing. DigitalC ( talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This needs a little WP:ASF and attribution. On the one hand, MEDRS need not be satisfied to show that there is a non-medical controversy over the results of that review (obvious for this article). On the other hand, just dropping the word controversy in those sentences gives the appearance that the controversy is medical, and is thus misleading. Can we get around this by stating review concluded flaws [FULL STOP] criticized by [specify] [FULL STOP]? Just removing the word controversy would suit, as the rebuttal (which could be described better) is right there after the review is introduced. In the lead, much less detail is needed - the statement of the current safety consensus should be simple and direct, leaving space for introducing the highlights of the history of the controversy. - 2/0 ( cont.) 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
QuackGuru, your attempt at misapplying MEDRS, and then removing the debated sentence (a debate that you have been participating in) does not seem to be helpful behaviour to the discussion at hand? -- Fxsstm ( talk) 07:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Violations of WP:TALK and WP:NPA. Best to not comment on editors, especially when WP:POT applies. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, I am very interested in Wikipedia articles being written from an NPOV and comprehensive. A number of editors here appear to disrupt discussions by misapplication of Wikipedia rules, and mischaracterisations of editor actions. Addition of valid sourced sentences are removed without discussion or reasoning in edit comments, wholesale reverting of various changes are made and these tendentious activities are then applied to editors such as myself who are interested in moving this article along. It appears that a number of editing accounts are intent on mischaracterising the science, and the controversy on both these pages including: Verbal, Keepcalmandcarryon, Brangifer, and QuackGuru. An intense effort is made to keep or add emotional wording, such as "activists against food additives" (rather than scientists), remove significant scientific studies which provide unfavourable reports on aspartame's safety (such as the Ramazzini Foundation studies), and remove significant context around favourable scientific studies (such as the safety review conducted and funded by industry). Continued efforts are made to mischaracterise concern over aspartame safety as merely grounded in conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and fueled by activism when it has its basis in scientific research. These do not appear to be the actions of editors merely intent on ensuring 'conspiracy theorists' don't push pseudoscience and strong POVs. The final result appears to be a poorly-written article which represents the talking points and tone that industry would find favourable. To remove the POV label on this article numerous edits do need to be made to remove the mischaracterisation and communicate the science, both favourable and unfavourable, on aspartame, but entrenched editors appear to be completely satisfied with an unbalanced, inconsistent status quo. Brangifer has previously threatened to "topic ban me or worse" (how much worse, I wonder?), so this sort of stepped-up aggression is not unexpected. As a new Wikipedia user it is interesting to see experienced editor accounts being used to clearly misapply Wikipedia rules, stifle discussion, and disrupt good-faith edits. There appears to be an agenda here alright, but it's certainly not mine. I feel the science around aspartame safety is still inconclusive, and there are certainly more serious carcinogenic factors in most peoples everyday lives. My only focus is to ensure the science on controversial Wikipedia topics is accurately communicated, and that is strictly NPOV. The Aspartame pages have been a good start in revealing editor motives and learning about the gaming of the system, wikilawyering, and other tactics editors use, so thank you for the introduction and education. As a new user I'm sure to put a foot wrong here and there on Wikipedia protocol which will be seized upon by experienced editors with a clear agenda. However I can only assume my knowledge of the correct way to go about improving Wikipedia articles will increase over time. The sophisticated attempts to disrupt improvements to this article are impressive, but I will consider what options are available to Wikipedians faced with this sort of scenario. -- Fxsstm ( talk) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Editors may be interested in this conversation. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Editor_continues_to_ignore_MEDRS I am not familar enough with the topic matter and the literature to make indepth comments on this article but I think that much of this dispute is misunderstanding or misrepresenting guidelines such as MEDRS as well as failure to reach a sensible compromise by following wiki guidelines by both sides.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Health Canada
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The deconstruction page is about how to decide if a source is 'credible', lets leave it at that. To what degree the nancy merkle letter is notable outside of the deconstruction exercise is debatable. But if it is to stay it should be presented NPOV, saying it is a 'one sided debate' is not NPOV, nor factual. Unomi ( talk) 23:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi SV Resolution,
first of all I like your post: thank you for the clarity on it. Second I have to say that I'm not in place to discuss all the topics you touched but I have got some idea about Soffritti. It's a matter of fact that the world's standards did not change after the Soffritti studies but this doesn't mean that there are no issues (demonstrated or not yet demonstrated) about aspartame. A matter of fact is that Soffritti pointed out that according its research the aspartame is carcinogenetic. A matter of fact Magnusson, paid by the aspartame maker, said that the Soffritti made mistakes. A matter of fact is that nobody did a long run research (as Soffritti did) on the effects of aspartame. A matter of fact is that a following research showed that
"Conclusions: Government agencies, drug companies, and the chemical industry should conduct and compare the results of 2-year bioassays of known carcinogens or chemicals for which there is equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity with longer-term studies, with and without in utero exposure. If studies longer than 2 years and/or with in utero exposure are found to better identify potential human carcinogens, then regulatory agencies should promptly revise their testing guidelines, which were established in the 1960s and early 1970s. Changing the timing and dosing of the animal bioassay would enhance protection of workers and consumers who are exposed to potentially dangerous workplace or home contaminants, pollutants, drugs, food additives, and other chemicals throughout their lives."
I would like to see reported in the article the facts. Do you think that I'm asking too much? -- Calgaco ( talk) 15:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I read the criticism about the Ramazzini's paper but, in my understanding, nobody addressed the main flaw Soffritti pointed out: the discharge of allegation of the carcinogenicity of the aspartame it is because the rodents are killed within 110 weeks. Moreover the studies criticized by Soffritti were based on small samples. Do somebody knows if this is true or wrong?
After my reading of the above mentioned criticism I'm quite puzzled because instead of reading a counter study on a large sample that examines the rodents after a longer time the critics just said this or that, in the Soffritti's paper, is wrong. I don't think that this is a good "scientific" method to prove that the issues raised by Soffritti are not valid. Does anybody has more knowledge about the controversy? If not my proposal is to amend the current version mentioning that the criticism to the Soffritti 's findings did not address the main issues reported by it.
Please let me know. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.127.8.17 ( talk) 11:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have found this
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2008/10716/abstract.html
"Conclusions: Government agencies, drug companies, and the chemical industry should conduct and compare the results of 2-year bioassays of known carcinogens or chemicals for which there is equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity with longer-term studies, with and without in utero exposure. If studies longer than 2 years and/or with in utero exposure are found to better identify potential human carcinogens, then regulatory agencies should promptly revise their testing guidelines, which were established in the 1960s and early 1970s. Changing the timing and dosing of the animal bioassay would enhance protection of workers and consumers who are exposed to potentially dangerous workplace or home contaminants, pollutants, drugs, food additives, and other chemicals throughout their lives."
I think that this goes on the direction of the Ramazzini's study...
Moreover I found that the following
About "Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven doi:10.1289/ehp.10881" it is written that "The authors received payment from the Burdock Group during the preparation of an expert review of the safety of aspartame. The Burdock Group managed the independent review, which was financially supported by Ajinomoto Company Inc., a producer of aspartame."
More in general it seems that Magnuson and Williams’s were sponsored entirely by Ajinomoto, the manufacturer of aspartame.
My proposal is to add this information to the article
This version seems to have more information about the critique of the Ramazzini study, I don't see why we don't include it.
Unomi (
talk)
03:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tom harrison, please don't delete what you don't like because you don't like it. Here, in the talk, please explain your reasons. Thanks-- Calgaco ( talk) 07:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Calgaco -- I think this article is not a place for the amount of detail you put in about the Ramazzinni studies. I think that section should be pared down again, by quite a bit. The purpose of this article is not to present enough info. from the sources to convince anybody, but to briefly review what's out there, tell what the current state of the scientific back-and-forth is, help readers figure out where they can go to read more. I think "slight but statistically significant dose-dependant..." is a pretty good summary of the Soffritti results. Some of the same people who signed the CSPI letter to the FDA also authored the opinion piece in favor of full-lifetime toxicity studies in rats. Interestingly, the Davis et al. note "concerns regarding the questionable quality of other earlier negative studies" (referencing Davis), but don't mention criticisms levelled against the Soffritti aspartame studies, which makes it look like the commentary is not NPOV. The letter and the commentary are a double dose of documentation that the same group of people are convinced the Soffritti study is important. The commentary of Davis et al. may or may not be as valid as the commentary of Magnusson et al. -- not our job to have an opinion ( WP:OR) -- so it may be appropriate to give both sides about the same weight. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 17:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi SV Resolution: As usual I like your posts. I agree with the principles you stated like "the purpose of this article is not to present enough info. from the sources to convince anybody" but , on the other side we should mention the relevant facts.
Do you think that you could be able to summarize the 8 items quoted above in a couple of sentences? I think that this will make happy everybody. -- Calgaco ( talk) 17:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
In a controversial [1] 2006 publication, the European Ramazzini Foundation Institute reported [2] a slight, dose-independent, but statistically significant increase in several malignancies of rats, concluding that aspartame is "a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake". [2] After reviewing the foundation's claims, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [3] the US FDA, [4] and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) [5] discounted the study results and found no reason to revise their previously established acceptable daily intake levels for aspartame. A comprehensive review of aspartame safety stated that the Ramazzini studies were flawed in several ways and that the researchers had misdiagnosed lesions as malignancies, [1] while another study stated that the Ramazzini researchers ought to have improved upon the methodologic and conceptual weaknesses that had been present in their earlier paper. [6] Other researchers have defended the statistical power and experimental design of the Ramazzinni study while criticizing earlier studies [7] [8] Some popular news outlets accused scientists who criticised the Ramazzini studies of conflict of interest, [9] and the Ramazzini Foundation continued to claim carcinogenic effects. [10]
CritReview
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).pmid16507461
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Magnuson2008
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Number=
ignored (|number=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I fully agree with Unomi "I am all for more detail, I doubt that II or SV R would write a section that exhibited POV, intentionally or otherwise. I hereby endorse all efforts for adding more detail until otherwise noted".
@SV I was for a proposal of a new version of the paragraph here in the talk but I will not revert your changes.-- Calgaco ( talk) 08:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Keepcalmandcarryon please try to understand that maybe your opinion is just one opinion hence try to follow the discussion in the talk. Thank you.-- Calgaco ( talk) 09:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Keepcalmandcarryon I'm sorry to ask you an additional effort but you have to explain your reasons to me and to some more users that above just mentioned their perplexities. Thank you for keeping you calm,--Calgaco (talk) 14:29, 26 March
The comment above about synthesis of primary sources still applies, with corresponding concerns about due weight. Tom Harrison Talk 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Some users are trying to discuss. If you have anything more to say please give way. Thank you -- Calgaco ( talk) 15:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mr Tom you made a major change deleting a lot of point that you don't like without a word in the current discussion hence you have the build the consensus. Thank you for your understanding. -- Calgaco ( talk) 16:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The change you claim I did it was sic et sempliciter the previous version of this article. Please don't keep blaming. -- Calgaco ( talk) 16:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J; et al. (2007-09-01). "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies". Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 37 (8): 629–727.
doi:
10.1080/10408440701516184.
PMID
17828671. {{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Does anyone have a copy of this paper? Which Soffritti studies do they review?
Thanks -- SV Resolution( Talk) 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Soffritti et al reported a "small but statistically significant" and dose-dependant risk of malignancy associated with aspartame use. In real life, size matters. Several studies have found statistically significand and dose-dependant risk of malignancy associated with consumption of red meat, for example.
The EPIC paper on meat, fish, and colorectal cancer in humans reports that 50-year-old residents of Europe who eat < 20g red and processed meat per day have a 1.28% probability of developing colorectal cancer in 10 years, while those who eat >= 160g/day have a 1.71% probability. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to compare this to Soffritti's results without doing a lot of WP:OR that I wouldn't really know how to approach anyway. Experts -- is this a dead-end idea for an encyclopedia article? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 13:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm for all kind of criticism but in an ordelry manner:
Please don’t forget to quote the following facts
Thank you, -- Calgaco ( talk) 16:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this is off the topic of the magnitude of the effect reported by Soffritti et al. Do you think, based on the Soffritti papers, that we can make a statement about the magnitude of the increased risk Soffritti would expect at ADI, 2xADI, etc? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see here http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/pdfUpload/Eur%20J%20Oncol%20Vol%2010%20107-116_2005.pdf and let me know if it helps. -- Calgaco ( talk) 20:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
To whom is concerned from http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/pdfUpload/Environmental%20Health%20Perspectives_Vol%20116_%206_June%202008.pdf
*First, Magnuson and Williams imply that our findings (Soffritti et al. 2007) should be discounted because the incidence of lymphomas/leukemias in the high-dose group “were within or near the reported historical control ranges.” As reported in our
study (Soffritti et al. 2007), the incidence of lymphomas/leukemias observed in both sexes treated with 2,000 ppm aspartame is nearly double the concurrent control (Soffritti et al. 2007). The suggestion that concurrent control data should be ignored is contrary to the widely accepted standard of good laboratory science.
- Second, Magnuson and Williams attribute our findings (Soffritti et al. 2007)
to some kind of bias (i.e., infection) that would affect only treated animals but not the controls. We have responded in detail to this hypothesis in our article (Soffritti et al. 2007) and in an earlier letter (Soffritti 2006). To support their assertion, Magnuson and Williams mislead readers by stating that “the lung was often the site of lymphoma again in this [second] study.” However, we actually reported that we observed the diffusion of neoplastic tissue not only in the lung but also concurrently in various organs (liver, spleen, mediastinal and other lymph nodes). (Soffritti et al. 2007) Infection as a mode of action for induction of rat lymphoma has been recently examined by a group of scientists at the National Center for Environmental Assessment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Caldwell et al. (2008) found that a careful examination of available information does not support the hypothesis that the observed lymphomas/leukemias in the ERF bioassays are a general effect from infection. The reports of chemically-induced lymphomas/leukemias by the ERF seem to be chemical specific.
- Third, the idea that we must provide a “biologically plausible explanation” for human or rodent carcinogens is a timehonored approach to postpone or prevent the application of regulatory measures to minimize carcinogenic risks. The reality is that this explanation is quite often unknown, as is, in general, the mode of action behind the carcinogenic process.
Regarding Magnusson et al. it is written
The authors received payment from the Burdock Group during the preparation of an expert review of the safety of aspartame. The Burdock Group managed the independent review, which was financially supported by Ajinomoto Company Inc., a producer of aspartame
Hope that this helps. -- Calgaco ( talk) 16:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tom, I think that most of people here understand you point of view. You have the right to think what you like. The issue is when you insists to mould the article in the way you think. This is POV. For example I have tried to show here in the talk that Magnusson has been paid by the aspartame producer and your answer is, instead to reply, to edit the article in this way: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Aspartame_controversy&diff=280044695&oldid=280030545. As already mentioned please try to build the consensus instead of causing flames. Thank you for considering that. -- Calgaco ( talk) 18:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The incipit before was
now is
This article is called "Aspartame controversy" so before it was neutral now you have anticipated something that should be explained in the following of the article because safe is a "conclusion". I think that you may realize yourself how POV it is. -- Calgaco ( talk) 18:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Your reference is a secondary reference to a primary refence already present in the incipit. You should not multiply the references to the same study. I think that this way to act is clearly POV. -- Calgaco ( talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that you missed the point. I'm not talking about sources I'm talking about references. Let me try to be more clear: if I quote the same research 10 times because 10 newpapers has written 10 times about it I'm wrongdoing. I cannot disseminate in the article 10 references to the same research. Is that clear? -- Calgaco ( talk) 18:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Tom I m considering myself a man that likes peace. I have tried to explain unsucessfully what should be fair. I will not revert your last edit and I will leave the judgement to the communnity. Mayby somebody else will propose the “right” version. For today I wish you the bests. -- Calgaco ( talk) 19:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
In the lead it says: "The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of controversy regarding its safety since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974." But in the section "Origins of the aspartame controversy" it starts with: "The controversy about aspartame safety finds its origin in some individual scientific studies, as well as in rumors spread over the internet." The source for this statement is taken from an article at about.com, written by David Emery, who describes his experience as: "Professional credits include stints as a freelance journalist, staff writer for a TV sitcom, and contributing editor of a satirical newspaper. Mr. Emery first won recognition in the online world as an arch commentator on the outer limits of Net culture with Iron Skillet Magazine, "a compendium of offbeat views run through the blender of the author's savage sense of humor ... [with] on-target skewerings of strange ideas" (Houston Chronicle). He has covered urban legends and folklore for About.com since 1997." Quite the expert we want to bring into this article to make important statements on aspartame, right? He uses the Nancy Markle letter as the main proof that the controversy is a hoax.
The second source mentioned is from Time Magazine, from about the same time and using again the reference to the Nancy Markle letter as proof to ridicule the entire controversy. The author Christine Gorman used to write columns about health for Time and is by no means an expert. Real newspapers such as the New York Times have reported regularly prior to 1999 about the controversy but are ignored here. Not even 60 minutes from december 1996 is mentioned (60 Minutes is a valid source in wikipedia I just learned). We need to have a better description about The Origins of the Aspartame Controversy. Immortale ( talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw that "false" first and "factually inaccurate" was added. This led again to a chain of edit and undid. My point here is to ask for a general agreement to avoid such a kind of “fights”. My proposal is to leave the article as much neutral as we can by avoiding using adjectives. For example in this specific case we should avoid using expressions such as false, true, wonderful, etc. My proposal is to:
All above should be done without taking side and, hence, avoiding to anticipate any judgment/final conclusion. I hope to find a common agreement on this. -- Calgaco ( talk) 12:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi SV, you made an example. This article refers to the controversy so, in some way, we should talk about it in a plain way. Can we agree please to do it without any flame? -- Calgaco ( talk) 14:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with that: it is a very good example on how to neutrally report facts. Thank you. -- Calgaco ( talk) 15:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Verbal, I'm using facts and wikipedia's guidelines. You know that, that's why you avoid discussions and start making character comments instead. Just now you added an identical reference, to imply more weight. You also added the dubious reference again to Aurora Saulo Hodgson Extension Specialist in Food Technology, Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences who wrote an opinion piece for some journal at the University of Hawaii. She doesn't use any sources in her writing, so it's not verifiable. And these sources are supposed to be the best there is to find to explain the controversy as a hoax? So you have a comedy writer, a health columnist and a "Extension Specialist in Food Technology". Since when is grabbing for straws a wikipedia policy? These aren't scientific experts who have published their statements in peer-reviewed journals. Or does that rule only count for editors who come with negative findings on aspartame? Immortale ( talk) 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I made a timeline to help me understand the sequence of events in the Ramazzinni section, and to help get the article back into order, with the refs glued back onto the statements they belong with. I think it would be awkward to have it right on this talk page, so I've created a subpage for References for Ramazzinni section
This subsection confuses me. As a subsection of Aspartame controversy#Origins of the aspartame controversy, I would think it would explain how certain scientific studies got the controversy started. But I don't think it does that. The pieces of this subsection:
Should Aspartame controversy#Scientific Studies summarize the scientific studies that were considered as part of the approval process, and how they contributed to the controversy? Searle studies? "The Japan study?" Other early studies? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Do we really have to parrot the industry example of the 21 cans for an adult? We already established that aspartame is present in at least 6000 different products, and these aren't all drinks in a can. It's marginalizing the consumption of aspartame while in reality besides drinking from a can, it can be in yogurts, chewing gum, sweeteners, the list is long Immortale ( talk) 20:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Part of the early controversy, as raised by Senator Metzenbaum, was around the Chicago US attorney office. I have added some of this information, from the congressional record and a WSJ article. I see now that I have neglected to mention Metzenbaum's role in this controversy. As he held Senate hearings and commissioned the GAO to write two different reports, I think his role in this controversy is notable. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the earlier Congressional Records or the letters between him and Orrin Hatch, in which he spelled out his concerns over the quality of Searle's safety studies and the appearance that Searle had quashed a Federal grand jury investigation by getting their lawyers to hire a couple of US attorneys from Chicago. Some of these materials are republished on dorway, but I hesitate to link to reprints there, even though I think they probably reproduced these items accurately. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 18:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on a timeline at User:SV_Resolution/aspartame_controversy_section. It's a mess. Not everything is in timeline order, and some of the references are a mess, too. If anyone wants to help work on cleaning it up and putting it into Talk:Aspartame_controversy/Timelines, in a "Origins of controversy" section for our reference, that'd be a great help. I'm still trying to understand how Metzenbaum got involved. Maybe it was a letter from Olney? I'm thinking that, the more organized our references are, the more likely that this article will STAY improved, once we get it that way. Wishful thinking -- SV Resolution( Talk) 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
What about that notice of neutrality dispute? Can anybody give a short list of items from the article that are not covered appropriately? Can we work on them, one by one, and cross them off the list? And then remove the dispute tag? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Since I didn't get any quick objections, I'm going to propose that, if there are no objections after 7 days, we remove that neutrality dispute template. As I see it, editors of various points of view can agree on several things about this article
If we find that there is consensus on the neutrality of most sections, we can turn out attention to any problematic sections. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
A source which is used in this article is being discussed at RS/N: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Journal_.22Regulatory_Toxicology_and_Pharmacology.22 II | ( t - c) 17:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone suggest a suitable wording for noting funding sources for reviews and critiques of scientific studies? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
A 2007 safety evaluation funded by aspartame producer Ajinomoto[5] found that the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates...
@Verbal -- you have twice reverted statements like this, from two different editors. Please discuss. Perhaps you can make a good suggestion for how the article should address the issue of COI and reliability of industry-funded scientific publications as it pertains to the aspartame controversy. Certainly, the high incidence of this topic in the blogosphere and at anti-aspartame web pages is a testament to the fact that it is an important component of the controversy. I don't think Aspartame controversy is the only place editors are struggling to grapple with the problem of how to represent these sources. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"Verbal (talk | contribs) (51,739 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by ClubEd; Get consensus first for such edits."
Right then, do we have a consensus that it is not a contentious alteration to leave in the statement asserting that aspartame has been determined safe according to the "the weight of existing scientific evidence," as long as the COI is mentioned? Or is it less contentious to remove that line altogether? ClubEd ( talk) 14:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree.-- Calgaco ( talk) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
About point 1 please find below my personal opinion:
More in general: it is really relevant to mention that the guidelines and the protocols were issued 40/50 years ago and that means (at least) that they are outdated. This implies that the supposed safety of the goods sold is not based on "the best practices"... -- Calgaco ( talk) 19:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
To Scientizzle, on the edit showing that the panelists were unaware of their sponsor: I think this is an appropriate edit, however, I'm pretty sure that I have responded to this point several times, and I know other people have. Since you have science in your name, I'm guessing you're not terribly credulous. The review was done by the Burdock Group. This is a company whose main job is to facilitate regulatory approval for its clients. Ajinomoto paid them some money (we don't know who was aware of their payer); William Waddell then selected the panelists, who were presumably paid a fair sum. To say that there was no potential bias here is absurd. Whenever one hires a company which serves the industry and has a reputation of helping its customers to maintain, there's a strong possibility of bias in the selection of reviewers. This is evident in the fact that the main reviewer chosen was Magnuson, who works at a similar company (Cantox International, a company which works to " facilitate timely approvals"). Anyway, this was a fairly crude attempt to reduce industry bias which probably had a negligible effect. I'm not saying the paper is wrong in any respects, just that the assertion of "no bias" is ridiculous. This method of deflecting the bias attack is one we'll no doubt see more of in other areas, and it's one that isn't taken all that seriously, as evidenced by the fact that EHP required the Magnuson and Williams to disclose their conflict of interest without any excuses. II | ( t - c) 23:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
<undent>All involved editors: Have we resolved the neutrality dispute in the Ramazzinni section of the article?
Sorry to backtrack a bit, but I notice that the footnote to the very neutral sounding "A 2007 safety evaluation found that the weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener.[5]" does not mention that Ajinomoto is an aspartame producer, nor does the Ajinomoto wiki page mention anthing about aspartame. To the casual reader, this fails to even hint at a COI. Should we not revert back to the edit "A 2007 safety evaluation funded by aspartame producer
Ajinomoto found that..."?
ClubEd (
talk)
14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link).Older versions of this section referenced the CDC study of the FDA's collection of adverse effects reports attributed to aspartame. I think they got cut for bad writing or bad references. There are primary and secondary sources for this:
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) report from the CDC researchers, with list of reported symptoms.{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |subtitle=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) page 198 "After examining ARMS system data, Tollefson et al. were 'unable to find a consistent link between any particular variety of headache and the consumption of aspertame.' ... the authors noted that case reports such as those received by the FDA are often accepted as evidence of a causal link without adequate documentation of the alleged reaction and without eliminating other possible causes"{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) (Section 7 deals with Aspartame and Headache){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) -- "did not support the claim that the occurrences of the seizures were linked to consumption of aspartame".What I don't have is a good source stating why the FDA's and CDC's analysis of these reports became controversial. Betty Martini seems to feel that there is something wrong with the FDA's handling of adverse effect reports for aspartame, and that these reports prove that aspartame is harmful. But I cannot find any reliable source that says these reports prove anything at all.
Is there a wikipedia article on scientific and medical controversies and conspiracy theories, with discussion of the logic errors often found in Betty Martini's writings? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 17:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Please offer your view: Have we resolved the neutrality dispute in the Reported Adverse Effects section of the article?
"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;" I added citation needed tags to both of the above statements. JasonAdama ( talk) 20:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The NZFSA source appears to be from the New Zealand equivalent of the USFDA. This should make it reliable for the purposes of this article, yes? Especially as it is being cited in this section for the existence of studies and approval regulations; the language could potentially be tweaked.
The source states: Aspartame has been authorised for many years in many countries following thorough safety assessments. It offers a safe, low calorie option for anyone who wants or needs to limit their sugar intake; and unlike sugar, aspartame does not contribute to tooth decay. ... However, there is no scientific evidence of any significant adverse affects from aspartame when it is consumed at sensible levels. Even with high doses, the metabolites of this sweetener do not accumulate in toxic amounts.
The article stated: Several large scientific assessments of available research by expert panels have refuted the claims of negative health effects attributed to aspartame.
I changed this to: Food additive safety evaluations by many countries have led to approval of aspartame, citing the general lack of adverse effects following consumption in reasonable quantities.
This seems reasonable to me, but improvements in wording are welcomed.
This source is also being used to support the statement: Based on government research reviews and recommendations from advisory bodies such as those listed above, aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption by more than ninety countries worldwide.
The number more than ninety countries is not supported, but the remainder of the sentence is. I have not checked the HealthCanada source just now, but this does not seem an unreasonable use of the NZFSA source. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I'm inclined to believe that Health Canada is accurate in its statement that at least 90 ocuntries have approved aspartame and/or stated that aspartame is safe. There is some difficulty here separating statements about the preponderance of evidence/majority/mainstream view on the safety of aspartame from statements about the history of the controversy. Perhaps you can help. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 14:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree this article is not neutral in tone or content. My main concern is to make the community of contributors more aware that there is much recent research in peer-reviewed mainstream journals that raises entirely reasonable doubts about the safety of aspartame, and its inevitable, quickly formed cumulative toxic products in humans: methanol, formaldehyde, and formic acid, as well as the protective role of adequate folic acid levels for most people:
aspartame, caffeine, MSG, alcohol may cause migraine headaches, C Sun-Edelstein, A Mauskop, The New York Headache Center, Clin J Pain 2009 June: Rich Murray 2009.05.25 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.htm Monday, May 25, 2009 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1573
formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines, the first case series, Sharon E Jacob-Soo, Sarah A Stechschulte, UCSD, Dermatitis 2008 May: Rich Murray 2008.07.18 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.htm Friday, July 18, 2008 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1553
Dermatitis. 2008 May-Jun; 19(3): E10-1. Formaldehyde, aspartame, and migraines: a possible connection. Jacob SE, Stechschulte S. Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Aspartame is a widely used artificial sweetener that has been linked to pediatric and adolescent migraines.
Upon ingestion, aspartame is broken, converted, and oxidized into formaldehyde in various tissues.
We present the first case series of aspartame-associated migraines related to clinically relevant positive reactions to formaldehyde on patch testing. PMID 18627677
re huge reduction in preterm births: folic acid prevents harm from formaldehyde and formic acid made by body from methanol in alcohol drinks and aspartame, BM Kapur, DC Lehotay, PL Carlen at U. Toronto, Alc Clin Exp Res 2007 Dec: Rich Murray 2009.05.12 http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.htm Tuesday, May 12, 2009 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1572
"Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority, to enjoy peace, joy, and love by helping to find, quickly share, and positively act upon evidence about healthy and safe food, drink, and environment."
Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@comcast.net 505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
http://RMForAll.blogspot.com new primary archive
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages group with 140 members, 1,573 posts in a public archive
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/messages group with 1197 members, 23,476 posts in a public archive
( talk) 10:51 pm MST, 25 May 2009 (MST) Rmforall ( talk) 04:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I also agree this article is not neutral in tone or content. It needs to include evidence from independent studies that show the negative effects of the chemical. It looks like someone is getting paid to maintain this page as part of their job description at the company.
Vorpaul (
talk)
09:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Ditto on the neutrality problem here, it almost sounds like a pay job--the incredible detail, the massive references to medical studies, and the complete lack of mention or reference to almost anything on the other side is quite telling. Where is any reference to www.dorway.com, www.sweetpoison.com, www.naturalnews.com/aspartame.html, etc.? Where is mention of the numerous FDA scandals? Is there any discussion about whether this is another "smoking is ok for you" and "mercury in vaccines doesn't do anything" propaganda job? 219.69.16.77 ( talk) 15:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)grego
Did NutraSweet pay someone at Wikipedia to write this article? Why was the initial monkey study in 1969, which results were withheld from the FDA, not mentioned? Or the MBR report detailing rat autopsies in 1972? Sadly, I'm not surprised Donald Rumsfield was President of G.D. Searle & Company... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.109.71 ( talk) 19:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is clearly written in favor of Aspartame. I also agree that the Sweet Misery documentary contains very notable information and sources that lend considerable credit to reports of serious health side effects and collusion between members of the FDA and the makers of Aspartame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.77.7 ( talk) 08:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well. The tone is definitely not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.96.67 ( talk) 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree, more information about the papers published by the scientific community in peer-reviewed articles should be added, and the request made by important toxicologists to the FDA to review the last findings from Istituto Ramazzini should be cited in the lead. Letters from scientists in COI should be removed from the page. ( Karloff ( talk) 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC))
There absolutely should be mention of the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto. I think this information is vital and speaks volumes of the credibility of Monsanto's biased research and the forced decisions made by the FDA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.10.125 ( talk) 05:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I too agree that this article seems unbalanced, also, going over the history of this article it seems that a substantial amount of information that would be beneficial for the debate has been taken out. While seemingly specious sources and references have been kept in: http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/FST-3.pdf is unreachable at the moment but by reading it via google's HTML cache I can see that it does not seem a source of good information: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:AywoCftL8ocJ:www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/FST-3.pdf+FST-3.pdf . It has no sources and seems to contain information that is in direct contradiction to scientific research. For example: Claim: Aspartame causes increases in appetite and weight. Compare to http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20050613/drink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight. 125.26.244.225 ( talk) 05:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
These disease hypotheses, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the approval process—which were refuted by an official US governmental enquiry[6]—have been the focus of vocal activism and conspiracy theories regarding the possible risks of aspartame. Is that a joke? if you read that source you will see that at least 5 of the people involved with Aspartame while at working at HHS were later employed by Grocery Manufacturers of America, National Soft Drink Association or directly working for Searle as legal counsel. How do you manage to interpret that as 'refuting' conflicts of interest? Unomi ( talk) 15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
this assertion needs some sort of backup, or justification. Merely stating something does not make it true, and is unworthy of a wikipedia article. "However, the nitrosation of aspartame or the DKP in the stomach likely does not produce chemicals that cause brain tumors" Stuff like this should be summarily removed when not backed up. Where does "likely" fit into an article like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerhug ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
A just-passing-through reader of this article (for instance, me) gets the impression that there is no mainstream scientific evidence or opinion that sees cause for concern regarding aspartame. I guess those working on this article need to reach consensus as to whether that is an accurate reflection of the situation. There are after all false controversies where partisans claim there's significant authoritative dissent (e.g., global warming, evolution). DavidOaks ( talk) 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The study gets cited a lot in context of not so good science being misinterpreted for scaremongering, but not very much for its science. This should inform our coverage of this aspect of the controversy. Please make specific suggestions for wording that would satisfy WP:NPOV. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to drop out of this process indefinitely. I'm sorry that I haven't finished what I started here. Anyone who finds the /Timelines useful, please contribute. Yes, it is tedious work. I know the rest of you can work those "unbalanced" and "POV" tags off the article by collecting and using reliable sources anyone can agree on.
The "origins of the controversy" (non- WP:MEDRS) section may be the right place to better represent the anti-aspartame side of the controversy. Using reliable sources to document notability. Not many people read the rmforall blog, for example, and it gets no news coverage. The 2007 NZFSA press release said of "anti-aspartame compaigners" that "claims being made – and widely reported in the media – are doing a great public disservice", which means that the newspaper articles must be there, and that the activity was notable enough that the NZFSA felt it needed to adress the issue. Where are these sources?
Following the major rewrite that started at the end of last year, I think this article is coming along. It is now full of reliable sources, and the medical sections follow WP:MEDRS. Look at that subtle change to the description of the FDA's reaction to Soffritti's work.
Although the article is about a controversy that generates plenty of inflammatory rhetoric, I know it is possible to find consensus among wikipedia editors who understand that the job of an encyclopedia editor is to string reliable sources together into a coherent (if boring) article that is generally free of inflammatory rhetoric. It is not our job to make the article "tell the truth", only to make it report what is known, according to the reliable sources.
Thanks to everyone who has improved the article. I have enjoyed some collegial and congenial moments. -- SV Resolution( Talk) 16:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, this has previously been in the article, but was removed because it lacks a verifiable source, it needs contextualization, and we need to know when it was lifted, IF the alert ever really was given:
I have moved it to here until we can find such a source. Then it can be readded. This has been a part of the anti-aspartame conspiracy theories for some time, and considering how these conspiracy theories have often contained fabrications and misunderstandings, we need to be quite certain about the nature of this alert. -- Brangifer ( talk) 13:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight, this [6] was a good faith edit made by Maxpont that was an attempt to satisfy the consensus reached on this talk page. Verbal reverted it, then later put the paragraph back in with a different header. KCACO did not act properly, in that he did not move the article, as decided by consensu, but deleted it. And left it like that. It is right there in the history of the article. -- stmrlbs| talk 05:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Verbal reverted [7] a request for a cite for this sentence "Years later, a misleading and unverifiable hoax chain letter spread over the internet, increasing popular awareness of the incident and stoking the controversy" with the reason, "the cite is below". Let's see, there are 90 cites below. Care to say which one is the source for the statement about a hoax email? -- stmrlbs| talk 07:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems with all the information available about this controversy, that this is giving undue weight to one part. I think a reference in the introduction and more about this in the Internet rumors and activism section is enough coverage. It certainly doesn't belong in the origins.. the controversy existed before the Nancy Markle email. -- stmrlbs| talk 01:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
^ While I find this link appropriate in and of itself (and rather funny, in a ridiculing-the-tinfoil-hats kind of way), is it really required? I mean, it's obviously biased (in favor of empirical evidence and burden of proof, but still), and seems a very coatracky way to teach people about the importance of verifiable sources. Isn't it enough to simply not link to fringe sites, and explain why (as has been done on this page already)? -- Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 18:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
KCACO (keepalmandcarryon) made these edits:
[9]. As MaxPont said in his edit summary to change the headers back to the NPOV headers they have been since SV's version, the controversy should be reflected in the text. Plus, KCACO did a bit of weaseling with changing the 1992 date to "early 1990's", then placing it before the "1991" edit, to make it appear that the Airforce warning was published, then the study came out after the warning. The reverse is true. The 1991 study with 13 pilots was published, then the 1992 warning article came out.
Verbal supported KCACO's version by reverting efforts to correct this with the edit summary NPOV. I requested discussion, and Verbal reverted again without discussion. So, I'm documenting why I made the edits I did here.
--
stmrlbs|
talk
19:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Aspartame is apparently banned in Europe for children's products (whatever that means) according to [10] and [11]. I haven't seen other sources for this, can anyone else shed some light? If this is the case, this should be mentioned in the "Approval outside the US" section. Greenman ( talk) 23:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Who is Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe S.A.S., and are they a reliable source? They are the owner/registrant of Aspartame Info (reference 20 in the article: [3]) -- stmrlbs| talk 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I see Maxpont removed QG's tag with the edit summary:
The problem is that (1) this isn't "the Air Force" writing, but someone writing an article in an AF rag. (2) The AF is not writing about itself (this isn't the AF article). (3) The author is writing about aspartame, something the AF can hardly be considered an expert on, nor can the author. (4) This is a medical subject, so MEDRS applies. The citation can only be considered an opinion published in an AF publication. I'm not saying it can't be used, but just noting it's nothing official, nor can it be considered medically accurate when it contradicts the evidence. -- Brangifer ( talk) 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This removed the tag but did not explain how this article passes MEDRS. An opinion from an article fails MEDRS. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the weaknesses with this article is that it fails to identify the controversy clearly, which is surely its purpose. This article is not about aspartame as such, but around the controversy. Put simply, it's that many people believe aspartame to be harmful, yet it has been approved and is claimed to be safe in most of the world. It's the gap between these two views, the reasons for them, and the differing methods used to justify each, that form the controversy.
The controversy mirrors many others in that people have differing standards and different tolerances to risk. A claim such as "aspartame is harmful" is impossible to debunk. One cannot with complete reliability claim that "aspartame is safe". However, you can debunk specific claims such as "aspartame leads to immediate insulin spikes". People's tolerance to risk plays a role here. Some feel that anecdotal evidence, or personal experience of harm, is enough to warrant caution, even if the mechanism is not (yet, they'd say) understood. They claim that reliable long-term studies have not been done, so it is irresponsible to claim safety when there is so much anecdotal evidence. They use the smoking example, where evidence of harm started to trickle out, but for a long time it was actively suppressed by tobacco companies. Others say that the burden of proof should fall on those claiming harm, rather than safety. They say that it's easy to mistakenly make associations - scientific rigour is needed to discern whether the claims are correct or not.
Much of this is political, social and psychological, not just scientific. These are the areas the article should be covering.
So, specifics about the article? The first sentence "The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of controversy regarding its safety since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974" is a good start and is clear. However, the second sentence, "Some scientific studies, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the sweetener's FDA approval process, have been the focus of vocal activism, conspiracy theories and hoaxes regarding postulated risks of aspartame" goes wrong. The subject shouldn't yet be "scientific studies", but rather setting the context about the differing beliefs and risk tolerances, about where the burden of proof lies, etc, as mentioned above. The controversy, I believe, isn't about scientific study X was subject to a conflict of interest, or claim Y was a hoax. That's the language used to argue the differing viewpoints of the controversy, not the controversy itself. Greenman ( talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You are saying we cannot call some of this controversy because most of the anti-aspartame activists are not currently engaged in an ongoing debate, strife, or drama with someone on the "other side". So you might classify things as follows?
-- SV Resolution( Talk) 15:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
For those who feel there is no controversy, perhaps a look in the dictionary might be of some assistance. The word is defined as a state of prolonged public dispute or debate usually concerning a matter of opinion. The term originates circa 1384 from Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus - "turned in an opposite direction," from contra - "against" - and vertere - to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against.". A public anti-aspartame campaign based on differing opinions, whatever the accuracy of those opinions, is of course a controversy. Just because one may feel the evidence is weighted strongly on one side of the debate does not mean a controversy does not exist. As I alluded to above, there's a clash of cultures and methodologies amongst the editors here. Scientific articles deal much more with absolutes, evidence, and so on, and are in that sense easier to write, but in writing articles about social phenomena, additional tools are required. Greenman ( talk) 16:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.
Since 1974, aspartame, a food additive marketed under the brand name NutraSweetB, has been the subject of controversy. Concerns have been raised about the quality of the research supporting its safety and the long-term effects that increased consumption could have on the public. As a result of these controversies, Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum requested GAO to investigate the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA'S) approval of aspartame in 1981.
<- Apropos nothing, here is a very old version that ScienceApologist edited. Unomi ( talk) 23:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
toThe artificial sweetener aspartame has been questioned regarding its safety since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974.[1][2][3] Some scientific studies, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the sweetener's FDA approval process, have been the focus of vocal activism, conspiracy theories and hoaxes regarding postulated risks of aspartame.[4][5][unreliable source?]
. I'd take out the word "many" and replace with "some", but it's better starting with something clear that the current mess. Greenman ( talk) 23:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of public controversy regarding its safety and the circumstances around its approval.[citation needed] Many studies have recommended further investigation into the possible connection between aspartame and diseases such as brain tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma.[1][2][3] These findings, combined with alleged conflicts of interest in the approval process, have engendered vocal activism regarding the possible risks of aspartame.[4][5] In 1987 the US Government Accountability Office concluded that the food additive approval process had been followed for aspartame.[6] The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asserts that the safety of aspartame is "clear cut" and "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved."[7]
QG, you're being disingenuous. MEDRS applies ONLY to scientific nitty-gritty, but according to Wikipedia's intent and the NPOV policy, articles must cover all significant POV regarding a subject, including those which aren't discussed in MEDRS. While the mainstream scientific community doesn't dispute the safety of aspartame, and it's pretty much only @#$cases who fall for the conspiracy theories, the now-absurd controversy does exist in the real world, and we document it in the Aspartame controversy article using all relevant sources that discuss that controversy, which obviously will include some fringe sources and non-MEDRS sources. Please stop your disruptive arguments. We've seen this behavior before and it needs to stop.
As to the sources used, they are reliable for this purpose. Even though the controversy itself has been shown to be without legitimate scientific basis, it does exist in fringe circles, and that controversy is widespread and has been commented on by reliable sources which document the existence of the controversy, and set the record straight about its inaccuracy. QG, it's time to stop what amounts to a campaign that destabilizes and vandalizes an article that documents a very real controversy, absurd as that controversy may be.
Since your changes and additions of vc tags undermine the very basis for having this article, you should start an AfD rather than vandalize the article. If it can be shown that there is no controversy in the real world, and that the claimed controversy isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then this article should be deleted. I definitely believe you are totally wrong on that count, and doubt you'd have success with an AfD, but at least you'd be following proper procedure, rather than edit warring, violating 3RR, and generally destabilizing the article. You have been quite disruptive on both this and the Aspartame article and you need to go and do something else for awhile and never come back, unless you are willing to follow NPOV and cease edit warring. -- Brangifer ( talk) 13:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In 1987, at the request of Senator Metzenbaum, the GAO compiled and published GAO/HRD-87-46. The US Government Accountability Office concluded that the food additive approval process had been followed for aspartame. [4] A draft version of the report was made available to the Department of Health & Human Services which agreed that the report accurately and fairly represented the FDA's actions regarding the approval of aspertame.
As part of the 1987 GAO report a questionnaire was sent to 96 researchers in order to obtain opinions on aspartame's safety and current research. Sixty-nine responded, a summary of their responses is given in the following tables.
Respondents' Opinions on Aspertame's Safety
[4]: 70
Opinion on aspartame's safety | Aspertame researchers a |
Others b | All Respondents |
---|---|---|---|
Major Concerns; little if any confidence in aspertame's safety |
9 | 3 | 12 |
Somewhat concerned; generally confident of aspartame’s safety |
12 | 14 | 26 |
Few, if any, concerns; very confident of aspertame's safety |
20 | 9 | 29 |
Did not respond to this question | 2 | 0 | 2 |
Total | 43 | 26 | 69 |
a Individuals who said they have conducted research on aspertame's safety.
b Individuals who said they have not conducted research on aspertame's safety.
Of the 69 respondents 32 indicated that some action should be taken on aspertame to modify or inform the public.
Note that the numbers in the table below do not add up to 32 as respondents could indicate more than one action.
Respondents' Opinions on Actions That Should Be Taken To Protect Consumers
[4]: 71
Actions | Aspertame researchers a |
Others b | All respondents |
---|---|---|---|
Require additional warning or quantity labels on products containing aspertame |
15 | 7 | 22 |
Increase public awareness of the concerns about aspartame |
13 | 7 | 20 |
Provide more information to medical personnel on suspected adverse reactions to aspartame |
12 | 7 | 19 |
Limit the use of aspartame to certain populations |
12 | 4 | 16 |
Limit the types of products containing aspartame |
8 | 4 | 12 |
Withdraw the approval for use of aspertame in any food product |
7 | 3 | 10 |
Other | 6 | 3 | 9 |
a Individuals who said they have conducted research on aspertame's safety.
b Individuals who said they have not conducted research on aspertame's safety.
The Methanol section is particularly problematic, and a good example why the article is POV. There are uncited statements of fact in favour of the point of view that aspartame is harmless, and also no context. The section needs to explain the allegations otherwise it's floating arbitrarily. "Opponents of aspartame claim that asparame forms methanol which in turn causes..." etc etc. Then the studies (cited) casting doubt on these assertions can be added. To just launch into debunking without any context defeats the purpose. Greenman ( talk) 19:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This news item from Reuters should be added to the article: [15] MaxPont ( talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ref to be included: "Woolies ousts aspartame in own foods" [16] MaxPont ( talk) 20:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There's another uncited claim in the Aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine section. However, the nitrosation of aspartame or the DKP in the stomach likely does not produce chemicals that cause brain tumors. If no-one can back this one up, I'll remove it as well shortly. Greenman ( talk) 11:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder that we have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy/Timelines#References_for_Ramazzinni_section (UTC) Unomi ( talk) 02:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit made this change:
This change had several problems. First, the 1994 study is indeed small. Come to think of it, it is an old primary study, and as per WP:MEDRS there is no need to be citing primary studies when we have high-quality reviews on the topic. Second, the 2002 review is not a "by the NutraSweet company": it is by two dozen authors, most of whom are not NutraSweet employees. Third, we have no reliable sources saying that the 2009 review is "independent". Fourth, the 2009 review did not report any "association" with migraine headache: on the contrary, it says "Although some studies found that aspartame did not cause more headaches than placebo, other evidence suggests that aspartame may be a headache trigger in people who ingest moderate to high doses (900 to 3000 mg/d) over a prolonged period of time." (The "evidence" in question is the 1994 Van den Eeden study, and Loehler & Glaros 1988, PMID 3277925.) This is not a statistical association, nor is it a connection between migraine in general and aspartame.
Given the many problems with this edit, I have reverted it. I suggest that further edits be based more closely on what the sources actually say. I also suggest that the article stop citing primary sources like Van den Eeden et al. 1994 ( PMID 7936222), given the wealth of more-recent reviews on the topic. Further reviews that should be consulted include Taylor 2009 ( doi: 10.1053/j.trap.2009.03.008), Magnuson et al. 2007 ( PMID 17828671). Eubulides ( talk) 06:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The current article does a poor job of explaining the actual controversy, and is still strongly edited towards defending aspartame and disparaging opposing voices. I have done a number of edits to move this to a NPOV by simply stating the controversy, removing irrelevant material, and requesting citation of a study. These were immediately reverted by BullRangifer without explanation. It would be helpful to discuss any issues on this talk page and work together to clean up this article and move it closer to a NPOV.
There are still edits to be done to move this to a NPOV, some of which I'll outline here for discussion:
The hoax chain letter continually referenced throughout the article is still notable but hardly defines the controversy. For instance it is mentioned in the first paragraph of "History of the aspartame controversy", however before this hoax email circulated consumer groups and scientists were already raising concerns, culminating in a 60 minutes story which would be a far more notable event for raising popular awareness: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5805190307148690830#. If no-one disagrees I propose editing in the 60 minutes story as a pointer to increased popular awareness of the controversy.
Characterization of studies and individuals still biased: The Ramazzini study is "controversial" which is fine (as the EFSA and FDA raised issues with it) but the National Cancer Institute study, which was less comprehensive and arguably more flawed, is not introduced as "controversial". Arthur Hull Hayes is just introduced as "FDA Commissioner" even though in the context of the controversy he is seen as a political appointee, whereas John Olney is a "scientist and anti-GM activist". I would like guidance / discussion from others on how individuals and studies on both sides of the controversy should be introduced.
The "comprehensive review" critical of the Ramazzini study which is referenced in the article was funded by Ajinomoto, a major manufacturer of aspartame, and conducted by Burdock, of Burdock Group (whose core business is in assisting food additive manufacturers in getting additives approved). In the context of the controversy this is highly notable and should be noted within the body of the article wherever it is referenced, not just the footnotes.
Finally, I would also mention that a major factor in the controversy is the stark difference of opinion coming from industry-funded studies (of which 100% support the safety of aspartame), vs independent scientific studies (of which 92% find aspartame could potentially cause adverse effects) - at least these are the figures that were reported (and presumably verified by the BMJ editor) in a British Medical Journal letter in 2005. This aspect of the controversy deserves its own section, but additional references need to be found to demonstrate the differing of scientific opinion. Fxsstm ( talk) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
We currently say: "In 1997, due to public concerns the UK government introduced a new regulation obliging food makers who use sweeteners to state clearly next to the name of their product the phrase 'with sweeteners'." This is misleading. The BBC article used as a source states that at the time this regulation was widely ignored. I believe that's still the case. I lived in the UK until this summer, and eventually I got used to the fact that "no added sugar" is used as a euphemism for "so incredibly sweet due to artificial sweeteners that you are not going to like it". Initially I sometimes bought such products because I didn't find the tiny ingredients list and there were no other hints about the sweetener, making me think they were natural products that didn't need such a list.
Any ideas how to fix this without giving undue weight to this minor point? Hans Adler 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I see the first as editorializing and introduction of editorial POV, while the last is a statement of fact. Two edits seem to confuse the issue:
I'm going to restore the previous version and let's see if a consensus forms to change it. -- Brangifer ( talk) 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
After merely reading this section I expected to agree with Fxsstm. Having read the diffs as well: I don't. This reference (EHPLetter) consists of two letters: 1) Aspartame-funded researchers Magnuson and Williams attack the Soffritti study. 2) Soffritti defends his study's finding that aspartame can cause cancer in rats. (The same set of two letters is currently being referenced in two consecutive footnotes: once for the first letter, and once for the response.)
Arguably we could consider this evidence sufficient to call the Soffritti study "controversial". We can also assume that if Soffritti contradicted the Magnuson/Williams letter, then Soffritti will also disagree with the Magnuson et al. safety review, its findings, and particularly with the weight it gives (or rather does not give) to Soffritti's own results. But IMO that wouldn't be enough to call the entire Magnuson et al. review "controversial", and anyway, it would by improper synthesis for us to draw such conclusions and make them explicit in this way. Hans Adler 07:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
QuackGuru appears to be taking issue with a separate point. That is not being debated here, so I will make an edit to make the source of 'controversial' explicit by linking directly to the Soffritti response, and also by removing the additional footnote he also takes issue with. -- Fxsstm ( talk) 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
According to Fxsstm, a letter is not RS. A letter is not equal to a review. This is a MEDRS violation. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Fxsstm believes a letter should be removed. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Another editor beleives a letter is an opinion. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The sentecne is still original research. Confounding two references together in the same sentence is plain wrong. QuackGuru ( talk) 02:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I made this change. No evidence has been given the reference meets MEDRS. Improper synthesis should be removed. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
While no one should ignore MEDRS, it is not applicable in this instance. The fact that needs verifying (whether or not it is controversial) is not a medical fact. This has been pointed out to you above, as well as previously elsewhere. Please stop with the tendentious editing. DigitalC ( talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This needs a little WP:ASF and attribution. On the one hand, MEDRS need not be satisfied to show that there is a non-medical controversy over the results of that review (obvious for this article). On the other hand, just dropping the word controversy in those sentences gives the appearance that the controversy is medical, and is thus misleading. Can we get around this by stating review concluded flaws [FULL STOP] criticized by [specify] [FULL STOP]? Just removing the word controversy would suit, as the rebuttal (which could be described better) is right there after the review is introduced. In the lead, much less detail is needed - the statement of the current safety consensus should be simple and direct, leaving space for introducing the highlights of the history of the controversy. - 2/0 ( cont.) 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
QuackGuru, your attempt at misapplying MEDRS, and then removing the debated sentence (a debate that you have been participating in) does not seem to be helpful behaviour to the discussion at hand? -- Fxsstm ( talk) 07:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Violations of WP:TALK and WP:NPA. Best to not comment on editors, especially when WP:POT applies. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, I am very interested in Wikipedia articles being written from an NPOV and comprehensive. A number of editors here appear to disrupt discussions by misapplication of Wikipedia rules, and mischaracterisations of editor actions. Addition of valid sourced sentences are removed without discussion or reasoning in edit comments, wholesale reverting of various changes are made and these tendentious activities are then applied to editors such as myself who are interested in moving this article along. It appears that a number of editing accounts are intent on mischaracterising the science, and the controversy on both these pages including: Verbal, Keepcalmandcarryon, Brangifer, and QuackGuru. An intense effort is made to keep or add emotional wording, such as "activists against food additives" (rather than scientists), remove significant scientific studies which provide unfavourable reports on aspartame's safety (such as the Ramazzini Foundation studies), and remove significant context around favourable scientific studies (such as the safety review conducted and funded by industry). Continued efforts are made to mischaracterise concern over aspartame safety as merely grounded in conspiracy theories, hoaxes, and fueled by activism when it has its basis in scientific research. These do not appear to be the actions of editors merely intent on ensuring 'conspiracy theorists' don't push pseudoscience and strong POVs. The final result appears to be a poorly-written article which represents the talking points and tone that industry would find favourable. To remove the POV label on this article numerous edits do need to be made to remove the mischaracterisation and communicate the science, both favourable and unfavourable, on aspartame, but entrenched editors appear to be completely satisfied with an unbalanced, inconsistent status quo. Brangifer has previously threatened to "topic ban me or worse" (how much worse, I wonder?), so this sort of stepped-up aggression is not unexpected. As a new Wikipedia user it is interesting to see experienced editor accounts being used to clearly misapply Wikipedia rules, stifle discussion, and disrupt good-faith edits. There appears to be an agenda here alright, but it's certainly not mine. I feel the science around aspartame safety is still inconclusive, and there are certainly more serious carcinogenic factors in most peoples everyday lives. My only focus is to ensure the science on controversial Wikipedia topics is accurately communicated, and that is strictly NPOV. The Aspartame pages have been a good start in revealing editor motives and learning about the gaming of the system, wikilawyering, and other tactics editors use, so thank you for the introduction and education. As a new user I'm sure to put a foot wrong here and there on Wikipedia protocol which will be seized upon by experienced editors with a clear agenda. However I can only assume my knowledge of the correct way to go about improving Wikipedia articles will increase over time. The sophisticated attempts to disrupt improvements to this article are impressive, but I will consider what options are available to Wikipedians faced with this sort of scenario. -- Fxsstm ( talk) 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Editors may be interested in this conversation. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Editor_continues_to_ignore_MEDRS I am not familar enough with the topic matter and the literature to make indepth comments on this article but I think that much of this dispute is misunderstanding or misrepresenting guidelines such as MEDRS as well as failure to reach a sensible compromise by following wiki guidelines by both sides.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Health Canada
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)