Talk:Aspartame

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Talk:Aspartame/Archive

Contents

[edit] Fix the chemical structure!!

So the picture in the chemical structure shows two nonexistent stereocenters! Can someone fix these? Until then I will remove the picture, and put the old one here:

Chemical structure of aspartame

[edit] Great Links ... Removed? What?

Aspartame is something that has affected myself and many people I know with negative effects. There were recently some good links that were removed from the "external links" list on the main page, probably because some of which are commercial links, but the sources they link to are the sources that helped me and my frineds to understand the dangers of aspartame better and change our diets to have better health, and I'm sure there could be many others who might benefit from these links as well. Wikipedia has some great articles and links, it's too bad that just anyone can delete links that might be helping people. I wish I knew what the other links were too and I would list them below, but these are some that are dear to me. One of the hardest challeneges we came across was finding information to change diets and know how to spot aspartame containing products. I want to list the links again as there is a lot of free information in the links as well.

  • www.aspartamesecrets.com/newsletter.html/ Aspartame Newsletter
  • aspartame.jshull.hop.clickbank.net/ Aspartame Detoxification
  • www.aspartamesecrets.com/ Dangers of Aspartame Links Page
  • www.dorway.com/ Dorway to Discovery (Dangers of Aspartame)
  • www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/ Aspartame Toxicity Information
Links on both sides were removed. Most of them were for non-governmental organizations -- which are allowed for external links or else the WP:EL rules would require only external links to organizations run by governmental bodies. A long discussion led to splitting the pro- and anti-aspartame links into two somewhat equal sections on this controversial topic. Deleting all links on one side of the issue or deleting some of the more scientific links from organizations on one side of the issue tends to create extreme bias (unintentionally). A balance of the best sites was a comprimise we came to long ago. Provable inaccuracies can be pointed out on virtually all sites that were deleted and not deleted. I strongly prefer having a balanced set of links and sticking with the most sites that discuss the science, but having no links is better than simply creating a biased set of links IMO.
Wikipedia guidelines: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." This is definately an issue with multiple points of view and when the two sections were created (pro & anti), prominent sites on each side of the issue were chosen.
Finally, the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources section refers to choosing reliable sources for the actual Wikipedia articles. It is impossible to guarantee the reliability of all external links. As one Editor stated about reliable sources and external links: "In other words, we cannot guarantee the reliablity of ANY linked-to sites, so if guaranteed reliabilty is the standard, all external links must go. As a reader of Wikipedia. I think the benefits of linking to rich sources of specific information about a topic far outweigh the dangers of being misled by the occasional bogus, hacked or irresponsible site. And, again, I'm not for being indiscriminate... if there is a legitimate reason to suspect that a site is fishy, that's enough to disinclude it, and I would expect much stricter vetting to emerge in subject areas that actually have a problem with unreliable convenince links." There are provable, blatent errors or deceptions in *some* of the information on ALL of the external links and I'd be happy to point out a selection of those errors or deceptions. And even if a site was perfectly accurate at some point in time, Wikipedia Editors cannot keep monitoring all external links to guarantee perfect accuracy in the future. I agree with the above-quoted Editor that carefully chosen external links can supplement a reliably-sourced Wikipedia article by providing excellent resources for followup -- in the case of aspartame, a balanced set of resources on both sides of the issue. Twoggle 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above two comments. It seems that since the removal of the pro and anti links from this article, we have lost a great resource. If the above comment is correct about the process of finally deciding on a pro and anti list for the external links on this article in the past, it seems only right to place that back on the article page. I think that user has made a very good point that seems to go along with the guidelines.Jellybean333 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jellybean333 16:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the links that are about the subjects pro- and anti-aspartame to aspartame controversy. I would suggest this page to be about the chemical compound. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, those links would be better in the aspartame controversy article. This other article should probably be both mentioned within the aspartame article as well as under the see also links.Jellybean333 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effects

"The 92 FDA recognised effects are: abdominal pain, anxiety attacks ..."

Are these really FDA recognised effects or are they only various effects that have been reported to the FDA? There's no cite. --RainR 19:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it. There are a number of studies showing some of those effects, but that list is a list of symptoms reported to the FDA by physicians or patients. It is from a government document obtained using the Freedom of Information Act. Twoggle 20:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a cite for this? --RainR 20:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I have a hard copy, but I've never seen a copy available online.
A subset of the symptoms can be seen in this HHS document: http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/Facts/92_Symptoms/92_symptoms.gif
Typically, that same document comes with the full list of symptoms attached as a database query, but it wasn't scanned in on that web page for some reason.
One copy I have comprises four pages as a memorandum and attachment:
Memorandum: "Adverse Reactions Associated with Aspartame Conumption," From: Chief, Epidemiology Branch, HFS-728, Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS), Date: April 1. 1993. [Note: FDA is part of DHHS and the symptoms were reported to the FDA.]
Twoggle 02:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I've added this reference to the article. --RainR 02:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rhys McFadyen Whoop!--89.240.194.248 19:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External CDC report Link

The link labelled "Full investigation by the Center for Disease Control, all 146 pages on dorway.com (see 1:07:55)" combines two links within one line. The first is to a CDC summary report, which in its conclusions find aspartame complaints to be a non-issue.

However, in that same file, the report is prefaced by remarks that reflect the conspiratorial view championed by the file's host, dorway.com.

The second link on the same line "(see 1:07:55)" is to the Google Video posting of the anti-aspartame propganda film "Sweet Misery - A Poisoned World (Aspartame)."

The important reference material here is the CDC document, which (rightly or wrongly) concludes that aspartame risk seems minimal, but here it is bookended by anti-aspartame 'cruft.'

I've taken the CDC report, removed the commentary, and mirrored it; it is linked as "Center For Disease Control Summary of its Report on Aspartame Complaints."

The Dorway link either needs to be moved to the "anti-aspartame" links, or be corrected to properly reflect its content. The Google video link needs to be a separate link under "anti-aspartame."

Since I'm hosting the mirrored CDC doc, I am reluctant to make such changes myself. Do others agree that this link needs fixing? Bustter 17:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the Full CDC report should (ideally) be a *text* file on a neutral web page, without commentary and without the summary written by Frederick Trowbridge (who was not part of the investigation and worked for the FDA, not the CDC). This will give readers 100% CDC Investigation from 1984, *** nothing more and nothing less ***. Any biased summary from an FDA official and/or from dorway.com should be avoided in my opinion. Twoggle 19:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Trowbridge is now out of the mirrored file. I'm not sure what you mean by "neutral web page." The domain space in which the text file resides is "neutral" in that there's no content relating to these issues. If you have a better suggestion for a neutral host, though, let me know. Bustter 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
But the preface adds bias since it makes it appear that an "anti-aspartame" site disagreed with the CDC report -- thereby implying that the CDC report is "pro-aspartame." Dorway only disagreed with the non-CDC-written summary. Why put a preface in at all. Also, the page has Dorway text at the bottom that I'm sure you would have deleted had someone noticed it. Didn't know what to do with the link since I think it starts out so biased with the preface, but wasn't sure how often you read this page. Commented it out for the moment until we can discuss. Please let me know what you think. Twoggle 22:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Another option is I can set up a free web site and put the CDC report sans commentary if you prefer not to host it. Let me know. Thanks! Twoggle 02:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I had removed the end-cruft, but uploaded the wrong version. Corrected now, only left credit to the party who obtained the doc through foia. Bustter 05:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptic time

I know you guys are trying to be fair, and I think that's good. As to this controversy about apsartame thing, I have to ask you: is it a real controversy or not? To put things in perspective, if this were a page on evolution, I would not expect to see creationism offered up as a valid alternative to evolution. I realize there probably are some scientists that think aspartame might be dangerous, but at any given time there are always some opponents to whatever (some of the creationists in the Dover trial might be scientists, but it doesn't mean they're correct). Unfortunately, I, as a layperson, cannot tell the difference between a situation where there is a real, actual controversy amonst scientitsts and a merely manufactured, false one.

Here's what I do know though: aspartame has been around for quite a long time now. A very large number of people consume some aspartame now and then. If it is so terribly, terrible, don't you think it would have become more obvious by now?

Hi! Well, there are many scientists on both sides of the issues who have written articles many of which can be found using the links at the end of the aspartame piece. With the recent studies from Europe related to purported formaldehyde accumulation, lymphoma, leukemia and other forms of cancer coupled with the reported case histories, the controversy seems to be heating up. Next Summer, there are scheduled public hearings in one U.S. state on banning it. So whether one thinks its perfectly safe or terribly unsafe, I think it's good to be as balanced as possible in hopes that some people reading it will followup by reading the scientific literature or speaking with scientists.
My own philosophy is when I cannot read the scientific literature on a subject, I try to contact as many independent scientists as possible, particularly those who have demonstrated familiarity with the scientific literature. A history of independence and scientific knowledge is what I look for. 24.62.155.161
There is a possibility that the manufacturers have pressured FDA and so on to not release information they may have until a decision is reached, something which might sway the FDA. CMIIW 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF? Parkinsons link? True or Myth?

I read here about it http://www.jcrows.com/aspartame.html I'm pretty doubtful. Can anyone tell me if this page is true about aspartame or a lie? DyslexicEditor 22:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No legitimate scientific study has ever linked aspartame consumption with Parkinson's disease. I think the tone of that site should be a tip-off that it is biased against aspartame. James Bowen, M.D., who has probably never examined or met Michael J. Fox, is acting extremely irresponsibly by stating that aspartame caused his Parkinson's disease. It's troubling that a supposed MD could make such a logically incoherent conclusion: Michael J. Fox was a spokesperson for Diet Pepsi, Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's, therefore Diet Pepsi causes Parkinson's. Rhobite 01:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


DyslexicEditor, there has been no relevent research conducted to see if aspartame ingestion contributes to Parkinson's symptoms. There has been a 1-day study funded by a manufacturer trade group. It showed that ingesting aspartame for *one day* in a non-bioequivalent form produces no adverse symptoms in Parkinson's patients. When I say "non-bioequivalent form," I mean a form of aspartame that has been proven to produce different biochemical changes than aspartame found in sodas (for example). There have yet to be any serious longer-term studies in Parkinson's patients. There have been case histories reported related to worsening Parkinson's symptoms, but no direct research. Twoggle 20:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

daveNOSPAMs29@aol.NOSPAM.com writing now, adding to this conversation. I had a telephone conversation in 2001 or 2002 with the man that discovered Nutrasweet, James Schlatter, who had been retired for many years. He had met my father a few times in the late 1970's and early 1980's, although he didn't remember the connection at the time. I asked him whether he knew of anyone that had been involved with aspartame testing, aspartame synthesis or development in early years that had developed Parkinsons, particularly early onset Parkinsons. He told me that no, he hadn't, nothing at all that he knew of and we had a very nice conversation about those early years. My father had very early exposure to aspartame lab samples (pre-1977) and also developed Parkinson's at a young age. I did a rather exhaustive literature search and metabolite analysis to the best of my ability as a chemist, and could not develop a hypothesis for a connection. I would be very interested to see clinical trials run administering high doses of aspartame or breakdown products thereof, to animals prone to developing Parkinson's. There is no credible medical evidence indicating a connection at this point, and I'm merely bringing up this anecdote for completeness.

[edit] Recent edits on conflict of interests issue

The oft repeated myth that Donald Rumsfeld was on the Reagan transition team that appointed Hayes stems from the fact that Rumsfeld was on the Ford transition team, and a man named Rutledge was on the Reagan team. There also were insinuations that the approving FDA commissioner left the FDA and immediately started consulting directly for Searle. Since the data available does not support the original suspicion, the perceived conflict of interest seems to have drifted.

The most recent edits by Twoggle are now suggesting that a body of persons now perceive the conflict of interest to be rewards for miscellaneous persons receiving high paying positions or consulting positions, as eevidenced by sudden appearance of the last portion of this sentence.

"Some believe that the approval of aspartame was influenced by conflict of interest and that persons involved in the aspartame approval process were rewarded with high paying jobs or consulting positions"

It is true that many people at the FDA involved in drug approval leave the FDA for positions at the companies they used to regulate. This problem has been around for years and is not peculiar to aspartame. It's well documented and often referred to as a "revolving door." This clearly is not the case with former FDA commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, who left the FDA for academia to a position he was qualified for and by most accounts served effectively in.

Congressional register testimony from Burson-Marsteller makes clear that Hayes consulted in a very limited fashion for them, 10-15 hours per year, and not on aspartame nor any drug he had approval authority on.

What then, is the perceived reward, then, or conflict of interest? Is the suggestion that Rumsfeld applied pressure to get something approved and that there was a quid pro quo?

If so, to whom, and for what?

If there is solid evidence of a quid pro quo, let's get it documented and fact checked.


Here is my take on the issue. It is easy to create an argument about a certain type of conflict of interest, then show that it doesn't exist, and finally claim that there is either no conflict of interest or no legitimate concern. That's a strawman argument. I'm sure you are trying to clarify that Burson-Marsteller says and Hayes says that he didn't work on the aspartame issue after leaving the FDA.
No one is claiming that Hayes or the many others at HHS/FDA (etc.) involved in the aspartame process left and actively lobbied for aspartame approval. Maybe some did and maybe some didn't, but we don't know that.
What we do know is that numerous HHS/FDA officials involved in aspartame's approval received lucrative positions in related industries/companies. For example, Hayes was reported to receive $1,000 per day from Burson-Marsteller. In addition, a UPI investigative piece reported that NutraSweet Co. paid Burson-Marsteller up to $3 million a year for PR services. One other tidbit from the piece: "But a former Burson-Marsteller employee, who requested anonymity, said Hayes was hired precisely because of his decision on NutraSweet and other issues affecting company clients."
Perhaps what has been said by Burson-Marsteller is inaccurate. Or perhaps what has been reported by investigative reporters is inaccurate. Or perhaps the US GAO report and FDA reports are inaccurate. But what is important is that this example raises concern of conflict of interest simply because the rewards that can be given for helping out a company or industry. The is how the Conflict of Interest section begins -- raising the concerns that are brought up by potential rewards for certain decisions.
The concern was not limited to Hayes. The US GAO looked at Sherwin Gardner (became a VP of the National Soft Drink Assn), Stuart Pape (became lawyer for the National Soft Drink Assn), Howard Roberts (became VP of National Soft Drink Assn), Wayne Pines (went to Burson-Marsteller), Robert Dormer (went to a legal firm retained by Searle). The GAO didn't look into two US Attorneys who were investigating Searle for fraud (at the urging of the FDA) in the aspartame pre-approval studies and other pre-approval studies. They went to work for a Searle law firm. More recently, concern might be raised (for example) from W. Gary Flamm's move from being responsible for evaluation of aspartame at the FDA during the 1990s to consulting on research for their new sweetener, neotame.
"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, a politician, or an executive or director of a corporation, has competing professional and/or personal interests." The competing interests can be some other active position or even a knowledge of reward for taking a particular action -- in this case approval of a product. It is not unusual for people to express significant concern about this type of conflict of interest. Here is a quote from yesterday's Guardian (12/15/05) where a U.K. MP raised issues related to aspartame safety: "The history of aspartame's approval is littered with examples showing that if key decision makers found against aspartame's safety, they were discredited or replaced by industry sympathisers, who were recompensed with lucrative jobs."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Because an argument is being made that Hayes never used his position to influence aspartame decisions (something well known since the GAO report and even earlier), it was necessary to clarify what has always been the concern related to the conflict -- reward system for taking particular actions. I am opposed to saying that such conflicts of interest have been *proven* in the aspartame case. But they are relevent and should at least be raised.
I would be in favor of being more specific as far as the concerns and listing the people that left HHS/FDA, US Attorney's office after working on the aspartame issue and where they went (including possible connection to Searle/NutraSweet), as long as we keep it short and to the point. We can also point out that GAO found that Hayes and others didn't work specifically on the aspartame issue after they left the HHS/FDA.
That is the way I look at the issue. Twoggle 22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This discussion led to changes that were made in December 2005. While I prefer to list all of the persons working at HHS/FDA who received aspartame industry jobs and the jobs they received, it seems we had come to a comprimise. No objections were raised. However, several months later, the text was reverted claiming "vandalism" when no objections were raised at the time. In addition, there was a claim I was involved in slandering Hayes, but ironically, I removed a sentence that might be considered slanderous to Hayes only a couple of days ago. Rather than vandalizing the article, I'm happy to continue the discussion that was started in December 2005. Twoggle 20:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the only changes I made to the last edits by 192.28.2.17 on Dec. 15 involved removing a short Burson-Marsteller "ad" and adding more details about what concerns have been raised (as was discussed in the discussion section). None of the other edits on Dec. 15 were changed by me. I do agree that the changes made by 70.124.31.73 were not something I have any proof for and that is why I removed the potentially slanderous sentence about Hayes. Twoggle 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I agree with 192.28.2.17 that the changes made recently (on 3/3/2006) were made without posted references. However, I do not think it is appropriate to revert back to a tremendously old version that excludes both changes I made *and* changes made by 192.28.2.17 on 12/15/2005 and there were discussed in the Discussion section and not objected to. I propose that we go back to a pre-3/3/2006 version before the most recent changes, but open the floor to backup material that 70.124.31.73 might have for his/her proposed changes. Twoggle 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So, here is my proposal that will hopefully allay all objections:

We revert that section back to 3/2/06 edition. This will go back to a version that includes adjustments by both 192.28.2.17 and by myself on 12/15/2005 and has not raised any objections. Then we can discuss the proposed changes by 70.124.31.73. In this way, we do not lose months of changes/work (that did not raise objection). In addition, 192.28.2.17 has requested that "someone else can duke it out" and I suggest we do so on the discussion page. Please let me know what you think. Twoggle 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh! History of changes to Discovery & Approval section related to Hayes that is in contention:

12/15/2005: Changes by both Twoggle and 192.28.2.17. Following these changes there were NO OBJECTIONS by either of us to this section. And there were no changes made by either of us to this section before March 2006.

3/3/2006: Changes to section by 70.124.31.73 to Discovery & Approval section regarding Hayes, Bush, Rumsfeld, etc.

3/4/2006: 192.28.2.17 adds comments to article challenging the changes by 70.124.31.73 but requests that others make the final changes: "Added comments about vandalism too severe to edit simply, someone else can duke it out." So much for that!

3/4/2006: Adjustment to PBOI text using wording lifted directly from PBOI decision by Twoggle. This change did not effect anything related to Hayes or Conflicts of Interest.

3/4/2006: Removal by Twoggle of potentially slanderous text related to Hayes.

3/6/2006: 192.28.2.17 accuses Twoggle of vandalism and adding slander ("Reverse Twoggles long standing vandalism and slander of A.H. Hayes.") even though Twoggle made no relevent changes since 12/2005 that weren't objected to and removed a potentially slanderous statement.

3/6/2006: 192.28.2.17 accuses Twoggle of making changes that were agreeable in January (yet he reverts back to a pre-12/15/2005 version) and obviously confuses me with 70.124.31.73 when anyone reading the history can see otherwise. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
From DaveNOSPAMSNOSPAM29@aolNOSPAMDOTCOM
To Twoggle
I do not follow wikipedia daily. Neutral agreeable text from January had evolved through multiple edits into fictional BS. If none of the BSing was yours, I apologize, but I don't have time to read 40 versions. Clicking on "twoggle" revealed a page stating "the masked vandal." As a peace overture, I cannot tell for certain whether you are constructively helping get this article to a NPOV or whether you are a vandal. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in December, and was shocked to see how 3 months later it had evolved into pure fantasy. Claims that Hayes had no qualifications when he was an MD, that he was Rumsfelds personal friend, that Rumsfeld picked him for the job, that he took bribes, that he was investigated for bribes, etc. The timeline of events is of critical importance to understanding the reality of what happened, and all the timeline dates were removed. Versions claiming that Rumsfeld bribed someone, or that Bush personally intervened - these also require references to establish factuality if they are to be included.
The version that was posted on 12/15 was factual and verifiable. I'd like to see something like that. One person sees a whitewash because they desperately want to see and believe a conspiracy. I seriously doubt there was any such conspiracy until shown solid evidence. Those who doubt there was a conspiracy realize that the approval of ANY substance by the FDA involves scientific debate. There are always conflicts in the data. That is what the scientific process is about - the search for objective, verifiable, repeatable results. No substance is completely unharmful at any and all dosage levels, yet the fact remains that aspartame is the most tested food additive in history. Twenty years of use, and claims that aspartame caused Gulf War Syndrome are still believed? It's nuts. Even if one thinks there was a mass conspiracy 20+ years ago, one has to wonder why NO ONE has ever come forth admitting to wrongdoing, why the preponderence of aspartame fiction and polemic on the internet has never led to any FDA restrictions on its use, why nations with even tougher regulatory hurdles than the US (ie: Japan) similarly have never taken it off the market?
What you view as a massive rewrite is merely an edit of a single paragraph, far less than 2% of the article. The allegations about Rumsfeld somehow being on the Reagan transition team, that Hayes took bribes or was being investigated for gratuities, that George Bush intervened are simply unsupported by references or documentation. They do not belong. It is a fact that Rumsfeld took responsibility for trying to resolve the roadblock, and that Hayes was asked to referee the facts when the PBOI was unable to do so effectively.
See http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/97/01/018.html
Frankly, I thing Hayes was an honorable man unfairly tarred. The rewrite proposed on 3/6/06 is factual and unbiased. I am an ardent Bush critic and dislike D Rumsfeld intensely. My father had met Don R many times and frankly had very little good to say about him. Nevertheless, please be objective. I personally know individuals that were closely involved with congressional testimony at the time, people quoted in fact, in the congressional register. Although some folks would love to grasp at conspiracy theories, and the web is full of bizarre timelines and complicated fables claiming quid pro quos, please separate fantasy from verifiable reality. This is a perfect example of how the entire wikipedia concept is really flawed. You and I can go back and forth and change the text 5x a day for the next year, or you can propose a factual, substantive and neutral version.
All of the proposed changes that I have made from 192.68.* have been fact oriented and unbiased. :More than 90% of what you read about aspartame on the internet is fiction.
Dave
23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)192.28.2.17
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, I understand the shock of seeing those changes after we had pretty much stuck with a version since 12/15/2005. I believe that others may have made minor adjustments since then.
Rather then wipeing out our changes on 12/15/2005 and everyone else's changes since then in one massive revert, I believe it is best to revert to just prior to the changes made on 3/3/2006 (by someone else) that you objected to on 3/4/2006. Then we can go from what we have had for the last several months and discuss any other changes. One other note: You stated, "A factual version was agreeable in early January...." and I agree and am insisting that we go back to such a version and then work forward from there through reasoned discussions. I believe your proposed changes are non-NPOV, but since we all agree upon the factual version from early January, let's start from there and discuss. Twoggle 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
from Dave: Unless I am missing something, there was no massive reversion. I simply removed a couple of sentences that made unsupported allegations. I don't even know how to revert a whole article. Were there changes to the article other than to a single paragraph in a single section? Wasn't my intention, to be sure. Your opinion that my changes are NPOV is really rather silly, since most of the text was directly from an FDA inquiry response letter. In essence that suggests you think the FDA is biased and perhaps suggests preconceived notions about conspiracy theories.
What specifically of any value to a reader that is verifiable was removed in my editing? What do you want to see added? I suggest adding rather than removing, because what was about 4 paragraphs became one over the last 14 weeks.
The rewrite that I proposed on 12/15 was accurate,factual and fair. Was something important left out? I don't think a NPOV requires pandering to those that claim somehow Hayes worked directly on aspartame issues after leaving the FDA in light of sworn congressional testimony to the complete contrary. (Or to those that claim Rumsfeld picked Hayes for the position when there is no refernce provided, or to those who believe what they read on the internet about the PBOI instead of reading, understanding and quoting or paraphrasing from PBOI records.) There are dozens of claims on the internet that Haye's approval of aspartame somehow broke the law, or that somehow the approval process was super controversial, largely because people don't understand that legitimate scientific critique of safety research and robust debate about interpretations are absolutely intrinsic to the approval process of any material. In reality, aspartame was studied extremely thoroughly and with more than typical levels of cautiouness. It is no coincidence that virtually all of the anti-aspartame crowd quote from each other's websites full of fiction, lies and misinformation.
There are many knowledgable people that have reviewed ALL of the available data and conclude that there is no big safety risk. A neutral writeup of the process will allow the reader to draw there own conclusions and should provide highlights from both sides of the debate.
There is no shortage of slanted and bizarre fiction about aspartame on the web. It would be nice if at least ONE of the wikipedia articles presented a rational and documented version.
PThere are other even more bizarre articles about this issue on Wikipedia. There are more kooks on this issue than wonks.
As I suggested, propose a neutral and verifiable expansion of the section and I'll offer comments. As I stated before, when I saw "the masked vandal" attributing certain inflammatory comments to you, I assumed that you were in agreement since they had not been edited out in a version that you authored. (Obviously there are lots of other things in this article that I think are absolutely BS and not scientifically supported. I have limited my edits to this section. That I didn't rewrite the entire thing does not suggest I endorse the rest of it. Frankly, this article would be of much more value to an uneducated reader if it addressed the major myths and complaints with an analysis - debunking or verification, as the case may be.
I don't know all of the facts, and there may be something new lurking out there that I have never seen, but I'm interested in knowing what they are. As someone uninvolved directly with the approval process but with extremely personal knowledge of those that WERE involved, it's a matter of significant personal curiousity.
-Dave
18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)~~
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dave,
On 3/3/2006 you indicated that you would let others make the changes. But then you proceeded to change the text of that section back to pre-12/15/2005 text.
On 3/6/2006 you indicated that a January 2006 version was agreeable, but then proceeded to change the text of that section back to primarily what was there pre-12/15/2005 eliminating some of your edits, my edits and others' edits that weren't objected to.
All I did was make a revisions to fix your concerns (which you said you wouldn't make) by reverting to a version that you said was "agreeable in early January." In doing so, I reverted one of my own edits in order to start with an agreeable version.
The text you wrote is non-NPOV simply because you're not adding boths sides of the issue.
Getting a statement from a government beaurocrat does not qualify as NPOV on controversial issues IMO. Simply because a government beaurocrat (or two) is not telling the whole story does not mean it's a "conspiracy." I don't think anyone here is naive enough to believe that government agencies always tell the truth (or always lie) or always tell the whole story.
As a couple of examples--
1) "Per elipsed reference below, in 1981 after extensive review of the record by FDA scientists, then Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes approved aspartame."
What is not mentioned is that the original group of FDA scientists appointed by Hayes to review the record were against approval. By getting information from a government beaurocrat, we're left with non-NPOV. <sorry, might have accidentally deleted a sentence fragment.>
2) "The PBOI chairman later wrote in a letter to Hayes that the Japanese data would have causd that panel to give aspartame an "unqualified approval."
What is not mentioned is that there was only one person on the panel qualified to review the brain cancer issue -- Peter Lambert -- and it turns out he was assigned to do that as a PBOI member. He was the only Neuropathologist and the President of the American Association of Neuropathologists. He never indicated he'd give approval after that Japanese study which was conducted by the world's main distributor of aspartame (by the way).
I could go on with non-NPOV issues, but my point is that both sides need to be discussed thoroughly IMO if one side is going to be mentioned at all. I feel it cuts both ways in that if someone mentions that Hayes was investigated for gratuities issues, that the other side should be mentioned as well. Twoggle 19:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dave: Almost everything that I'd added was removed. I thought my edits were in early January, they were in December. You are making no point. Again, I did not remove anything substantive other than the unsupported allegations about Rumsfeld and Bush, the fabrication that Hayes worked directly for Searle, and the slanderous comments about bribes.
Dave: I changed my mind. It's allowed.
Dave: It's probably not worth the effort because you don't seem interested in the science underlying the approval, but I decided to try again to see if there was a possibility of getting to a version that would stick. So far little progress.
Dave: I didn't remove some other viewpoint, I added information. That some other viewpoint is not represented is certainly not my fault. What viewpoints do you want added? They should be suppoted by evidence or from reputable sources in my opinion, not from M. Gold or some other aspartame hate site.
Dave: The FDA is the agency entrusted with these decisions. Quoting the official FDA position is hardly 'relying on a bureaucrat.' Perhaps you do not realize that even the term bureaucrat is a biased term. It means roughly "the Desk Rulers." That the regulatory bodies of dozens of other nations concur with the US FDA is not mentioned.
Dave: You are mistaken. It is mentioned. I did not remove *anything* from that section indicating that some scientists had concerns, nor that there was some controversy. What you are missing was that the panel was deadlocked over minutae. The discussions and deliberations of the PBOI resulted in the brain cancer issue identified as the primary concern. The Japanese research that was sponsored by Ajinomoto (which by the way patently did NOT sell aspartame or make aspartame, their primary product was MSG.) I have read the research.
Quoting from the phenomonally biased and inaccurate M/\rk G0ld, I see. There were other medical doctors and oncologists involved in the review. Stating that only one person was qualified is a tremendous simplification. Apparently you did not see my comments about the nature of the scientific process - raising questions and having open discussion and debate are intrinsic. That not everyone agrees on every issue at every point in time is more typical than not. That you don't know what Peter Lambert's opinion is, or that he has never made public statements on the matter does not prove that he does not have an opinion. Again, Ajinomoto had nothing to do with aspartame mfg or distribution at thetime. Their key concern was glutamate metabolism. I know a little bit about that. Actually, I know a lot about that issue.
Dave: this theoretical "other side" is represented ad nauseum in other places in the article. Does every paragraph have to contain speculative comments to be fair? I think not. Again, I removed nothing contrarian, only added.
I don't think that a blow by blow rehash of the PBOI is warranted. Perhaps a list of the PBOI members and a synopsis of their public comments would be interesting to include. The bottom line is that aspartame was approved, the PBOI did object because of concerns about brain cancer data, the PBOI had frequently been deadlocked and in fact a draft "approval" letter had to be debated to get them un-deadlocked, Hayes came in and took a fresh look and put his own neck on the line by approving aspartame, subsequent review over the last 25 years has been exhaustive and aspartame is still being sold.
What aspects of the approval process are even still relevant after 25 years? A brief outline of the key events and a brief look back at the decision in context of what is now known sure seems appropriate to me. That Hayes chose to resign over concerns about less than $100 of reimbursement expenses seems irrelevant. That Hayes consulted for about $1000 for some PR firm that has hundreds of clients is hardly a smoking gun, especially in light of sworn congressional testimony.
That Burston/Marstellar had many clients puts into context that issue. As you will recall, the version in place before I contributed anything stated that he went to work for Searle. (Then it said for Searle's PR firm.) That Burston was retained by practically every pharmaceutical firm because of their expert management of the tylenol crisis puts that into context. It does not prevent anyone from believing that there was a quid pro quo, but remember that congress investigated and found there wasn't. The problem with believing that all of this is a coverup is that so many people were involved, someone always exposes a real coverup. The truth will out.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Quoted Text]"You are mistaken. It is mentioned. I did not remove *anything* from that section indicating that some scientists had concerns, nor that there was some controversy."
I did not say that you removed text, but by making the changes you did, you eliminated edits that were made and *not objected to* since 12/15/2005. And you did so over and over again, slandering me time and time again, claiming that I had vandalised the article and added slanderous comments about Hayes, etc. I removed a potentially slanderous comment about Hayes. All I wanted to do is start from a version that had not been objected to for months and then discuss any changes. Right now, we are at a version of that section that has not raised objections for months. I think everyone would agree that that is a good starting point.
[Quoted Text]"Dave: I didn't remove some other viewpoint, I added information. That some other viewpoint is not represented is certainly not my fault. What viewpoints do you want added? They should be suppoted by evidence or from reputable sources in my opinion, not from M. Gold or some other aspartame hate site."
It may not be your fault that other viewpoints are not represented, but since they aren't, it think it makes it obviously non-NPOV. Even though I don't agree with some people on both sides of the issue, I try to avoid calling one side "aspartame hate sites" or calling the other side "aspartame poison pushing sites." I don't think it promotes a reasoned discussion and it demonstrates an extremely strong bias. I agree that things should be supported by evidence from "reputable sources."
[Quoted Text]"The FDA is the agency entrusted with these decisions. Quoting the official FDA position is hardly 'relying on a bureaucrat.'"
Well, to put it another way, I do not believe that unreferenced statements from government agencies are necessarily true *OR* necessarily false. They are simply another opinion. The FDA does not release opinions of all of the scientists involved in decisions that are made and articles that are written so one does not know anything other than the management involved agrees with the position. But there are many others, organizations, scientists (including government scientists) who hold a differing viewpoint of the events related to the PBOI and approval and were equally involved in those events. Those viewpoints should be represented as well. Otherwise, we can just shut down much of Wikopedia and direct everyone to statements from government agencies.
[Quoted Text]"What you are missing was that the panel was deadlocked over minutae. The discussions and deliberations of the PBOI resulted in the brain cancer issue identified as the primary concern.
You used an aritcle as a reference to exhonerate Hayes. Here's a quote from a national UPI article about what you say was "deadlocked over minutae":
" On May 10 and 13, 1981, a month after Hayes took office, scientists Satya Dubey, Douglas park, and Robert Condon each laid out concerns about the sweetener’s safety in memos to team lawyer Joseph Levitt. Dubey not only expressed reservations about reported incidence of brain tumors in one key Searle rat study, but also said key data in another study appeared to have been altered. Dubey, who still works at FDA, refuses to discuss the matter. Condon, another statistician on the team, and Park, staff science advisor in the agency’s Office of Health Affairs, each said the available evidence failed to prove NutraSweet’s safety or lack of safety.
You may not agree with it. I don't agree with all of what they said, but it's obvious that there is more than one side to the issue. If something controversial is added, it seems professional to have both sides represented. For example, I would not think it fair to include the above quote from the UPI article without the other side of the issue.
[Quoted Text]"The Japanese research that was sponsored by Ajinomoto (which by the way patently did NOT sell aspartame or make aspartame, their primary product was MSG.) I have read the research."
From a 1973 G.D. Searle Annual Report: "commercial quanities of the sweetener will be supplied from the enlarged facility of Ajinomoto." Ajinomoto is the inventor and main producer of the food additive MSG." I agree that in 1980 they didn't sell it yet and it doesn't mean the study was or was not biased, but it is the type of potential funding source conflict that would be mentioned in scientific journals.
[Quoted Text]"Quoting from the phenomonally biased and inaccurate M/\rk G0ld, I see. There were other medical doctors and oncologists involved in the review. Stating that only one person was qualified is a tremendous simplification."
I said that Peter Lampbert was the only member of the 3-person PBOI panel who was qualified in the area of Neuropathology. I mentioned this in response to to a statement that you wanted to include about the PBOI panel and the Japanese study. It is true that the two other members would have given approval based on the Japanese study, but Peter Lampbert never said that he would and in fact his remarks have been characterized as believing that the tumors he saw on the slides may have been caused by a brain tumor agent. So, whether you agree or not, the point is -- there is more than one side to the issue and to simply represent one side is non-NPOV and further relegating statements from legitimate scientists and researchers as "conspiracy theories" would be unprofessional in my opinion.
[Quoted Text]"I don't think that a blow by blow rehash of the PBOI is warranted. Perhaps a list of the PBOI members and a synopsis of their public comments would be interesting to include. The bottom line is that aspartame was approved, the PBOI did object because of concerns about brain cancer data, the PBOI had frequently been deadlocked and in fact a draft "approval" letter had to be debated to get them un-deadlocked, Hayes came in and took a fresh look and put his own neck on the line by approving aspartame, subsequent review over the last 25 years has been exhaustive and aspartame is still being sold."
You're confusing what happened. I have some advantage of having the 51-page PBOI decision, the 30-page analysis of the PBOI decision from the Law and Science Collaboration that has quotes from various members and appointed consultants as well as articles from that period of time. The PBOI was unanimously against approval due to brain cancer conerns that had yet to be addressed. After the PBOI was complete, the FDA Commissioner appointed a 5 member task force (three of those were mentioned above in the UPI article). They were 3-2 against approval of aspartame. The FDA management then had a "approval" letter floated amongst this panel in what they said was an effort to undeadlock the panel. The FDA Commissioner then appointed another member to the task force and it was 3-3 for/against approval. If you say that this is not true, I am happy to scan and post images to Wikopedia to prove otherwise.
[Quoted Text]"What aspects of the approval process are even still relevant after 25 years? A brief outline of the key events and a brief look back at the decision in context of what is now known sure seems appropriate to me. That Hayes chose to resign over concerns about less than $100 of reimbursement expenses seems irrelevant."
I heartily agree! Keep it short. It is nice and short now. Adding one biased source necessitates adding something to balance it. If we are going to outline the events, then one can start all of the way back in the early 1970's and move forward. But I do not advocate just picking event that make one side or the other look like they have all of the facts.
[Quoted Text]"That Burston/Marstellar had many clients puts into context that issue. As you will recall, the version in place before I contributed anything stated that he went to work for Searle. (Then it said for Searle's PR firm.) That Burston was retained by practically every pharmaceutical firm because of their expert management of the tylenol crisis puts that into context."
I addressed that before. If we're going to take up a paragraph defending Hayes taking a position at Searle's PR firm, then it's only NPOV to mention the other side of the issue. Otherwise, the reader is left with the sense that there is only one side to this issue. That works both ways, though. For example, if we're going to take this quote from the UPI aritcle: "But a former Burson-Marsteller employee, who requested anonymity, said Hayes was hired precisely because of his decision on NutraSweet and other issues affecting company clients," then we should defend Hayes and present both sides.
I am all for adding both sides to controversial subjects and avoid attempting to relegate one side to "conspiracy thereorists" or other unprofessional categorization. Twoggle 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Addendum -- Now that the version of that section that caused so much controversy is at a place that raised no objection since 12/15/2006, I think it's fine to consider editing it like any other section in this and any other Wikopeia article. But I'm going to do my best to keep it NPOV by presenting evidence from both sides or removing statements that might be considered slanderous. I don't see anything wrong with that. Twoggle 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that someone editing the "approval" section still persists in fantasizing that Rumsfeld somehow gamed the process of appointing Reagan's FDA commissioner, by making the claim (without any supporting evidence) that Rumsfeld and Hayes were somehow close friends, implying a quid pro quo. I can find no objective evidence of this alleged friendship - people seem to crib fictions and inaccurate statements from various aspartame hate sites, and this is one of them. I propose removing the comment that Rumsfeld and Hayes were friends, or at the very minimum stating that this friendship is simply "alleged without reference"" because there is no documentation provided to support it. This is just ONE of many problems in this article, I can't fix them all, but the overall tone is that there has been a 2-1/2 decade long conspiracy to keep aspartame on the market, ages after the product went generic and long after there were acceptable substitutes - large portions of this article simply are not NPOV, they reflects preconceived bias based on hearsay and unscientific doubletalk.

DaveNOSPAM2NOSPAM9NOSPAM@AOLDOTCOM

I agree that unless there is objective evidence of the friendship that the recently-added statement (only) should be removed. To me, it doesn't matter where the information comes from -- either there's evidence for the statement or not. Twoggle 16:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to mention the word "theories" it is misleading. In science are always theories, there is no way of asserting that results are 100% complete. After 30 years without challenge it is said that research is considered fact, and even then can be challenged. It's just like microwaves, SAFE SAFE SAFE, until tens of children with relay antenas near their schools turn up with all sorts of cancers and start dying. That's 2 against one, "theory" allegation permenantly removed. Thank you.

[edit] News & General Links

I propose that we remove the news links (primarily written by journalists or online bloggers) and include them below the more comprehensive links on both sides of the issue. If the news is about new research, we can include that in the article and cite the research. Twoggle 21:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference missing

I removed this sentence from the article, because the reference (an image in en-wiki) has been deleted.

A consumer alert issued by the Association for Consumers Action on Safety and Health was published in a scientific journal related to the dangers of ingesting aspartame. [1]

If some one has a current reference and would like to add the above sentence, I think they should also tell whether the alert was issued as a scientific (that is peer-reviewed) article or as something else and what was the name of the scientific journal. -EnSamulili 22:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

EnSamulili,
I re-added the reference. While the Consumer Alert was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal accompanying a somewhat long peer-reviewed article on the subject, the Consumer Alert itself was not peer reviewed. Therefore, when adding back that sentence, I removed reference to a scientific journal. Probably better to do that then to go into a long explaination as I did above. Twoggle 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'Spikes' of Phenlylaline and Aspartic Acid?

Why are these mentioned? Regardless of how quickly these byproducts are metabolized, wouldn't it be largely irrelevant because of the extremely low quantities of aspartame in products, since much less is needed than sugar to produce the taste? It seems to me like someone saying that sugar spikes insulin, when talking about only a teaspoon which would still probably result in less of an insulin spike than a thick slice of whole grain bread :p Tyciol 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Spikes in excitotoxic amino acids and effects on nervous system cells spawned a line of research starting in the late 1960's related to nervous system disorders. Whether one agrees or not with the effects of aspartame, the potential for excitotoxic amino acid spikes from aspartame ingestion is far greater than that of food. At least some of the debate around aspartame issues involves potential effects of free-form excitotoxic amino acids.
Another long-debated issue is whether the sudden influx of one particular Large Neutral Amino Acid (LNAA), in this case phenylalanine, effects uptake of amino acids across the blood brain barrier (BBB) since LNAA's compete for receptors. Scientists on both sides of the issue have debated whether, over time, brain chemistry could be adversely effected.
While these certainly aren't the only issues raised by scientists about aspartame, they are two issues that have been hotly debated over the years and therefore I think they are relevent. Twoggle 03:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
What consists of a 'spike' is largely relative to the amount of aspartame ingested at once though. If it's in amounts that match the amino acid digestion of various proteins, then it's nothing remarkable, which should be considered since aspartame is used in small amounts. Even if in excess of most normal meats, I think fast-digesting protein powders used by bodybuilders should be taken into consideration. Many of these wheys digest VERY rapidly. Tyciol 04:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
It takes only a tiny amount of these amino acids to cause a spike in plasma levels while it takes a much larger amount in traditionally-eaten food because of the slow breakdown of proteins. With traditionally-eaten foods, the liver is able to moderate the flow of amino acids into the blood stream. That is not the case with aspartame as been seen in research. Researchers on both sides of the issue have long known that comparing the amounts of amino acids in aspartame to that in foods is meaningless. What has been debated is 1) what the amino acid spike is in typical ingestion of aspartame and perhaps a higher-than-typical ingestion for some people; (For example, if a child has a diet "big gulp" or "super big gulp" what is the potential spike in the excitotoxin and LNAA); 2) whether the spikes have any short-term or long-term health consequences; and 3) whether one can measure potential effects (or lack of effects) by looking at the Area Under the Curve (AUC) as opposed to the high points of the spike.
Some foods like tomatos have free-form amino acids, but these foods have also *not* shown the ability to spike plasma amino acids levels similar to aspartame. It is true that some protein powders contain free form amino acids that would be rapidly digested and probably would spike plasma amino acids levels (although one would have to test these powders to be certain), these powders contain a variety of amino acids including a variety of LNAAs and there would not be the concern of effecting amino acid transport across the blood brain barrier by flooding the system with only one LNAA as happens with aspartame ingestion. In addition, there has been no debate of formaldehyde adduct exposure/accumulation with these protein powders as there has been with aspartame. I have met a few people who do not think some of these protein powders healthy, but other than a potential spike in plasma excitotoxic amino acid levels, these have not raised similar concerns as aspartame.
Neuroscientists at the Society for Neuroscience meeting have a split opinion of the potential effects of exposure to excitotoxic amino acids added to foods (in the form of aspartame or MSG for example). In addition, a conference was held with 47 scientific papers presented solely on the issue of potential effects over time of spiking one particular LNAA from aspartame ingestion. There is definately debate on these issues in the scientific community.24.62.155.161 18:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
How long does a "spike" last? Seconds, minutes, hours, days? For if one takes an average human ingesting a range of proteins and amino acids, and then drinks a diet soda and gets a phenylalanine spike (thus possibly preventing those other proteins and amino acids from getting absorbed), the duration of the spike is relavent. A short spike may temporarily interupt the absobtion of other LNAAs-- big woop. If it's longer, or if the individual is constantly ingesting aspartame (as many young people do with a constant diet of Mountain Dew etc), then it gets more interesting. So, my question is, how long is a "spike" in these studies, and are there any graphs published to show these? (I realise that if this is blood plasma, there may have been infrequent blood draws and the end of a spike is not known... but then this also should be included). Actually,Dave might know? Gaviidae 11:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The study that compared ingesting aspartame in liquid to aspartame in slow dissolving capsules showed a spike that last on average of about 1.5 hours. In other words, it took approximately 1.5 hours for the plasma PHE to return to the highest plasma PHE levels seen in person ingesting encapsulated aspartame. There is a graph in an paper published by an industry consultant: "Plasma Amino Acid Concentrations in Normal Adults Administered Aspartame in Capsules or Solution: Lack of Bioequivalence," Metabolism, Volume 36, No. 5, page 507-512. The idea is not about one ingestion of aspartame, however, but repeated ingestions over months or years gradually leading to adverse changes in brain chemistry. There are some animal experiments showing these effects and some that do not show these effects. The book, "Dietary Phenyalalnine and Brian Function Proceedings of the First International Meetings on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function, Washington, DC" (available on amazon.com) contains over 40 studies about this issue (and some of the studies used aspartame). My personal belief is that phenylalanine spikes are less of a concern than the other breakdown products, but many prominant scientists have published papers laying out concerns, so it's still being debated. Twoggle 01:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DANGERS OF ASPARTAME

Britain\\\'s best selling sweetener was condemned as dangerous and potentially toxic in a report compiled by some of the world\\\'s biggest soft drinks manufacturers - who now buy tons of it to add to diet drinks. Coca Cola, Pepsi and other manufacturers produced the report in the early l980s before the sweetener aspartame, had been approved for use in America. It warns that it can affect the workings of the brain, changes behavior and even encourages users to eat extra carbohydrate, so destroying the point of using diet drinks.

The documents were unearthed last week under freedom of information legislation. It follows a decision by researchers at King\\\'s College in London to study suspected links between aspartame intake and brain tumors.

Britons drink more than 9 billion cans or bottles of pop a year, of which about half contain artificial sweeteners. Aspartame, made by Monsanto and also marketed under the name NutraSweet, is 200 times sweeter than normal sugar and is used in many popular low caloric foods and drinks. It has been declared safe in a number of studies and has been approved for use in both America and Europe.

There has, however, always been concern at the tendency to break down, producing methanol, which is both toxic in its own right and which breaks down further to produce formic acid and formaldehyde, phenylalanine, another breakdown product of aspartame, is also dangerous to people with phenyketonuria, a common enzyme deficiency.

The 30 page aspartame report was drawn up under the auspices of America\\\'s National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) whose governing body at the time included senior Coca Cola and Pepsi executives. It says: \\\"We object to the approval of aspartame for unrestricted use in soft drinks.\\\" It then lists ways in which aspartame was believed directly to affect brain chemistry, including the synthesis of vital neurotransmitters such as serotonin.

Other papers obtained with the NSDA documents show the Food and Drug Administration also had misgivings. Despite this it approved aspartame.

Dick Adamson, of the NSDA, said that in l983, he evaluated the data on aspartame and posed a number of questions. Once they were answered, it no longer had concerns about the safety of aspartame in carbonated drinks. Ben Deutsch, a spokesman for Coca Cola, referred questions to the NSDA.Olmert 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

QUOTE: There has, however, always been concern at the tendency to break down, producing methanol, which is both toxic in its own right and which breaks down further to produce formic acid and formaldehyde, phenylalanine, another breakdown product of aspartame, is also dangerous to people with phenyketonuria, a common enzyme deficiency.
The "tendency" is towards the extremes of pH levels. Softdrinks are around a level of 4.3 which keeps aspartame fairly stable, really. It'll break down quicker in water (7).
I wouldn't call phenylketonuria a "common" deficiency. According to the Wiki article Phenylketonuria "The incidence of occurrence of PKU is about 1 in 15,000 births, but the incidence varies widely in different human populations from 1 in 4,500 births among the Irish to fewer than one in 100,000 births among the population of Finland." Gaviidae 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good article

This is a good article, which I think should work toward featured status if anything to raise awareness of the controversy. Supposed 20:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this article garners praise as a means to "raise awareness of the controversy," when in fact very little "controversy" exists, is further evidence of the article's non-NPOV. Bustter 20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well Done

I just want to echo Supposed in regard to the quality of this article. The number of citiations is very good compared to similar articles and NPOV is maintained throughout. I'm going to have to read the published articles to find out more Sterichinderance 20:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In contrast, while I appreciate the effort made to represent the aspartame issues fairly, it comes off to me as written by a highly partisan anti-aspartame person, who depsite their their best efforts to write in the npov, has ended up writing with what WP:NPOV calls "undue weight."
The presentation consciously gives equal time to pro- and anti-aspartame arguments, yet given that all major national and international food safety governing bodies have affirmed, and in many cases re-affirmed the viewpoint that aspartame is safe, the anti-aspartame viewpoint is a minority viewpoint, a significant minority viewpoint to be sure, but nonetheless a minority viewpoint. The current version, in my opinion, is misleading as to the present state of the debate.
Secondly, the lengthy presentation of the health issues results in what WP:NPOV calls another kind of undue weight: by its size the public health issues dominate the article, and give the impression that there is little notable about aspartame other than its controversial nature, whereas in fact, if aspartame were otherwise unnotable, there would be little reason to invest effort in the controversy. I feel this article could correct this by adopting summary style for this section, and spin it off as Health effects of aspartame or something under a similar title. Shimmin 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


I believe that the pro- and anti-aspartame groups are pretty evenly split as it relates to the WP:NPOV "undue weight" issue. Wikipedia looks at undue weight in relation to "experts on the subject" or "concerned parties." I think everyone would agree that the experts on the subject would be the actual scientists who have read all or the overwhelming majority of the research and possibly even conducted research on aspartame and/or its breakdown products (e.g., methanol/formaldehyde, aspartic acid, diketopiperazine, phenylalanine).
For the aspartic acid issue, the article cites a pretty even split in scientific opinion of the appropriate specialists (Neuroscientists): "The 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." A similar split still exists amongst Neuroscientists and the aspartic acid issue.
The following conference proceedings provides an example of the split of relevent experts on the phenylalanine part of aspartame: "Dietary Phenyalalnine and Brian Function Proceedings of the First International Meetings on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function, Washington, DC" (contains over 40 studies about this issue and some of the studies used aspartame).
In 1998, researchers in Spain published research showing (or claiming) aspartame ingestion leading to formaldehyde adduct accumulation in various organs and tissues from the methanol part of aspartame. The Ramazzini group cited that research and a number of experts on both sides of the issue have referred to that issue that relates to the methanol part of aspartame.
"Concerned parties" could mean government agencies or non-government agencies or persons or physicians who have reported adverse effects or industry representatives. I do not think that government agencies (including their committees with hand-selected scientists) is an appropriate way to look at the "undue weight" issue. I believe that "experts on the subject" refer to the scientists involved and the "concerned parties" might best be described as "all other stakeholders" (industry, governmental and non-governmental groups, concerned citizens, etc.).
Since the request for approval of aspartame, it has been mired in controversy -- wrongly or rightly. There were three major U.S. Congressional hearings conducted in the mid-1970's about aspartame's pre-approval research. Approval was held up for ~9 years due to controversy about potential health effects. Subsequent to approval, there were several U.S. Congressional hearings on potential health effects, articles, national TV shows, etc. Even over the last few years, there have been health effects controversies. So, I believe it is part of the aspartame issue. However, I like the fact that someone organized it with the summary, Chemistry, Properties & Use, and Discovery & Approval sections first. The Health effects controversy section is almost as short as possible, yet still presenting relevent information. I do think there is a danger of the Recently-published research section getting out of hand eventually. I would be concerned about burying this part of the article on another page. Twoggle 02:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would like to congratulate those who've worked on this article - it's very objective, presents all sides of the debate, backing up the claims with details and excellent references. Mugaliens 14:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journal article cites

I have removed several cites of journal articles. The cites in question follow this: "There is debate in the scientific and medical community as to whether these symptoms are or are not caused by short-term or long-term exposure to aspartame. Some human and animal studies have found adverse effects and some have found no adverse effects."

Of the half dozen or so listed, 3 or so linked to a sumary page that gave the name of the article, authors and publication data, but no indication whatsoever of any findings (or lack thereof). As a result, the cites I removed added nothing to the article, other than showing that there were published studies (no indication of short- or long-term exposure, human or animal or whether or not adverse effects were noted. Mdbrownmsw 14:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the journal cites for the following reasons -
1) Images of the relevent text had already been posted to the discussion section when these references were discussed. I would be glad to add these public domain images as part of the references. So, there is absolutely no reason to remove the references, just let me know if you prefer the images in the article section as well.
2) References without summaries are standard for scientific articles and very helpful for scientists, physicians, nutritionists, journalists and others who want to followup on the references. Summaries often do not contain the text/information being cited. Millions of journal articles and even articles written by laypersons contain references without summaries.
Nevertheless, since I am happy to expand upon these references to keep the integrity of that important statement about scientific debate, just let me know and I'll add images of the relevent text. Twoggle 15:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, references without sumaries are used widely and frequently and this is generally valuable. However, in the present case, the cites are not sources of the information nor do they prove information. The cites follow a statement that there is debate about causation, with some studies falling on each side. To be meaningful, I feel the links need to be clearly yes or clearly no. The links I left lead to abstracts that give a general sense of the findings. Perhaps you could simply move the links to:
"Some human and animal studies have found adverse effects [1][2][3] and some have found no adverse effects [4][5][6]."
Mdbrownmsw 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Good idea! I split the text as you suggested. I will work on uploading a public domain image to Wikipedia of the abstract for those cites in that sentence without a Medline-published abstract. Twoggle 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sugar by SoaD

"Aspartame is a sugar substitute found in various fizzy drinks which has been found to induce homicidal tendencies " Is this true? That definition fits the song, but I dont see anything on here about it. Lovok 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toxic to me

I first encountered aspartame when it was put into Pepsi Max and introduced in my country (a LONG time ago). Each day I bought a small bottle and drank it after swimming practice while going home. From day one I started feeling sick afterwards. One day I threw up so my father suggested it might be the new pepsi. I stopped drinking and the symptoms went away. As more and more products used aspartame I naticed I was getting sick only when eating/drinking them so I made the obvious connection. Sugarfree gum makes me slightly uncomfortable but I can tolarate it. Diet drinks make me sick. Prolonged use will worsen my state and induce vomiting. Diet sweets and cakes can make me puke. I can supress the need but if I continue eating them I vomit. I've never had this looked at because doctors said it was probably nothing and I know to avoid "diet" things but I don't think this is common. --Energman 10:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Aspartame may not cause significant problems in the general population, at least not on a large scale. The jury is still out on this.
However, medical studies are generally based on people conforming to both inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, and this may cause some sensitive populations not to be represented in the available documentation. For example, most aspies I know seem to react adversely to aspartame, as do I, including when I'm unaware that I have consumed it. It has occured a few times that I've had an adverse reaction when eating out, and upon asking the people who handled the drink they universally verify that they had given me diet soda.
One significant point here is that it may also depend on whether you are taking any particular medication alongside it. For example, MAO-inhibitors will significantly increase the likelyhood of an adverse reaction, as the phenylalanine may cause a buildup of dopamine and norepinephrine.
84.48.95.100 09:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved out Aspartame controversy

Dear all, seen the sheer size of the 'aspartame controversy' part of this article, in comparison to the total size of the article (which is about a sweetener, a chemical compound), I decided to move out the who aspartame controversy into its own article, name aspartame controversy (that article is now 42 kb long!!!). That article needs quite some attention now, as it does e.g. not have a proper introduction. The article aspartame controversy is also linked from sugar substitute, which also contains a large section about the aspartame controversy, that paragraph may also be incorporated into 'aspartame controversy'. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with splitting the article. But if the consensus is to move out the Health Risks Controversy section, then the main aspartame article must be meticulously NPOV. Of course, there would be no need to include POV text, links, etc. Also, I think it is obvious that the overwhelming amount of discussion about aspartame online and in general is about the controversial aspects of aspartame (possible health effects, approval issues, etc.) and therefore, link to that section should not be buried towards the end of the article.
Also, IMO, if Health Risk Controversy section is moved out, duplicate information and/or bias shouldn't created in the main article (except perhaps a very short introductory paragraph as exists now). In other words, I suggest either put the article back the way it was (my preference) or there should never be any POV in the main Aspartame article (text, links) related to the Health Risk Controversy. Twoggle 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This page is, as I said above, about a chemical compound. It is not about the aspartame controversy. The difference in size between the two parts was just over the top. I can agree with the section being relocated, or even an additional sentence in the intro! I have tried to make the section about the controversy as NPOV as possible, and I will think about it further, but feel free to edit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the order, and I don't see how the section could be moved up (I did not move it in the first place, anyway), the order now is (to me) logic: intro, what is it (chemistry), history/when and how was it discovered, what is it used for, and how is it metabolised. Do I have added a sentence to the intro, which could use some polishing, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think your added mention early on is useful. I agree with you on the order of the sections. My main concerns revolved around 1) gradually adding text or links related to the controversy back to the main article instead of the Aspartame_Controversy article (assuming that the sections stay separated), and 2) sometime in the future pushing the Aspartame_Controversy article links way down on the page by adding a significant amount of text of some additional sections near the top. The main things I'm interested in is keeping the sections NPOV (main article without controversy and Aspartame_Controversy article describing the debate and scientific arguments in a balanced way) and making sure the text and resources people are looking for is easily-findable on Wikipedia. By the way, I do not think there is a single place on or off the Internet other than Wikipedia where readers can get a short yet adequately detailed description of boths sides of the scientific debate related to the aspartame issue. Twoggle 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent move! An article of this class should mention the controversy, but should focus on what aspartame is, and what it's used for. It should NOT have 42 kB of controversy attached to it. As the style guide says: "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be excised from the present entry and replaced by a link." Walkerma 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 86 F or 86 C

On http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html#symptoms it says:

Free methanol begins to form in liquid aspartame-containing products at temperatures above 86 degrees F.. also within the human body.

On this article it says:

Like many other peptides, aspartame may hydrolyze (break down) into its constituent amino acids under conditions of elevated temperature (in the case of aspartame, 86 °C) or high pH.

Which is right? --80.63.213.182 17:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick survey of Google Scholar indicates that 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius) is the temperature at which aspartame starts to break down. 84.48.95.100 09:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metabolism section

My edit was not "rv vandalism". Without a source, "50 in 15,000" is completely equivalent to "1 in 300". The latter simply uses the least common denominator. Is the 50 in 15,000 a quote from a specific source? Then it needs a citation. If not, what's the purpose of using those numbers? You could as easily write 2,500 in 750,000, or 300 in 90,000.


    • for lack of bias**

If this article is to remain completely unbiased it MUST contain information about the definite break down in to Methanol, this is not hyperthetical it is fact. It also breaks down in to Formaldehyde, also FACT. This should be on the main page as at present the article is biased towards the views of the FDA and assumes they are factual despite evidence from INDEPENDENT scientists. The majority of people are unlikely to visit the Aspartame controversy page as they'll assume the main page contains most of the factual information. Just because evidence is controversial or offends certain people, if it is backed up with factual information then that does not give reason to have this removed from the main page. To add to my comment above - the 'Discovery and Approval' section in my opinion makes this article completely biased towards the product. If this article were truly just about the chemical then the approval section should not be in there as it creates a certain bias towards the chemical. Better would be to put in factual information about the chemicals this breaks down in to and the health risks associated with those chemicals. Again this would prevent bias by listing facts.

[edit] Formaldehyde

This article seems to tiptoe around the fact that Aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde as well as numerous other toxic substances, and in all cases fails to mention the toxicity of such substances. For these reasons, I must say that I find this article to be horrifically biased.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 05:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What is it with the editors of this page always removing any reference that this chemical compound breaks down in to Formaldehyde. This is fact backed up by scientific proof.
As before if you don't like something that is backed up by scientific reasoning that is no reason to remove it from the article, unless you are indeed biased towards the chemical compound. You are creating a bias towards Aspartame by not including this in the main article and using the 'aspartame controversy' as a continuous excuse to delete or move facts which could damage the credibility of the product.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.244.138 (talk • contribs).
If there is scientific proof, could you please add the correct references to that, so that people can check the information? Thank you! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi Beetstra, please see the following, the top links are the most credible, in light of this I feel it's very important to mention Formaldehyde:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9714421&dopt=Abstract

http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_research.htm

http://home.howstuffworks.com/question536.htm

http://www.health-report.co.uk/aspartame-formaldehyde-poisoning.htm

http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html

http://presidiotex.com/aspartame/Facts/Formaldehyde/formaldehyde.html

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/aspartame.htm

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/10002.htm

http://presidiotex.com/aspartame/Soffritti.pdf

http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/formaldehyde_cocktail.htm

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/toxicol/2005-April/003567.html

http://aspartametruth.com/ramazzini.html

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/embalm.html

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/fm.html

http://www.dorway.com/jcohen.html—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.244.138 (talk • contribs).

Dear 194.75.244.138, you have the references available, so please make the edit, adding the appropriate ones (I would take the scientific/reliable references, using correct formatting). I am sure people who are knowledgeable in the field will keep an eye on it (I must confess, I am not, but when the data is controversial, I'd remove claims when there are no (reliable) references to back them up). I am also sure they will explain when they change your addition. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/p/Talk%7EAspartame_c9da.html"