Skepticism Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
References
Documentary about Aspartame
I'd like to say there is document on the subject, available on Google Video, or Spread the Word websites. It's called Sweet Misery and it discusses health implications of Asparthame from almost all aspects. After seeing it, I have to say that, in my humble opinion, it's really extensive as of the stuff, it contains opinions of both sides of the "battle". In particular, it contains details of how Aspartame was approved by FDA (which is not that specifically included in the article as of now), it details of tests of Aspartame of that period of time (it's flaws etc.), features experiences of "patients"/people sensitive to asparthame etc. Although this documentary is rather critical to Aspartame, it nicely made and it has the will to be objective and not to steer into some narrowminded propaganda. As far as I know, that's the most extensive audio-visual contribution on the Aspartame controvesy subject available now, and since (I'm from my point of view) it tries to stay neutral, how about including it in the (audio-visual) sources? --81.201.48.25 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately those sources don't meet our standards as "reliable sources" - they don't have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you find a newspaper, magazine, book, or other media that comments on your sources, then we would have a source we could cite. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The "High end" newspapers cited in the "reliable sources" are not RS. They are all privately owned, have a recognizable market profile and are advertisement dependent. Many have been sued for publishing reports that are falsified or manufactured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.189.244 (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Misleading article
The reference in the beginning of the article where it states: The conspiracy theories, claims of aspartame dangers, is a highly misleading term that tends to set the tone for the rest. The dangers of aspartame are far from conspiracy theories, just like the dangers of smoking are. That the tobacco industry manipulated research for many years, is a fact that was later revealed. Much is the same for the aspartame industry. To keep the article neutral, I don't think anyone should quote the industry, but rather independent research, which are worldwide showing clear dangers in normal and excessive use of aspartame. Betty Martini has always denied she had anything to do with Nancy Markle (see: http://www.dorway.com/nomarkle.html), and by keeping this piece of disinformation as a way to discredit the anti-aspartame movement, is far from neutral. Therefore I'll be removing that bit. (Immortale (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC))
- I've undone your edit as it moves the bias too far the other way. Verbal chat 13:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The title is Aspartame CONTROVERSY. The controversy is inadequately addressed. Especially the beginning of the article is an attempt to downsize the critique by summing up why Aspartame is such a safe product. If that isn't propaganda, then what is? The Nancy Markle example is RIDICULOUS and is not a valid source. You need facts and arguments here, so I'm putting my edit back. (15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortale (talk • contribs)
- If you want to change non-neutral language into neutral language, it's okay to do so. More substantial changes - such as removing sourced material or replacing it with material that cites other sources - should only be done if those sources are reliable ones, and if you are reverted the solution is to discuss the matter here (for more on this, see "the bold-revert-discuss cycle") and not to edit war. That will get you blocked from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Media Awareness Network is not a reliable source. It's a website and websites can claim whatever they want. The Nancy Markle emails have very little to do with the anti-aspartame movement and Betty Martini has officially stated she has taken no part in it. Therefore the line: This analysis says Ms. Martini constructed an apparently false story about "Nancy Markle" is a plain lie and should be removed. If not, then the whole article takes a very strong side towards the industry, something that isn't Wikipedia policy. Unreliable sources should be removed. The other source, about.com and snopes.com are just other websites. The claims they made are fully rebutted. Before I'm going to put my edit back, I'm curious how these sources are justified within Wikipedia's policy. (Immortale (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC))
- It doesn't matter what you or I guess, Betty Martini has stated she has no part of the Nancy Markle emails and that's good enough to acknowledge that. By keeping accusing her as the instigator, is not Wikipedia's policy and if you want to take this a step further, by all means.(Immortale (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC))
- I re-wrote the part on Media Awareness Network a bit but my edits were reverted without debate. It said they had done an investigation. On their site I read nothing about an investigation, it's an exercise in deconstructing a webpage, the one from Rense.com (which is a smart choice because rense.com is full of nonsense) written by spoof Nancy Markle. How this one exercise is being used to discredit the whole anti-aspartame movement is beyond me. The sentence: This analysis says Ms. Martini constructed an apparently false story about "Nancy Markle", should also be removed because Media Awareness Network does not reach that conclusion, nor has this been proven by facts. On the contrary, Betty Martini denies being involved (how often do I have to repeat that here?) What Media Awareness Network do conclude is this: "It would also be accurate to use this Web site as an example of one side of the Aspartame debate." (Immortale (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC))
- Bring it up on WP:RS/N to get some uninvolved, less biased opinions. It's pretty clear that some website which claims to have found "the source of the controversy" is not a reliable source. The multiple sclerosis thing is a sidenote, and should not be be the first section. Aspartame was looked at cautiously by the regulators and scientists, which is why they did a survey till 1995 tallying the adverse effects. Note, for example, the statement cited to Science: "Neuroscientists at a 1990 meeting of the Society for Neuroscience had a split of opinion on the issues related to neurotoxic effects from excitotoxic amino acids found in some additives such as aspartame." It's pretty clear that this article has taken a gross turn away from NPOV. Also note that in reported effects, a 1987 article is cited to criticize the methodology of the critical research articles from 1993, 1988, and 2001. II | (t - c) 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of "Alleged conspiracy theories"
This section is generalizing "conspiracy theories" based only on a single example. It indicates that all skeptical theories are "Conspiracy Theories". This terminology is loaded. At the same time, this section uses a single example of an non-credible source to indicate the general trend that all skeptical theories are non-credible! This argumentation is insufficient! Hence, I vote that this section is deleted as it is biased and shows an insufficient amount of examples to make a general statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenep (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- You have my vote. I addressed the same thing yesterday and edited the paragraph, which was removed again. Actually the whole article, that is supposed to explain the controversy, is an attempt to RIDICULE the criticism against aspartame. To me it shows that the industry people are in control here, and using this as yet another piece of their propaganda. Just look at the part below, called: Potential Sources to use.... It contains only links with questionable info on how safe and good aspartame actually is, and how dumb all those people are who believe otherwise. Very subtle, folks! There's hardly any real debate going on here, about improving the article. (Immortale (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC))
- I tell you, that giant check I got from Big Sweetner this week for providing those sources will go a long way towards buying that third yacht. This life couldn't be sweeter if I was coated in aspartame itself!
- Immortale, if you wish to be taken seriously, confrontational nonsense like this should be avoided. — Scientizzle 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The "Alleged conspiracy and dangers" section is a bit lean...I think the "FDA approval process" could become a subsection of the consiracy theory section, which should perhaps be renamed to refer to its large foundation as an internet/email phenomenon ("Internet conspiracy theroies", perhaps?) and certainly to remove the "dangers" as the "Reported effects" effect section can handle even the baseless effect claims more appropriately. I'm surprised there's no mention of Donald Rumsfeld on the page! — Scientizzle 18:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think the whole beginning needs to be re-written. This is supposed to be about the controversy. It needs to explain why there's a controversy, by mentioning industrial fraud in the research and ethical and economic ties between many governmental agents and the food industry. The addition "at current levels of consumption" in the sentence "Quality studies do not support a link to cancer in any tissue", which was removed, needs to be put back because the reader might get the impression that no matter what the consumption is, there's no risk for cancer. The study was only done with the ADI. A few words in that paragraph about the Ramazinni research, that did discover cancer, need to be mentioned. We should also mention that in order for research to be accepted, it needs to be approved by the industry and they have a hand in how the research needs to be conducted. Scientists who came with negative results were fired, and the lab conditions in which aspartame is tested, are different then the product in the shops. That's why almost all independent research shows negative results while the industry's research shows almost a 100% positive. This is an interesting and important fact and is the core of the controversy. (Immortale (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
Sweet Poison
The documentary Sweet Poison was removed from the External Links section, with the reason "Google video (YouTube, etc) are not generally appropriate encyclopedic links". This is not a valid reason - please see WP:YT. The documentary is the source of much of the controversy, and linking to it is perfectly reasonable, as it's directly relevant to the article. Greenman (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are multiple reasons why this link is probably inappropriate. WP:YT indicates that it's a rare occurrence for a YouTube/Google Video link to be appropriate, so I'd like to see more justification of why you believe this to be such a case. You state that Sweet Misery is "the source of much of the controversy". On what basis do you say that? Do independent, reliable sources identify this documentary as notable and important? A separate issue is copyright status. I'd like to see positive justification before inserting the link. MastCell Talk 23:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Potential sources to use...
- "A Web of Deceit", TIME, 8 February 1999
- Deals specifically with the Nancy Markle nonsense
- "How Sweet It Is", TIME, 29 August 1983
- Details rocky FDA approval
- "Link between aspartame, brain tumors dismissed by FDA, cancer group", CNN, 18 November 1996
- About Olney's report of an aspartame-brain cancer link & the response
- The Truth about Aspartame, Skeptoid, 11 November 2008
- General overview of practically everything in this article...
— Scientizzle 02:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest to remove this paragraph. This page is for discussion and should not be used as a way to insert one's personal agenda. All these sources are pro-aspartame links. If you want sources, put them in the original article if they are valid. (Immortale (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
- You're kidding, I assume. The Skeptoid link is certainly dismissive of aspartame conspiracies, but the others are mainstream news stories that express some of the anti-aspartame points. I placed these on here because when I found them I figured they were potentially useful but lacked the time to fashion any cited prose. — Scientizzle 22:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could you quote "some of the anti-aspartame points." I couldn't find it, except when it's being ridiculed afterward. And the Time article from 1983? That just reports the change between sweeteners. The whole Nancy Markle bit is indeed nonsense, so why mention that? This fictional character has nothing to do with serious aspartame research. The Skeptoid bit to me reads like a sarcastic almost a parody piece. People say a lot of stupid things about aspartame on the Internet, just like there are lots of stupid things being said about tobacco. To ridicule the health hazards of tobacco by quoting the nonsense as proof that tobacco is really good for your health, instead of using valid research and facts, is not something anyone would take seriously these days. Let's not do the same with aspartame. (Immortale (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC))
Scientific studies
In Scientific studies it reads: For a 70 kg (154 lb.) person, this is the equivalent of consuming about 20 cans of aspartame-sweetened beverage or about 100 sachets of tabletop sweetener with aspartame per day. and uses as source the industrial website aspartame.org. This is not a good source to use neutral facts. They cannot even get their own facts sound right. A can of aspartame-sweetened beverage contains 200mg aspartame, which would translate to 17,5 cans a day (15 for the 40mg/kg ADI) for a 75 kilo man, not 20 like they stated. What is conveniently ignored are children. 40 kilo teenagers who are obsessed with their weight and consume large quantities of Diet soda is much more common. The legally established maximum ADI in Europe is 40 mg/ kilo body weight and sets for them a maximum of 1600 mg aspartame. In other words, 8 cans or one 2 1/2 liter bottle of Diet soda. A child of 20 kilos, 4 cans or a 1 1/2 liter bottle of Diet soda. Add to that any of the other 6000 (with estimates up to 9000) aspartame products, and you easily cross the ADI. We should mention this in the article. (Immortale (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
- According to this reliable source, your numbers are off..."There are 180 mg of aspartame in a 12 ounce can of diet soda." 70kg*50mg/kg=3500mg ADI of aspartame. 3500mg/180mg/can=19.4 cans. 19.4 is reasonably "about 20 cans". You added "For a 40 kg child, this is the equivalent of consuming about 8 cans of aspartame-sweetened beverage a day" but the same math above gives 11.1 cans for 50mg/kg ADI & 8.9 for 40mg/kg. The industry, whether you like them or not, can be used as a reliable source for their own product claims...but replacing that sourcing with my NCI link seems like a perfectly fine idea. However, what we can't do is the mathematics ourselves (using numbers we pick), as that's a violation of WP:NOR. As such, I'll fix the section to use the properly-sourced data extrapolations from the NCI source.
- As to your second point RE high-level consumption in special populations, if you've got a suggestion for a proper source that discusses that issue, please do present it...it sounds potentially relevant for some specific consumers. — Scientizzle 21:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think using "facts" from various FAQs instead of peer-reviewed research is not Wikipedia's policy. There's plenty of peer-reviewed research out there. Let's used that as much as we can. 33 cl or 12 Ounce cans is 1/3 of a liter. One liter contains 600 mg, which has been verified by quite a lot of research (I mentioned one). 200 mg is the maximum legal amount a beverage manufacturer can put in his can. The sweeter the drink, the more they sell, so there's no doubt they put that in there. Sadly enough, Coca Cola claims to only put 79 mg in their cans. There's no reason to give preference to the American ADI when it comes to illustrating where the amount reaches its limit. It's already a weak statement since we only mention soda cans, as if consumers don't use any other of the 6000-9000 aspartame products. And why mention 75 kilo men why the majority of diet soda consumers are teenagers and skinny women? These are numbers the industry has picked. I don't change any numbers, just use a more realistic target group. I can supply reliable sources. (Immortale (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
- I reverted back to my version: it was directly sourced to an obviously high-quality source and provided clear context for average consumption. Immortale, you make a lot of claims but have failed over and over to back them up with sources...please start doing that. I have no quibble with the idea of using a source that uses 40mg/kg over 50 for the mathematics, but we must use a qualified source for such a demonstration. The "75 kilo men" was the direct example provided by the NCI. Get this: your math is original research and, thus, not appropriate for inclusion. If you've got a quality source in mind that explicitly supports your claim that the "majority of diet soda consumers are teenagers and skinny women", particularly if it contains information about their respective levels of consumption, maybe we can find a good way to qualify this data in a meaningful and responsible way. — Scientizzle 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Simple and trivial maths is not Original Research. For example, look at the article homeopathy for the calculations of serial dilution. Those calculations have been accepted by the WP community for a long time. However, the claim that teenagers are the typical Aspartame user needs to be referenced. MaxPont (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- The homeopathy dilutions have been and are currently easily backed up by reliable sources. The problem is not needing a source to tell us that "(70kg*50mg/kg)/(180mg/can)=19.4 cans", it's finding a source that indicates that these are correct and relevant values to use. Using the exact example provided by a high-level reliable source such as the National Cancer Institute (as I did) is a no-brainer. Immortale's numbers were clearly chosen in a way to represent the highest "danger level" possible, using some assertions that aren't currently backed up by any presented sources. Show me something better and I'd be happy work with it... — Scientizzle 16:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Simple and trivial maths is not Original Research. For example, look at the article homeopathy for the calculations of serial dilution. Those calculations have been accepted by the WP community for a long time. However, the claim that teenagers are the typical Aspartame user needs to be referenced. MaxPont (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted back to my version: it was directly sourced to an obviously high-quality source and provided clear context for average consumption. Immortale, you make a lot of claims but have failed over and over to back them up with sources...please start doing that. I have no quibble with the idea of using a source that uses 40mg/kg over 50 for the mathematics, but we must use a qualified source for such a demonstration. The "75 kilo men" was the direct example provided by the NCI. Get this: your math is original research and, thus, not appropriate for inclusion. If you've got a quality source in mind that explicitly supports your claim that the "majority of diet soda consumers are teenagers and skinny women", particularly if it contains information about their respective levels of consumption, maybe we can find a good way to qualify this data in a meaningful and responsible way. — Scientizzle 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- My numbers were not clearly chosen in a way to represent the highest "danger level" possible. In that case I would have chosen 15 kg toddlers. I chose a more realistic consumer group than 75 kg men. According to this source from 2008, in the US, women continue to be the primary consumer for diet soda. I've added some sources in the article that were from scientific peer-reviewed journals, but Scientizzle removed them, claiming that I need more sources. On the other hand, Scientizzle has no problem with his own trivial, secondary, anecdotal sources. Your source from the National Cancer Institute, comes from a FAQ, which is sourced to the Industry, while my source came straight from a peer-reviewed journal. If you want to remove such sources, debate them here, don't act like you are the editor-in-chief here and make all the decisions on your own. (Immortale (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
- Oh, please, don't be coy. You chose the highest aspartame content, the lowest ADI, and a smaller body weight for the overwhelmingly obvious reason that you're pushing a WP:POV that the aspartame industry has "manipulated research" hiding "clear dangers in normal and excessive use of aspartame" and that "industry people are in control here...using this as yet another piece of their propaganda. You still haven't backed up your core assertions, that "40 kilo teenagers" are more common (or "realistic") consumers of diet soda than 75 kilo men. I've mentioned above in no uncertain terms that qualified sources clearly indicating categorical aspartame consumption will help us determine a responsible and appropriate mathematical example. Let's take your source at face value, even though it doesn't have some of the contextual information that would help, and laso that the average white American women is 60-70kg according to this source (which I wouldn't cite or call authoritative, but is useful for discussion purposes), then a 60kg woman at 40mg/kg ADI drinking 180mg cans of soda still needs ~13 cans. Surely we can do better than these sources, but I'm perfectly willing to cooperate on this issue.
- Your laughable implication, that quoting the website of the NCI--a prestiguous and authoritative organization--is inappropriate, doesn't mesh well with WP:MEDRS. Read it. Secondary sources like "position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations" are top-level Wikipedia sources. The NCI must have
- The only obvious case in which I removed a source you added was this edit, in which you added a lot of text attributed to one questionable website. Start a new section if you want to chat about a particular source.
- What you need to understand is that claims of negative effects of aspartame have been generally rejected by major scientific and regulatory organizations, as demonstrated by reliable sources. Therefore, even though there is some legitimate academic disagreement about the topic, on Wikipedia all of this topic falls under WP:UNDUE in determining proper weighting and sourcing. No doubt some anti-aspartame claims fall under WP:FRINGE, in which little-to-no coverage is appropriate. My only interest is in enforcing Wikipedia's neutrality and original research policies and sourcing guidelines whilst making this article informative and readable. — Scientizzle 22:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Now that I understand a bit more of the logic you referred to, let me re-write my earlier statement: Scientizzle has no problem with his own trivial, anecdotal sources. Because your FAQ from NCI is not a secondary source because it doesn't involve: "generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." The source I was referring to that was removed was this one (not the one you mentioned): Aspartame ingestion and headaches A randomized crossover trial by S. K. Van Den Eeden, PhD, T. D. Koepsell, MD, MPH, W. T. Longstreth, Jr., MD, MPH, G. van Belle, PhD, J. R. Daling, PhD and B. McKnight, PhD: Departments of Epidemiology (Drs. Van Den Eeden, Koepsell, Longstreth, and Daling), Health Services (Dr. Koepsell), Environmental Health (Dr. van Belle), and Biostatistics (Drs. van Belle and McKnight), School of Public Health and Community Medicine; and the Department of Medicine (Drs. Koepsell and Longstreth), School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. (These are no health nuts or conspiracy mongers)(Immortale (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
- Oh, the one you added in this edit. I reformatted it here based on the title of the link you provided, which I now realize was incorrect. I'll be happy to fix this co-operative error.
- You can keep gnashing your teeth about the NCI FAQ, but I'm pretty confident that would hold up as a quality reliable source. Try the WP:RSN again if you like. — Scientizzle 00:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Lead - Restructuring
This article really needs restructuring. I have restructured the beguinning of this page, and therefore have removed the following valuable sentences that I don't know where to put:
"In 1999 Jon Henkel reported that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration scientists believe that the safety of aspartame is "clear cut" and "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved."[1] As of 2008, however, concerns still exist among some scientists over aspartame's role in certain mental disorders, compromised learning, and emotional functioning,[2] although other scientists are not concerned.[3] Quality studies do not support a link to cancer in any tissue.[3]"
I believe that the whole of this article should be restructured... I feel it's a bit messy! Who volunteers? --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- The lead seems to have disappeared. Was there a reason for this? Verbal chat 13:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Negative, Verbal:
- * Most of the stuff was moved in the new section "Origins of the aspartame controversy".
- * I did remove two sentence and place them temporarily in the discussion (now above in this section) in view of finding a better place for it.
- Hoping you find the changes adequate, --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Verbal, I thought the lead was too long and entered into too far much detail for an introduction. However, I see that ImperfectlyInformed has already put it back in place. But this leaves a few redundancies between the lead and section "Origins of the aspartame controversy". Also, the sentence that I had temporarely removed and saved above still needs to be put back in an appropriate place.
- And I still think that this article needs a serious restructuring. I would be prepared to think about it with who wants... see my contact details in my user page. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Pentagon list
In this edit, Immortale (talk · contribs) adds:
It even once made a Pentagon list as a potential biochemical weapon.
sourced to "Committee for the National Institute for the Environment, "Food Additive Regulations: A Chronology," Congressional Research Service, Updated Version, September 13, 1995."
I'd like to see this source directly because I have a feeling that the addition may lack important contextual information... — Scientizzle 22:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- If this is the source, there's nothing in there about the Pentagon or biochemical weapons as far as I can see... — Scientizzle 22:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't find anything there either. We do need to examine any sources provided by anti-aspartame activists very closely, since the history of the conspiracy theories traces back to a fabricated story, involving a non-existent conference and an apparently faked woman, Nancy Markle, all sourced back to one woman named Betty, and she has been the source of that story right from the beginning. No other sources have ever been provided, and she has been identified with it right from the beginning. She started circulating the story, and still does so. No, these stories started with one fabricated story involving several fictive elements, and her followers wouldn't be above twisting the evidence to suit their purposes. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Fyslee and Scientizzle - there is nothing that I can find in this source that supports any claims about biochemical weapons and aspartame. MaxPont, please address improving the article and discussing sources, not making personal attacks which are banned. I suggest you strike the above and apologise. Verbal chat 13:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill here...Fyslee's comment is fairly accurate if one reasonably assumes "anti-aspartame activists" is a descriptor of the pervasive non- or pseudo-academic, ideological elements readily witnessed online. MaxPont is correct that there are critical sources with WP:RS credibility and academic credentials, many currently cited. Let's move on to more improtant things, and not worry about these minor quibbles. — Scientizzle 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Of course not. The controversy is one thing, the conspiracy theory is another. The one predates the other. Interestingly there is a connection, since it's the conspiracy theory and activism of Betty Martini that has kept this issue alive for so long. Without her influence there might exist some small controversy, but it would be at a scientific level, not a mass hysteria level. Not only does she keep it alive, she vastly exaggerates any possible dangers far beyond what any scientific source involved in the legitimate controversy has ever done, in that she claims aspartame is the cause of a long list of serious illnesses, and she even claims it frequently causes many individuals to drop dead. This is supposedly happening all around us all the time! Her extreme charges have had the unfortunate effect of causing the controversy to be looked upon with skepticism, in that it's hard to separate the controversy from her conspiracy theory and extreme claims. Extremism does that. Her cause has also suffered from its use of several unreliable and discredited MDs who, like herself, are using the issue to gain fame, get speaking engagements, and boost the sales of their self published books. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
←...back to the topic of this section...I removed the Pentagon claim after the source I found (which appears to match the initial citation) clearly could not substantiate the assertion. If this is a case of the wrong source being applied to a verifiable claim, let's rectify this and evaluate that source. If that is not the case, and there's not some other good-faith explanation for the error, I think this is an egregious example of misusing Wikipedia and would caution all editors to actually vet their sources. — Scientizzle 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
New ref: connection with Seizures
Eur J Emerg Med. 2008 Feb;15(1):51. Seizures and hyponatremia after excessive intake of diet coke. Mortelmans LJ, Van Loo M, De Cauwer HG, Merlevede K.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Klina General Hospital, Brasschaat, Belgium. luc.mortelmans@klina.be
We describe a case of epileptic seizures after a massive intake of diet coke. Apart from the hyponatremia due to water intoxication the convulsions can be potentiated by the high dose of caffeine and aspartame from the diet coke. To our knowledge this is the first report of seizures due to excessive diet coke intake.
PMID: 18180668 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] MaxPont (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Mortelmans LJ, Van Loo M, De Cauwer HG, Merlevede K (2008). "Seizures and hyponatremia after excessive intake of diet coke". Eur J Emerg Med. 15 (1): 51. doi:10.1097/MEJ.0b013e3282703645. PMID 18180668.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Mortelmans LJ, Van Loo M, De Cauwer HG, Merlevede K (2008). "Seizures and hyponatremia after excessive intake of diet coke". Eur J Emerg Med. 15 (1): 51. doi:10.1097/MEJ.0b013e3282703645. PMID 18180668.
- Jeez!...drinking 9L of any fluid in a single day doesn't sound pleasant...As this is a single case report (of an extreme case of hyponatremic Diet Coke consumption), I don't think it's an appropriate source for use in a general article like this. However, the publication was useful if only to see their cited claims. Mortelmans et al cited a letter to a journal and Camfield PR, Camfield CS, Dooley JM, Gordon K, Jollymore S, Weaver DF (1992). "Aspartame exacerbates EEG spike-wave discharge in children with generalized absence epilepsy: a double-blind controlled study". Neurology. 42 (5): 1000–3. PMID 1579221.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Camfield et al has since been followed up by:
- Rowan AJ, Shaywitz BA, Tuchman L, French JA, Luciano D, Sullivan CM (1995). "Aspartame and seizure susceptibility: results of a clinical study in reportedly sensitive individuals". Epilepsia. 36 (3): 270–5. PMID 7614911.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Shaywitz BA, Anderson GM, Novotny EJ, Ebersole JS, Sullivan CM, Gillespie SM (1994). "Aspartame has no effect on seizures or epileptiform discharges in epileptic children". Ann. Neurol. 35 (1): 98–103. doi:10.1002/ana.410350115. PMID 7506878.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Rowan AJ, Shaywitz BA, Tuchman L, French JA, Luciano D, Sullivan CM (1995). "Aspartame and seizure susceptibility: results of a clinical study in reportedly sensitive individuals". Epilepsia. 36 (3): 270–5. PMID 7614911.
- Published work prior to Camfield et al (1992) doesn't show a lot of support for aspartame causing or exacerbating seizures in humans, and rodent work was often done in really high doses (i.e., 1g/kg in rats PMID 2010138). Since seizure actually gets little attention in this article, perhaps it's possible to fashion a paragraph about the aspartame-induced seizure literature. — Scientizzle 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's possible to fashion a paragraph about the caffeine-induced seizure literature ;-) Why look for the obscure and rare, when the obvious and common is staring one in the face? A fundamental principle involved in making any medical diagnosis is that the most obvious diagnosis is usually the correct one. When living in Alaska, don't assume that the sound of galloping hooves outside the house are galloping zebras. They really are most likely a herd of reindeer. Only a fool would assume that a herd of zebras was galloping past the house (although a few that have escaped from a traveling circus are not an impossibility)!
- Here is an interesting study:
A need to rearrange the "Origins..." section
We currently have a jumbled section with duplication in two places. I propose we fix that based on the chronology of events.
The Markle hoax and its associated conspiracy theories, all attributed by V & RS to Betty Martini, first began in 1995 (none existed before then). The speculations about the "FDA approval process" were speculations about earlier events. Therefore our presentation should start with the origins (the Markle email spread by Martini) of the whole thing in 1995, and then present the conspiracy theory's contents about earlier events.
This brings up the questionable practice of describing what is pure speculation. We must not present conspiracy theories as fact.
The current section contains duplication and fragmentation of subjects. We currently have this structure:
1 Origins of the aspartame controversy
- 1.1 Scientific Studies
- 1.2 Internet rumors (similar to lower section)
2 Alleged conspiracies
- 2.1 FDA approval process
- 2.2 Internet activism (similar to upper section)
It is in two basic sections, and I suggest we still divide it into two basic subsections, but with a combination of the duplications, and a new subheading:
1 Origins of the aspartame controversy
- 1.1 Scientific Studies
- Current content
- 1.2 Creation of conspiracy theory (New subheading)
- 1.2.1 Internet rumors and activism
- Markle letter and internet activism
- 1.2.1 Internet rumors and activism
- 1.2.2 Speculations about FDA approval process
- Description of conspiracy theory references to FDA approval process
- 1.2.2 Speculations about FDA approval process
This source (which we use as a reference) says this:
- "Comments: First off, despite the attribution at the top (absent in some versions of the message), this text was not written by "Nancy Markle" - whoever that may be. Its real author was one Betty Martini, who posted a host of similar messages to Usenet newsgroups in late 1995 and early 1996. The original email was penned in December 1995." Source
Since we must be true to the sources, we should mention Martini as the author of the "Aspartame warning" email. No one else has claimed authorship; she is the one who started circulating it; and she is the first major activist, also having founded an organization called "Mission Possible International. All this has gained her fame and income based on speaking engagements and other activities. That she has later denied authorship is not found in reliable sources, but is her own self-serving defense of her hoax. It is an unreliable statement and should be given no weight, if mentioned at all. Since it is found in an unreliable source, I'm not sure the rules here even allow mention of her statement. We don't mention lies unless we also name them as lies, or in some way mention their dubious nature. No reader should, after having read it, even consider that it could be true. If we haven't done that, we haven't been true to our V & RS, which are to receive most WP:WEIGHT. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. The structure of this article needs substantial work. There's much redundancy after some well-meaning editing essentially duplicated a lot of material and placed it in separate locales. I'd also like to see, perhaps, subsections within the scientific research section dedicated to the main medical claims in the scientific literature (i.e., cancer risk, headache, seizure). I think this might be a clearer way to organize the relevant literature than the format we currently have. — Scientizzle 21:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- We are not here to solve the aspartame controversy, nor to create one. We are to REPORT it, in a balanced and neutral way. I think you’re confusing this article with the regular Aspartame article. To suggest that there isn’t a controversy and that anything can be traced to one woman, Mrs. Martini, is deliberately misleading the reader. Aspartame has been controversial right from the start, when Searle wanted it on the market in 1970. Through exposure of fraudulent industrial research, it was advised by FDA scientists not to bring it on the market. After two Congressional Hearings in the 1980s, thousands and thousands of officially filed reports on the adverse reactions of aspartame to the FDA (aspartame holds the record), aspartame is the world’s most controversial food additive in history. In recent years, the majority of scientific research shows adverse reactions (there has been very little industrial sponsored research lately), and much like the tobacco industry, it unravels itself.
- Anyone wonder why Mrs. Martini would take the pseudonym Nancy Markle when she uses her own name all the time on all kinds of communications? Anyone can copy and paste text and put a fictional name under it. That doesn’t mean the writer of the original text is responsible for it. That is a giant leap of logic.
- The founders of the aspartame controversy are James Turner, Mary Nash Stoddard, Jerome Bressler (former FDA Inspector), Adrian Gross (former FDA Toxicologist), Dr. John Olney, to name a few. The article now states as if there’s unanimity among FDA scientists that Aspartame is safe. There was a very real controversy before there was (modern) internet.
- Since you are referring to WP:WEIGHT., let me quote from that page, which I think is important to what is going on here:
Partial, but lengthy, quote of WP:WEIGHT |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- So my suggestion is to mention the root cause of the controversy, when aspartame was being examined to be allowed on the market, that there is a clear difference between industrial sponsored research and non-industrial sponsored research (are Congressional and Senate Hearings acceptable sources?), the amount and weight of medical complaints all around the world regarding aspartame (cannot just wave that away, we need to report it). We need to report the controversy, not downsize it or ridicule it. (Immortale (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
←Immortale, you won't find many editors on Wikipedia more familiar with WP:WEIGHT than I. Therefore, leaving out the text to which I've alluded before is apparent...
Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all
...treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject
...Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be described, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
The point I've been trying should be clear: the established scientific mainstream consensus opinion (as reported in multiple high-level reliable sources) is that aspartame is safe for consumption, up to 40 or 50mg/kg ADI, by almost everyone. There has been, and continues to be, valid scientific research into potential side effects and negative health consequences; however, this research, to date, has not generally swayed regulatory organizations from their approvals of the product.
You don't have agree with the FDA or NCI or JECFA or whathaveyou. But, to edit here, you must agree to follow Wikipedia policy, including the neutrality policy that clearly asserts prominence for mainstream views over outside views.
That said, I can see a lot of room for improvement on this article, and you touch on some of them above. The Markle stuff is a bit of a sideshow attraction for anyone remotely educated, but it's clearly notable and needs to be discussed. The FDA approval process could use better organization and sourcing if only to explain why the United States General Accounting Office investigated and found nothing inappropriate, for example. Valid research has suggested certain health concerns over time, and these should be presented along with studies that found no risk for these symptoms and the general literature reviews. Some very public attempts to ban or force withdrawals of aspartame are notable as well. There are also plenty of claims out there that fall into WP:FRINGE territory and shouldn't be addressed on the page at all.
This article can be good and fair. You're going to have to work with people like me to get it that way. Throwing around hyperbole like "aspartame is the world’s most controversial food additive in history" or poorly-cited claims like "It even once made a Pentagon list as a potential biochemical weapon" slows such progress. If we can all limit ourselves to verifiable claims from cited quality sources, I'm sure we can address these issues. — Scientizzle 01:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Martini admits she wrote the original email
The current wording in the article no longer makes definite claims about Martini making a hoax email, but makes it clear that many have claimed she wrote the original email, and some have used the word "hoax". That's the "history" of the conspiracy theory. Contrary to Immortale's claims of her non-involvement, she claims authorship of the email, only denying that she later placed the "Nancy Markle" name on it. That seems to have been a later act by some unknown person. [2][3] It is indeed an untrue theory, filled with false statements. Here are some interesting sources for those who want to sort this out. They are unreliable, as far as scientific information goes, but accurate as far as the history goes:
- https://listserv.utoronto.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109a&L=parkinsn&D=0&F=P&P=13548
- http://www.dorway.com/nomarkle.html
- http://dorway.com/dorwblog/?page_id=636
This particular page is an unfinished page with editorial comments that are VERY interesting! I'm surprised this is still available, as it shows how inaccurate their editorial practices are:
We can't use these sources for anything other than documenting that she does claim to have written the original email, just as is claimed by the various conspiracy theory and urban legend websites. They are accurate about that, and they are accurate about it being a conspiracy theory filled with unscientific claims and outright lies about the words of Clarice Gaylord, who never said what Martini (Markle) claims she said. Gaylord flat out denies it. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Suddenly we can use unreliable, unverifiable websites/ mailing lists to prove a point, at least in this section? This is what Betty wrote in your source: "A person calling herself Nancy Markle published the article under her name, changing the title and some of the wording." That this person copied and pasted it from old posts from Betty was never on dispute. But don't sidetrack the controversy and hold Betty responsible for the whole controversy. If she never existed, the controversy would be the same size/magnitude. Don't forget that there were 2 Congressional Hearings in the 1980s, overwhelming scientific research from the last 3 years pointing towards adverse effects of aspartame, and a manufacturer (Monsanto) who has been caught numerous times of bribing governmental agents (fully documented) and together with GD Searle committed serious research fraud (which was revealed in the hearings and the Bressler Report). The original research was so badly presented that U.S. Attorney Samuel Skinner had set up a grand jury up to investigate G.D. Searle. The accusations were deliberately forging and hiding study results regarding the safety of aspartame. On top of that, a Public Board of Inquiry that could not allow Aspartame on the market in 1980. Betty can be in a side note on Internet activism somewhere in the article, balanced of course. (Immortale (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC))
- You must not know Betty very well. Don't underestimate her influence in making this controversy known. Without her the scientific consensus would have had a better chance to calm the waters and deal with serious concerns about aspartame in the context of a basic maxim of toxicology - "the dose makes the poison" (Paracelsus). Also don't underestimate the damage she has done to the anti-aspartame cause because of her manner of activism and exaggerated and unscientific claims. She can never stick to the point, or answer a question straight. She just resends her enormously long screeds and endlessly repeats herself. Her activism has scared vulnerable and gullible people and caused them to see problems that were not there, or to attribute the cause of their real problems to aspartame, when instead they should have been getting the proper treatment for the real cause of their problems, IOW Betty "has put the wrong crook in jail", and the real culprit(s) are still at large. The huge numbers of complaints filed by these people has drowned any serious complaints that should have been getting attention. She has done all in her power to create a mass hysteria.
- I'm not saying that everything she says is nonsense. That would be pretty much impossible. There is a shred of truth in some of what she says, but it is a conspiracy theory that promotes the POV of some pretty weird MDs, especially Roberts. They have created careers in their old age based on their odd ideas. If we could get more reputable scientists to say some of what they are saying, we'd have a much better chance of sifting through the chaff that Betty and her allies have created. Their hyperbole has not helped the matter. Their promotion of a competing product has not helped the matter. Their sales of self-published material has not helped the matter. Their profiting from the matter has not helped. Their conspiracy theory mindset only causes them to be ridiculed by serious scientists.
- No, we must keep the legitimate controversy and her conspiracy theory somewhat separated as two different matters that both deserve mention. The scientific controversy would now be a low level or pretty much nonexistent matter, unknown to the public without her conspiracy theory and activism. She is considered by all her allies, and quite correctly so, to be a "super-activist". I haven't encountered anyone on the internet that can quite match her, except for her close internet friend (but on the subject of breast implants) who is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. They are both unreliable loose canons who do great damage to their own causes. I sympathize with both causes, but cannot support their destructive manner of dealing with them. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- The article currently has no mention of Roberts, when in fact he's far more important in the controversy than Martini is. He has a lot on PubMed, especially comments (search for "Roberts HJ"). I certainly don't agree that without Martini, the aspartame controversy would be unknown. Anyway, you are right that Martini seems to admit that she wrote the article which Markle's email is based upon, and Martini appears to praise Markle. Personally I don't see why it matters much, but feel free to change it to make it more accurate, which does not mean that it should be changed to say that Martini = Markle. II | (t - c) 01:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- When did we start to use WP:OR on self-published conspiracy websites as input to Wikipedia? There are millions of conspiracies floating around on the web, we can't mention all conspiracies - or most articles would need a section about crackpot conspiracies. This "Martini, Nancy Markle" conspiracy is really peripheral and has not received any substantial media coverage. It should not be given more than a few sentences in the article. In addition, I believe there are WP:BLP issues that would prevent us from accusing a living person. MaxPont (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Any web search on the subject will reveal the vast influence of Betty M.. Much of the controversy usually comes back to her front door. The "Nancy Markle" email has been commented on by RS, and since it's an important part of the history of Betty M.'s conspiracy theory, it deserves mention. The vast majority (98%?, considering the vast numbers of people she has alerted) of people who have any doubts about aspartame can thank her for letting them know. That's why the anti-aspartame movement calls her a super-activist and a saint of the movement. We are using V & RS in the article, and the section has been revised enough to clear up any BLP issues, IOW we aren't "accusing" BM, but giving her the credit for what she claims to have done, which is to have written the original contents of the email. If there are any specific inaccuracies, then please mention them so we can deal with them. We also deal with the scientific aspects of the controversy, and are keeping them separate from the Betty M. matter. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Industrial sponsored research
We should be careful citing sources from research that was paid by an aspartame manufacturer. Wikipedia shouldn't become a string puppet of the industry. There's a great deal of industrial propaganda out there and it's known that the industry's goal is to make money, as much as possible. Negative publicity of a product will always result in less profits and therefore every large industry will do everything to prevent that. When I'm investigating, for example, the source mentioned in the sentence: "Quality studies do not support a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in any tissue": "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies", I find out the study was done by the Burdock Group, whose website states: "To find out more about how we can help bring your product to market quickly and effectively, contact Burdock Group today for a complimentary consultation." If that doesn't raise anyone's eyebrows, the study was paid by Ajinomoto (the largest aspartame manufacturer in the world). Strangely enough, they had to mention: "The identity of the sponsor, Ajinomoto, was unknown to the chair and expert panelists throughout the conduct and completion of the review, and submission and peer review of the manuscript. Panelist identity also remained unknown to the sponsor. There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors. (see: [4]) Even if that's true, Ajinomoto hired them for a reason, they knew exactly what outcome the Burdock Group would bring. The press release of the results of this study comes from something called Aspartame Resource Center at aboutaspartame.com, a website owned by Ajinomoto, which often refer to the Aspartame Information Center, at aspartame.org, a website owned by Calorie Control Council. From their site: "The Calorie Control Council, established in 1966, is an international non-profit association representing the low-calorie and reduced-fat food and beverage industry. Today it represents 60 manufacturers and suppliers of low-calorie, low-fat and light foods and beverages, including the manufacturers and suppliers of more than a dozen different dietary sweeteners, fat replacers and other low-calorie ingredients." I could continue with the individuals listed to these websites, but we're not writing a a book here. Industrial propaganda is real, and we should be careful listing it as a reliable, impartial source. If anyone insists to mention such "research", we should mention it was paid by the manufacturer, because such facts add to the controversy, and that is what this article is about. (Immortale (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC))
- Although I agree that industry-sponsored studies are less reliable, the fact that the panelists were unaware of the sponsor makes this review fairly reliable. I recognize one name off that list, John Doull, and he does seem to be one of the foremost toxicologists in the world (see bio here, see. II | (t - c) 16:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- The Burdock Group is not a Consumer Advocacy Group, they are CONSULTANTS, which describe themselves like this: "Our services provide our clients with solutions to the regulatory and safety issues affecting their FDA and USDA regulated products. At Burdock Group, we do more than solve problems. We design solutions... Burdock Group's team of consultants, comprised of recognized experts, will work with you to deliver real-time support and practical solutions for safety assessment and regulatory compliance - on time and on budget." If I was a manufacturer facing a risk for new food regulations on my food product, I'd hire them. They would HELP me. They pride themselves that 90% of their customers return. They provide zero negative results for a client (which is the industry), because they want to make money and they want their client to come back for more. The boss of the Burdock Group, GA Burdock, was part of the aforementioned study. Do you honestly believe that the owner of a company wouldn't know anything about their client? To quote Mark Gold this time: "John Doull was a paid consultant of Monsanto, a member of the Monsanto-funded ACSH Advisory Board, and a Trustee of the Monsanto- and Ajinomoto-funded corporate research association, ILSI (Tobacco 1993, CSPI 2008). This author’s consultancy with Monsanto and official positional within Monsanto- and Ajinomoto- funded associations was not disclosed in this aspartame review." And to end with Mark Gold's words: "A reader might ask, "Is it possible for there to be an unbiased review of aspartame, made by Ajinomoto and Monsanto, where the review is funded by Ajinomoto, authors have done paid work for Monsanto, several authors have official positions in trade and research associations funded by Monsanto, Ajinomoto, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, etc., several authors work for corporate advocacy groups, one of which called aspartame toxicity a "nonissue," and one author who consults for companies that sell aspartame and in the past has said that aspartame is safe?" I think a reasonable answer might be, “No! Are you kidding me?!" (Immortale (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC))
- I wonder why they put R.M. Kroes as one of the participants on this review. The review was finished in September 2007, while Kroes died at the end of 2006 from cancer. What did he contribute with, besides loaning out his name to them? He became internationally known through his function as President of ILSI Europe from 1999 to 2005. [5] (Immortale (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC))
- I agree that conflicts of interest should be disclosed, and EHP apparently agrees. Good job finding that EHP letter. II | (t - c) 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I added twice the source of this letter and the statement that it was paid by Ajinomoto, which was twice removed again, without discussion. The last time by Fyslee, which wrote: "Revert vandalistic removal of sourced information and sources by User:Immortale. Don't repeat it!" What this means, I have no idea because it doesn't make any sense. I get accused and lectured for adding a small valid, reliable impartial source, which another editor here agreed with. We need to set up some basic rules for this article, otherwise it'll be a long year ahead. When you disagree, discuss it here, don't act like a dictator-in-chief and pretend you own the place. This is what I had written: "According to a review paid by aspartame manufacturer Ajinomoto, quality studies do not support a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in any tissue." Regarding the notes on Snopes.com, why mention the same source triple (being on an urban legend site)? Almost all the pro statements are sourced more than once on each occasion, but when I give more than one source, it's often reduced to one again. Is this a subtle way of telling the reader that the pro statements have the overhand in the world? And I didn't read a unanimous decision that Snopes.com is a reliable source. (Immortale (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC))
- This line:"She believes that there is a conspiracy between the FDA and the producers of aspartame. This conspiracy theory has been discussed on several major internet conspiracy theory and urban legend websites." citing the snopes.com sources. One Snopes source is about ant poison, which clearly is about something else, the other source is the Markle letter again (how many times do you want this to be squeezed into the article?). Why not find instead a source where "a conspiracy between the FDA and the producers of aspartame" is being discussed. (Immortale (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC))
- I agree that conflicts of interest should be disclosed, and EHP apparently agrees. Good job finding that EHP letter. II | (t - c) 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Reviews from EJoN and CRinT
Anyone have access to PMID 17684524 and PMID 17828671, the two recent reviews? II | (t - c) 04:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Removed from lead
Aspartame for the US market is made using genetic engineering.[4].
- ^ FDA Consumer magazine November - December 1999
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
pmid17684524
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J; et al. (2007). "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)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/worlds-top-sweetener-is-made-with-gm-bacteria-1101176.html The Independent, June 20, 1999
There are a couple of problems with this sentence.
First of all, why is it in the lead? This sentence is (presumably) an argument used by anti-aspartame activists. If it is one of the more important such arguments, then the fact that this argument is used might belong in the lead, but not the argument itself. If it is an argument used less commonly, then that fact can be covered in the body of the article, making sure to give it due weight.
Secondly, aspartame isn't "made using genetic engineering". It's made by bacteria in a natural process. Scientists do not individually modify every molecule of aspartame. According to the article, one of two strains of bacteria that are used to produce aspartame is genetically modified. This is a rather non-neutral (one could say melodramatic) description.
SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- The source is a front page article from the British newspaper The Independent: "A Monsanto spokeswoman confirmed that aspartame for the US market is made using genetic engineering." Is Monsanto suddenly an anti-aspartame activist? Do you know the product aspartame better than its manufacturer of what it exist of? Why would you withhold this important piece of information for the reader who wants to know more the Aspartame Controversy. GMO is highly controversial in Europe. I didn't imply that the genetic engineering is a bad thing or a good thing, but it's a fact we should mention to the readers. (Immortale (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC))
- It doesn't belong in the lead. Could be added to the body, though. II | (t - c) 00:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't belong in the body in the way Immortale is currently adding it, with incorrect claims of consensus (again). SheffieldSteel's points should be addresssed if this is added. At the moment it is a leading and biased addition. Verbal chat 16:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Silence implies consensus: WP:Silence_and_consensus. You had 25 days to give your opinion here. This is not an incorrect claim of consensus, neither was the other one. The source of this sentence: "Aspartame for the US market is made using genetic engineering." is a valid source. The manufacturer doesn't deny it. Your claim of genetic engineering is scare-mongering is POV. Either something is genetically engineered or it is not. Period. Two editors here are in favor of adding this info, some are silent, and you disagree. Still you remove this sentence twice. I'm putting it back. (Immortale (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC))
- That is a misreading of policy. You should have commented again before making the edit. After thinking about this again, it has no place in this article unless we have a good RS that there is a controversy attached to aspartame specifically because of its GM status. If this is found then a paragraph that puts this into correct context could be added, after discussion. It might, possibly, be better placed in the Aspartame article in a manufacture section (appropriately contextualized). Edit warring and false claims of consensus do you no good. Verbal chat 17:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Silence implies consensus: WP:Silence_and_consensus. You had 25 days to give your opinion here. This is not an incorrect claim of consensus, neither was the other one. The source of this sentence: "Aspartame for the US market is made using genetic engineering." is a valid source. The manufacturer doesn't deny it. Your claim of genetic engineering is scare-mongering is POV. Either something is genetically engineered or it is not. Period. Two editors here are in favor of adding this info, some are silent, and you disagree. Still you remove this sentence twice. I'm putting it back. (Immortale (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC))
- Doesn't belong in the body in the way Immortale is currently adding it, with incorrect claims of consensus (again). SheffieldSteel's points should be addresssed if this is added. At the moment it is a leading and biased addition. Verbal chat 16:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't belong in the lead. Could be added to the body, though. II | (t - c) 00:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The addition of the above content (for example in this edit) is a low-quality edit. First off, it doesn't have anything to do with the section ("Reported effects") in which it was placed. Secondly, if use of GM bacteria is an actual "controversy", start a detailed section rather than a random sentence..."made using genetic engineering" is a low-information statement; at least use some of the qualified information of the report and find other sources from which to build detailed information rather than haphazardly plug the scare words "genetic engineering" into the article.
Finally, Immortale, you cannot use the "silence implies consensus" claim if your addition was actively challenged. It's obtuse. The reversion of your addition clearly "broke" the silence. — Scientizzle 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus seems clear: remove the text for now, until & unless other sources comment on the issue; at that point, we'll have a better idea both of what to say and how much weight to give it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Role in mental disorders
From the lede:
- "As of 2008, however, concerns still exist among some scientists over aspartame's role in certain mental disorders, compromised learning, and emotional functioning,[1] although other scientists are not concerned.[2]"
I've tagged this with POV-statement because the first reference is a single study, "Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain," while the second is a review, "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies." --Ronz (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is this single study being given such weight? Why is this article even attempting to address such topics? If this (or other) research is the basis for the controversy, we should cite sources stating this, rather than attempting original research to document what may or may not be the rationale for some to think there is a controversy. In general, the article is full of such problems, where instead of documenting the controversy, editors are trying to create their own case for a controversy. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you had read my edit summary and looked at the article, I wouldn't have to point out yet again that the article in question is a review. http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v62/n4/abs/1602866a.html It calls itself a study, yes. Study is a broad term which is used to refer to studies of the literature, clinical trials, in vitro laboratory tests, and everything else. It is clearly classified as a review by its journal, and by Pubmed. II | (t - c) 01:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Since your tag was based on a false premise, it should be removed or clarified. Please explain what you mean by original research and "why the article is even attempting to address such topics". What topics? Since the health effects are at the root of aspartame's controversy, articles such as the reviews referenced in the lead (both added by myself) are directly pertinent to the article. Incidentally, this article should be retitled "Aspartame health concerns". II | (t - c) 02:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Editors appear to be doing original research to demonstrate a controversy. Who is choosing these studies and reviews? If editors are doing the choosing, then we have NPOV and OR problems. If we have sources discussing the controversy that themselves refer to these studies, then we're fine, though we need to make this clear.
- I agree that the title is a problem, and I like your suggestion. I think that there should be more discussion on this to find a neutral title. Why not something like "Health effects of aspartame?" --Ronz (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good, let's wait a couple days to see what people say. You're not right about Wikipedia's original research policy. It's not meant to discourage people from doing research like finding reviews or research articles on PubMed. It's about adding information which is not in sources, whether you're doing that by just adding unsourced information or through synthesis. In any case, the two primary articles in the lead are relatively high-profile. John Olney, who did the first objection, is probably the most high-profile opponent. Similarly, the cancer study by Ramazzini has made very large waves. Most of the real specialized primary research is used to refute the controversy -- read the section on the metabolites. II | (t - c) 04:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Let's get the title worked out first. I was initially assuming that this article was just about the controversy, but I hope we can agree that the article is about health effects and concerns. Once we get that settled, then the point of view and original research problems can be approached more straightforwardly. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am dubious about renaming this article. It is a legitimate fork of the Aspartame article. Renaming it "Aspartame health concerns" gives (as likely intended) legitimacy to the theories mostly promoted by conspiracy theory advocates. The current title covers all aspects perfectly well, "controversy" being a neutral term that can cover health concerns and the various aspects of the "controversy", both scientific studies and conspiracy theories. The most notable medical advocates of these concerns (Martini isn't a medical professional in any manner) are Olney, Blaylock and Roberts, the last two very dubious characters, whose names should raise red flags wherever they appear. Especially Roberts is way out in left field, a man who has lied about his "knighthood". -- Fyslee (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's a bit ironic that Fyslee, a Wikipedia editor, feels so comfortable calling a prestigious neuropathologist who is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine a "dubious figure". Roberts/Blaylock are not notable except as a background to Martini -- they are the medical professionals she bases her statements upon. There are a fair amount of scientists who have published critically in the peer-reviewed literature on aspartame, and Roberts is not one of them. Similarly, whatever your thoughts on the topic at hand, the NYTimes notes that Paul Soffriti's Ramazzini Foundation "has earned considerable credibility since it was founded in 1971 for its pioneering research on chemicals", and Soffriti has been doing cancer research for 30 years.[6] I'm not saying Olney, Soffriti, and the various others holding their position are right but they are certainly not dubious figures, and both their arguments and their opponents' arguments should be presented to make this a neutral article. The current title is inelegant. I think the conspiracy theories and fringe health claims could still be covered under a new title. II | (t - c) 18:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think the statement that only scientists working for the industry are qualified and the independent ones are "dubious", is a statement from the industry itself, which gets parroted by people working for the industry. When one cannot find arguments, one start with character-assassination. I see this over and over again. For every qualified scientist who says aspartame is safe, I'll bring you 10 qualified scientists who say that aspartame is not safe. That's the situation now and that's the situation how it always was. Except the ones with more money, have the advantage to use the media to create a distraction. We have been talking about weight, the weight lies in the majority of the people who are affected, not the ones who defend its safety. I agree that the title needs to change, because people use it to downsize the controversy or side-track it to a few conspiracy theorists. In my opinion, conspiracy theories are about aliens and UFOs and such, nothing that fits aspartame because almost everything can be traced back to real facts, and statements/research by real scientists and investigators. And though it's important to mention that the FDA approved it, and based on that approval, so did Europe, but that doesn't mean it's safe. Where was the FDA in the 1950s when tobacco was presented as a contributing health factor? "Health effects of Aspartame" sounds fine to me. (Immortale (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC))
- Could we try to avoid all this debating if it is not focused on the article or particular sources at hand? Both Immortale and Fyslee are inclined to write rambling, long posts. Hopefully I don't offend when I ask them to stay focused. When you introduce unsourced errors on to the talk page, it influences the editors and worsens the page. I had to correct Fyslee when she said that Olney was a dubious figure, and my sense is that Immortale is not correct either. It's impossible to assess how the distribution of opinions of relevant scientists falls, but my sense is that the ones who are concerned are outnumbered by the ones who are not. There's likely at least a few prestigious scientists at the regulatory agencies. If there are concerns that these scientists have close connections to the industry which is not reflected in the article, bring the sources and we can discuss it. II | (t - c) 04:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- What I wrote is focused on the article. I did try to discuss these matters but there's very little discussion here. Almost every critical note that's being sourced by valid and variable sources is being removed without discussion. I've been doing research for the past 10 years and of course it can happen once in a while that I have misplaced a source, but I will show you the original document on the biochemical list eventually. But then I'm sure I get to hear that it doesn't have weight. (Immortale (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC))
Change title to "Health effects of aspartame"
If we cannot agree to renaming this article, then I think it needs to be merged back into Aspartame. Otherwise this is simply an improper POV fork that ignores the need for a properly addressing the health effects of aspartame.
I'm not too attached to "Health effects of aspartame." It's just what seems to be a fairly standard way of naming a sub-article that discusses the health aspects of a food product. --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- That suggested title can easily give readers the impression that there are serious negative health effects, even though your wording is pretty NPOV. How about "Controversy about health effects of aspartame" ? That makes it plain that there is a controversy about the matter, and readers are prepared to read differing POV on the subject. -- Fyslee (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- But things change if one would write "Positive Health Effects..." or "Negative Health Effects..." So to balance it we can call it "Health Effects..." Reading a title with the word Controversy in it, suggest to me more of an impression that there are serious implications about health. (Immortale (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC))
- Looking at the actual page, I am a little uneasy. If this title goes through, then I'd want a guarantee that it wouldn't become an excuse to wikilawyer out much of the controversy information and history, such as the approval process (tumultuous because of health effects) and the internet rumors and conspiracy claims. II | (t - c) 21:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Fixing the lead
There are several problems with the lead. Ronz is concerned that it gives too much weight to the critics, and Immortale thinks the opposite. Which in some sense means that maybe it's good. I have a concern over the Crit Review, which was funded by the world's largest aspartame manufacture. When I added that ref with the sentence "quality studies do not indicate a connection to cancer", I didn't know the review was funded by the industry. That bothers me. Environmental Health Perspectives, and most journals, require conflicts of interest to be disclosed. My opinion is that Wikipedia should hold itself to a similar standard. When Immortale added this information to the lead, it was removed by Fyslee.[7] Perhaps we should just leave the lead in more general terms: "Although some scientists continue to voice concerns over aspartame's effect on the brain, regulatory agencies and other scientists have affirmed the product's safety". This would allow the details to be explained later with context. II | (t - c) 04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's not just the brain that scientists have concerns about. But I like your suggestion. Maybe change "the brain" with "health"? (Immortale (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC))
- "Ronz is concerned that it gives too much weight to the critics" Actually, my concerns are much more fundamental than that, specifically that editors here are doing original research to present arguments supporting minority viewpoints. However, I don't see how we can properly address these concerns until we have agreement on what this article is about. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning the sponsor Ajinomoto
Verbal keeps removing the edit: According to a review sponsored by Ajinomoto, quality studies do not support a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in any tissue. A consensus was reached on this and if you scroll up you can read: I agree that conflicts of interest should be disclosed, and EHP apparently agrees. Good job finding that EHP letter. (written by II, the original poster of this sentence. No one objected there. Verbal keeps removing it though, falsely claiming that no consensus was reached. Claiming that no quality studies exist that link aspartame to cancer in any tissue is a false claim, manufactured by the industry. The Ramazinni was one of excellent quality, to name just one. If you want Wikipedia to be a propaganda tool of the industry, don't expect readers to take it seriously. You might want to read this article on corporate propaganda: http://www.spinwatch.org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/41-corporate-spin/5156-how-industry-money-protects-killer-chemicals (Immortale (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
- That doesn't show consensus. I think this excessive disclaimer is unwarranted and is attempting to lead the reader and bias the review. Verbal chat 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Consider any tenuous consensus in support of your inclusion no longer applicable. "The new review was sponsored by aspartame supplier Ajinomoto. However Informa Healthcare took precautions to avoid allegations of underhand influence. It says the panellists were unware who was footing the bill throughout the review process, and up until submission and peer review of the manuscript. Likewise, the sponsor as not made aware of the panelists' identities. "There were no known conflicts of interest with the sponsor or potential biases of the authors," said Informa. The EHP letter, I might add, is just that: a letter to the editor. I don't think we want to open the door to allowing that type of content into the article. There are many such letters critical of the reviews cited for "anti-aspartame" claims, too. There's no need to attempt a guilt-by-association for this particular claim. If the statement reads "According to a 2007 review, quality studies do not support a link between aspartame consumption and cancer in any tissue" then we've done our jobs--it attributes a specific claim to a specific source. — Scientizzle 18:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- "According to a 2007 review" is not even mentioned in the article, but that would be an improvement though. Informa Healthcare is not the one who assembled the review (they published it). It was the Burdock Group, with GA Burdock as its leader. GA Burdock is a consultant. He has worked many years for the Tobacco Industry where he was paid millions for reviews that showed no adverse reactions to smoking (official documents disclosed that). And you might want to explain what consensus does mean here, when several editors agree on something and no one objects. You can parrot what the industry has to say about aspartame, but they have far more to defend than the so-called anti-aspartame ones. (Immortale (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
- Two editors is not consensus here, and I'd doubt the other editor would describe it as that either. For a guide on consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS. Verbal chat 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Silence implies consensus: WP:Silence_and_consensus (Immortale (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)]
- And such an assumption holds only until someone speaks up or acts. This is what happened. I don't have a problem with someone boldly going forward with a 2-0 discussion in favor of a certain edit...just as I don't have a problem with the reversion or modification of said edit when it's clear that consensus has changed. This seems a perfect reasonable compromise. And no protocol of WP:BRD has been breached. — Scientizzle 20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Silence implies consensus: WP:Silence_and_consensus (Immortale (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)]
- Two editors is not consensus here, and I'd doubt the other editor would describe it as that either. For a guide on consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS. Verbal chat 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- "According to a 2007 review" is not even mentioned in the article, but that would be an improvement though. Informa Healthcare is not the one who assembled the review (they published it). It was the Burdock Group, with GA Burdock as its leader. GA Burdock is a consultant. He has worked many years for the Tobacco Industry where he was paid millions for reviews that showed no adverse reactions to smoking (official documents disclosed that). And you might want to explain what consensus does mean here, when several editors agree on something and no one objects. You can parrot what the industry has to say about aspartame, but they have far more to defend than the so-called anti-aspartame ones. (Immortale (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC))
Ramazzini foundation
The section on the Ramazzinii foundation has a lot of information, but I find it hard to follow for the following reasons:
- The discussion of the September 2007 study by Soffritti et al. Life-Span Exposure to Low Doses... mentions that the studies found a significant difference in incidence of certain types of cancer, but does not mention how big the increase was. Comparing the lifetime cancer incidence rates of rats fed 100mg Aspartame/kg body weight to rats fed no Aspartame:
- # of males with malignant tumors -- up 65%
- # of males with lymphoma/leukemia -- up 81%
- # of females with lymphoma/leukemia -- more than doubled (from 12.6% to 31.4%)
- # of females with breast cancer -- nearly tripled (from 5.3% to 15.7%)
- This discussion does not mention that all of these cancer rates fall within the historical "normal" range for control groups of this type of rat, as seen in many other studies.
- It is confusing that the August 2007 NZFSA comments that follow (Food Safety Authority challenges activists’ views on aspartame) completely ignore the dramatic increase in incidence of some types of cancer, and comment only on the lifespan figures from a 2005 Soffritti study. Why? Is there any other contemporary comment on the Soffritti 2007 paper? Does anyone have access to
- Following the criticism from the NZFSA is a statement that the Ramazzini study involved 1900 rats. Which Ramazzini study? The Soffritti 2007 study involved 470 rats. This is confusing.
Probably a more useful criticism of the Soffritti 2007 study is found in Carcinogenicity of Aspartame in Rats Not Proven (Magnusen and Williams, 2008), in which the authors take Soffritti et al. to task for making poor estimates of Aspartame dosage levels (estimate of 100mg/kg were based on assuming that each rat weighed 400g and ate 20g/day of the supplied food containing 2000 ppm aspartame), for using rats from a breeding colony infected with chronic pneumonia, (which causes more lung lymphomas), and for not presenting data on the details of the prenatal portion of the study, including info on the mothers, pregnancy outcomes and pup sizes during pregnance, at birth, and while nursing -- all important to tell if control and treatment groups were well-matched from the start. Finally, even the breast cancer rates for the treated rats are within the normal range seen in control groups for many other studies.
I think this section is unclear, possibly POV, nad needs a rewrite, but I'm not exactly sure how to tackle it. I'm hardly an expert. I spent about 5 minutes finding the refs. cited here and digging up the Magnusen opinion on pubmed, and about an hour reading them.
Who can help clarify this section?
--SV Resolution(Talk) 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Folate Depletion
Here's a developing angle that this article is missing. Metabolism of formaldahyde (Aspartame: Physiology and Biochemistry) and methanol can both involve folate. So a high-aspartame, low-folate diet could cause problems, according to John E Garst (ACS Division of Agricultural and Food Chemistry Cornucopia, Spring 2008:AGFD 15
Do a google on "garst aspartame" and you'll catch a couple of references to his presentation, as well as a couple of his comments on blogs and news articles.
He may have written to the New Mexico Legislature to encourage them not to ban aspartame ([http://www.rense.com/general75/flak.htm Aspartame Flack Tries To Mislead NM Legislature]), but I can't find his original letter.
He says aspartame is OK if you get extra folate in your diet, and anti-aspartame activists are attacking him, so that seems to be a notable componant of the controversy.
In addition, a scientific discussion seems to be going on at the RoomForAll blog and a Yahoo Group -- debate over whether things really work in the body in the way Garst proposes. Presumably, there will be studies published one of these days.
John Garst's theory and criticism of John Garst's theory by M Alemany and HJ Roberts.
--SV Resolution(Talk) 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Garst is often quickly present at blogs and forums where critique of aspartame is expressed, where he copy and paste the safety of aspartame. He contradicts himself with his folate theory, something - according to himself - is not shared by the industry. He basically admits that aspartame is carcinogenic but you have to add folate to your diet to prevent getting cancer. Can you imagine the food industry putting that on the labels: This product contains aspartame, please make sure you get the antidote as well to prevent you from getting ill. As he lives in New Mexico, he actively worked against the ban on aspartame. The sources you mention are not valid according to Wikipedia's rules. His theory doesn't have any weight. (Immortale (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC))
Is the controversy Garst is stirring up notable? The folate thing is starting to pop up in blogs. Is it best to wait until it makes it into "news" (whatever that is, anymore) before adressing it here? Garst's most notable publication on the topic is the abstract of a talk he gave at the American Chemical Society 2008 Annual Meeting. Other experts have expended the energy required to criticize his hypothesis. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- If the experts have just expended that energy in blogs, might not be worth putting in. His hypothesis could get a sentence in my opinion. Something doesn't have to be criticized to include on a Wikipedia article. Note that WP:NOTABILITY says that it applies to whether articles can be included. Whether facts can be included has more to do with reliable sources and proper weight. II | (t - c) 22:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is different from the main Aspartame. It is not about "the truth" about Aspartame. It is about the competing claims about aspartame. So a reliable source in this case would be one that states that certain people claim aspartame is bad, or that certain people claim that aspartame is fine, that a scientist has presented the theory that aspartame metabolism causes folate depletion, or that government agencies went easy on Nutrasweet's developer or marketer. So if a US senator made national news by claiming aspartame cures stinky feet, it would be OK to put that into this article. The theory may be wacko, but we can verify that the controversy exists. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- A reliable source is by definition one that meets our guidelines. Self-published sources are generally not considered reliable except under limited cirumstances. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In this article, there are two different standards -- scientific and news/rumor. The appropriate sources to support the two kinds of facts are very different.
To document scientific research, peer-reviewed publications are needed. And, sometimes, non-reviewed letters in peer-reviewed articles, which are sometimes the only evidence that the experts are not in consensus. Soffritti does a big study, someone says it is a bad study. Soffritti does another study, Magnusen says some of the rats were diseased to being with, so it is just as bad as the first one. Presumably, more studies will be done, and scientific disputes will continue until scientific consensus is reached.
To document "is it news", "is it really a rumor", and "Did Martini write that viral letter", we need more "popular" sources. Did the NM legislature attempt to outlaw aspartame? Was there a viral internet letter making lots of anti-aspartame claims? How do these claims match up with the science? (WP:NOR means we can't do the analysis in the article, but must quote credible sources who have already done the analysis). Did Martini write the "Nancy Markle" letter? Did she sign it Nancy Markle? Who is John Garst? --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Double standards
Can or can't we use letters from scientific journals? As what has happened recently, it seems okay for the pro aspartame editors to include such sources, while at the same time when I use a similar source that contains a negative outcome on Aspartame, it's being removed. What is the consensus here? (Immortale (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
- My opinion is that it depends upon the letter - and mostly upon who wrote it. WP:MEDRS generally applies. Letters by cranks or online "comment" letters rank poorly, whereas letters from experts in a field might meet the criteria. This doesn't seem to be double standards but simply "a standard". Verbal chat 13:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am talking about letters from experts from letters published in peer reviewed scientific journals or established newspapers. A letter from Soffritti was removed from the article while from the very same journal, in the very same letter section, a letter from Bernadine Magnuson is allowed in the article. That is a double standard. Scientizzle mentioned that he doesn't want to open the door to allow any kind of letters. I understand that it means only letters that are critical towards aspartame. (Immortale (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
- I can't imagine Soffriti's letter not being allowed in the body, but using it to cite Ajinomoto's involvement in the review doesn't have consensus for understandable reasons. Was it taken out of the body of this article too? II | (t - c) 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not bothered either way about the letters inclusion (I can be convinced), but Immortale's last edit seems to give undue weight to the "rebuttal letter" by giving it prominent and significant coverage. Verbal chat 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- How do you judge "a prominent and significant coverage"? The word count of Soffritti's response from this letter is significantly less than the part from Magnuson's letter. I reported shortly the statements Soffritti made to Magnuson's letter.
- In the Ramazinni section I had also replaced the sentence: The study showed that there was no statistically significant link between aspartame and brain tumors. with: The study shows that APM is a multipotential carcinogenic compound whose carcinogenic effects are evident even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg bw, much less than the current ADI for humans in Europe (40 mg/kg bw) and in the United States (50 mg/kg bw). Verbal reverted my edit. If we are to report the conclusions of the report, then I cannot find your sentence. Doesn't it make more sense to mention something from the Conclusions from this study instead? (Immortale (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
- I'm not bothered either way about the letters inclusion (I can be convinced), but Immortale's last edit seems to give undue weight to the "rebuttal letter" by giving it prominent and significant coverage. Verbal chat 17:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I can't imagine Soffriti's letter not being allowed in the body, but using it to cite Ajinomoto's involvement in the review doesn't have consensus for understandable reasons. Was it taken out of the body of this article too? II | (t - c) 17:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Origins of the aspartame controversy
This section starts with: The controversy about aspartame safety finds its origin in some individual scientific studies, as well as in false rumors spread over the internet.
To me this doesn't describe the origins of the controversy. The origin is the long approval process between 1974 and 1981, where the final decision was to not have aspartame allowed on the market. This decision was overturned by one man, the FDA commissioner Hayes. To have two Congressional Hearings in the 1980s is not something that happens if there wasn't a controversy. Another important issue is the clear difference between industrial research showing no dangers while almost all independent research show negative results. That internet played a role after 1995 is a side note and false rumors is something open for debate. A rumor cannot be false or true. That's why they are called rumors. On the internet you can find rumors about anything and it's irrelevant to the controversy. For the controversy is built on real science, real testimonies, real corruption. (Immortale (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
- Rumours can be false or true, so that's a non argument. The majority of the controversy in the public imagination started with the false rumours initially spread over the internet, which were not based on actually scientific research. Verbal chat 13:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The origin of the controversy in the public opinion already existed in the written press and public television prior to Internet. If you have statistics and sources that say that the controversy in the public opinion started with the internet, I like to see them. And rumors either exist or they don't. I don't see the point in adding "false" to that. My Oxford Dictionary says about rumor: Information spread by word of mouth but not certainly true. So I propose to write it like this:
- The controversy about aspartame safety finds its origin in the original approval process that took 8 years to get approved by the FDA. Since then there has been done many studies, industrial sponsored research versus independent research where each side showed opposite conclusions, resulting in a continuous controversy around the world, reported by all sorts of media.
- This is then further explained by the sub sections below this. (Immortale (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
- That is very much a POV rewrite, and I don't support it. Verbal chat 14:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- That you disagree isn't a surprise, but it would be helpful if you have arguments in this discussion. Or have sources for your statements. Wikipedia says: "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints." So your sentence is actually POV. Most of the article is very POV towards the industry. And I have to say it again: the article is about the controversy so we have to report the controversy. Otherwise it can go to the regular aspartame article. (Immortale (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC))
- That is very much a POV rewrite, and I don't support it. Verbal chat 14:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
My apology
I apologize if I inadvertently set off an edit war here. I did add material from a letter, feeling that it supported the position of many experts in the aspartame controversy that the Ramazzini foundation's claims against aspartame are not adequately supported by their research. I thought this review and opinion from an expert in the field was more substantial than the press release from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. I still feel that way.
If I had it to do over again, I might have brought this up for discussion here, rather than boldly editing the article.
It is my opinioin that this article should be a neutral review of
- The developing scientific story of aspartame research -- the good, the bad, the ugly, even the silly.
- notable/newsworthy "aspartame controversy" things, such as states seeking to outlaw aspartame, whether or not they are part of the scientific story.
I recognize that this may not be consensus. For now, I will stop editing this article in order to avoid further inflamming the situation here. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ramazzini again
In that section I had removed this sentence: "The study found no statistically significant link between aspartame and brain tumors" because it's not in the section "Results" or "Conclusions" of this quoted study. It's misleading to quote anything else then the final results of a study. This line could have easily been quoted from a control group. However, Verbal did immediately put back the sentence. What the study really said about brain tumors is this: "Malignant brain tumors. Concerning the incidence of malignant tumors in the brain, it should be noted that, as previously reported (Soffritti et al. 2005), 12 malignant tumors (10 gliomas, 1 medulloblastoma and 1 meningioma) were observed, without dose relationship, in male and female APM-treated groups, whereas none were observed in controls.". Verbal, on your Profile it says you have a PhD and have published in peer-reviewed journals. I like to know what your real name is because of possible WP:COI. (Immortale (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC))
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest says in part, "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline." Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- How am I harassing Verbal about it when I simply ask? He didn't respond, I didn't continue pressing him. "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Outing is when someone else than the person involved is publishing personal info. That is not the case at all here. What wp:coi also says is this: Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. That is exactly what I've done. Do not make it look like anything else by quoting irrelevant parts of Wikipedia's policies. It's also side-tracking the real issue I described above. Immortale (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Therefore you should have asked on my user talk, rather than the post I did receive on my user page. I have no COI, I am employed by the EU and I am a theoretician. I have no interest in aspartame except for occasionally consuming it (with no ill effects). Asking an editor for their real name in such a manner is disruptive, especially on an article talk page. Verbal chat 17:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I only followed protocol. No where it states that discussion needs to be done on the editor's Talk Page. That's your own private opinion. But there was never a discussion about it in the first place, I simply asked. But it seems you've found yourself a good companion for your pro aspartame editing. Why don't you investigate the false reference I mentioned 10 days ago and repeated above. How long does it take to read a study's results? 78.70.36.35 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Therefore you should have asked on my user talk, rather than the post I did receive on my user page. I have no COI, I am employed by the EU and I am a theoretician. I have no interest in aspartame except for occasionally consuming it (with no ill effects). Asking an editor for their real name in such a manner is disruptive, especially on an article talk page. Verbal chat 17:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- How am I harassing Verbal about it when I simply ask? He didn't respond, I didn't continue pressing him. "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Outing is when someone else than the person involved is publishing personal info. That is not the case at all here. What wp:coi also says is this: Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. That is exactly what I've done. Do not make it look like anything else by quoting irrelevant parts of Wikipedia's policies. It's also side-tracking the real issue I described above. Immortale (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Opinions vs sources
Too many times the references quoted do not match the statements made in the articles. The latest one by Tom Harrison regarding: The controversy about aspartame safety finds its origin in some individual scientific studies, as well as in false rumors spread over the internet. False rumors was replaced with a more neutral wording but was reverted. No where in the source you can find the words "false rumors" or something similar. Then it becomes an opinion about a sourced article. Furthermore, the controversy was alive and real before Internet, through the long approval period, 2 Congressional Hearings and regular reporting by large US Newspapers such as the New York Times and The Washington Post. The pro aspartame editors eagerly want to link aspartame to conspiracy theories so for them Internet is an easier target than independent scientific research. Immortale (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a quotation from the source. Tom Harrison Talk 13:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- The statement: The controversy about aspartame safety finds its origin in false rumors spread over the internet.
- Your quotation: "The "aspartame scare" hit the mainstream media when the Associated Press moved a Jan. 29, 1999 article debunking the rumor."
- That's quite a difference of interpretation. Your source is based on one email which indeed contains some false information, compiled by a person who doesn't exist, which supposedly has started the whole controversy. Isn't that a very weak basis to work on? Your quote doesn't mention "false rumors" and it doesn't say it started the controversy in the mainstream media, but it hit the media that particular time, which it has hit before on numerous occasions. There are many examples to find in the mainstream press prior to internet. Immortale (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, false rumors on the internet. It looks to me like the source supports the wording in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 14:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a quotation from the source. Tom Harrison Talk 13:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Notes & references
- This should be the last section. If you notice a new section below, please "fix it" by moving this section back to the bottom of the page. Thank you.
|