Talk:Aspartame controversy/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Aspartame controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Update safety section

Per discussion above, I removed all primary studies and re-wrote the section using only secondary studies/reviews. Should flow better now, and hopefully keep people from wanting to stick in primary studies. Yobol (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was quite happy with your changes, they were reverted by TM, so perhaps other should weigh in with their opinions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ticklemeister restored the text with the notation, "You don't improve an article about a controversy by removing one side of the controversy". However, we cannot provide parity to the sceptic side and certainly should not rely on primary sources. TFD (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is certainly welcome to add information from other secondary sources that meet MEDRS; it's not my fault most (though not all) that I found think aspartame is completely safe. Yobol (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a basically good step. This page is still 41 kb, so we might need to consider further paring or a spinout article. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that now that this page has been cleaned up it can be merged back into the main aspartame page. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it should stay here (although there may be a better title). There are a large number of people who question the safety of aspartame and they have received some notability. We have other separate articles about fringe theories, e.g,, truthers and birthers, which should remain separate. TFD (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Both this article and the main article are short. QuackGuru (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that any fair coverage of the history of the public controversy would completely overwhelm the main article. I will concede, though, that creating additional spinout articles would probably be ill-conceived. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think two articles is about right. If anything, the aspartame article probably has a little too much about the approval/safety that is redundant to the information in the controversy article. I also agree that any further spinout articles would be less than ideal; if anything, we should trim content here first if size is an issue. Yobol (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If we were to rename it, how about 'Aspartame Safety Controversy'? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to rename it.Yobol (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed.[4][5][6][7]

"Critics allege that conflicts of interest marred the FDA's approval of aspartame, question the quality of the initial research supporting its safety,[1][2][3] and postulate that numerous health risks may be associated with aspartame.

The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed.[4][5][6][7]"

Where exactly in the four sources cited is this claim verified? I didn't catch that in any of them. 3/4 focus solely on Nancy Markle's hoax. КĐ^♥ 18:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The ref I added (ref to Magnuson's review) was added because you said there wasn't anything showing safety. It has now been added. What part of the above do you think is not referenced? Yobol (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

As presently phrased, the last statement directly implies (when referring to "these claims") that "The validity of [the claims of alleged conflicts of interest marring the FDA's approval of aspartame, the quality of the initial research supporting its safety, and the numerous health risks postulated by critics] has been examined and dismissed." Where in the four cited sources can we verify this? I read no such thing in any of them. It definitely looks like OR/SYN, with references to Markle's hoax giving the statement undue weight.КĐ^♥ 00:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Added the GAO report ref (which found the FDA adequately followed its own approval process) and the safety issues are addressed by the Magnuson ref I added earlier. Removed two Markle refs from the lead, as they were largely extraneous anyways. Yobol (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I must state that in its current state, this article breaks Wikipedia's policy of WP:NPOV. This must be fixed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.58.68 (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Specifically where? Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no neutral point view when it comes to controversies.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 03:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There must be a neutral point of view in all wikipedia articles. "Specifically Where?" For starters: The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed.

From wp:weasel

"Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed."

Jmpunit (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"From wp:weasel" "Claims about what people^[who?] say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed." Weasel wording exists in this. How ironic!Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 13:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

And so the following: The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed ^{[by whom?]} Jmpunit (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

While it would be wrong for us to go through the literature and conclude that the claims have been dismissed, we may say that if that conclusion can be reliably sourced. Neutrality does not mean we give parity to ~~the critics of aspartame~~studies that have questioned the safety of aspartame. TFD (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why have you decided that a scientist who publishes a negative finding about aspartame, such as that it can cause headaches in some people, is a "critic" of aspartame? Your assumptions are absurd. TickleMeister (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean we give parity to either side. This sentence needs to specify who has dismissed the claims in order to be neutral. Jmpunit (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Since there is scientific consensus that there is no evidence that aspartame is unsafe, it would be misleading to name individuals and groups who have made this claim because it would imply doubt about their conclusions. Imagine if we did that on articles about 911, flying saucers, astrology, the moon landing hoax, etc. TFD (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

To imply that it would be misleading to CLARIFY the statement "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." is fallacious. Jmpunit (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The people who has discredited the claims are noted in the sources (in-line cited). More can be added if necessary, but would seem excessive.Yobol (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is necessary to attribute the claims made in this sentence. Jmpunit (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the body of the article. If the reader wants to find out who has dismissed the claims, they should read the inline citations or the body of the article. Attribution in the lead would be redundant and is not necessary. PS: Learn to indent. Yobol (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your post script is redundant. From wp: lead "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article". Jmpunit (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't "tease". You are certainly welcome to try to get consensus that it does, though, to change the lead. Good luck with that. Yobol (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Jmpunit, I don't know what you mean by "redundant" in your not-very-helpful reply to a reasonable request, but I have fixed the formatting issue for readability's sake, per WP:REFACTOR. Now try to get with the program and be cooperative.

The statement has just been tweaked, but the refs are still there and have been there the whole time you've been complaining, so why are you complaining? The statement is referenced properly. Read them and see if they back up the statement. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

@TFD: SCientific consensus by whom? who is involved in this consensus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.50.138 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried reading the article? Yobol (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD, since those words aren't used in the article, answering that question is likely to lead to violations of WP:TALK, so you don't have to answer. We need to stay on-topic. I suggest the IP read the article and do their own homework. There are plenty of references to the many scientific and other instances that have rejected the conspiracy theories about Aspartame. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

@Bull: In the only two posts that you have given on this page (excluding archives) you have altered my post, were rude about it by saying I was complaining (even though the concern that this sentence brings is shared by many and has independently been brought up here numerous times), and told me to "get with the program" which means absolutely nothing. In your second post you told another editor what to do. Talk about "not-very-helpful" and "off topic" (and scarce).

"The statement is referenced properly." It's not the references that are the problem as much as the actual statement itself. NUMEROUS editors have raised concerns that the sentence "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed." is misleading as it does not say who has examined and dismissed concerns about aspartame. This gives the impression that ALL concerns have been examined and DISMISSED, yet this is not true. I find it strange that some would be so adamantly opposed to clarifying this statement, that such strong conviction could come from such a fragile argument as redundancy. Jmpunit (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I never altered your post, but did standard housekeeping, per established practice here. Everything was preserved in the proper order and no meaning was changed. You had been requested to learn to indent by two different editors [1][2] but hadn't done it, so I did it for you. That's what I meant by "get with the program". You should thank me for helping you. We do things in a certain way here and it's best to learn quickly, especially when politely asked to do so.

I monitor this page, so don't be concerned about the frequency or infrequency with which I actually comment. I currently "have 4,628 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)", so I don't comment on all of them all the time. In my second post I informed a more experienced editor of their options. They can do whatever they want now that they have been reminded of a potential trap. It was helpful advice. We do this often on talk pages. We try to help each other.

Your concerns about the actual statement have been addressed and rebuffed many times. Until you actually read the article and study those references, I fear you will continue to flog this dead horse. That's disruptive. Please read the article and references, as I politely requested above. You will find abundant mention of "who" has examined and dismissed which claims. The references are in the lead and throughout the body of the article.

You state: "This gives the impression that ALL concerns have been examined and DISMISSED, yet this is not true." Please be specific about which concerns that haven't been examined and dismissed. Maybe we can work together on this. I'm curious. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary defines "alter" as "to make different in some particular, as size, style, course, or the like; modify: to alter a coat; to alter a will; to alter course." To say that you did not alter my post is a blatant lie. There are more polite ways of getting your point across than telling someone to "get with the program". Such petty cliches will not help your cause. You also sound arrogant when you say "we do things a certain way here" as if you are the spokesperson for the pro-aspartame controversy movement. Since you boast about being an experienced editor with your numbers it would be safe to assume that you have read WP:CIVIL. I suggest that you revisit that page to gain a better understanding on how to speak to other editors. One is more likely to listen to someone who is polite (without pretending) than one who is antagonistic.

You say that my concerns (or "complaints" as you insolently call them) have been "rebuffed" but "snubbed" is a more accurate word. They are immediately shot down without a valid explanation. To say that it is redundant to clarify the sentence in question is not valid. A stronger case must be made if you want to keep it as is. Jmpunit (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In my last comment I offered you a way forward. I'm willing to cooperate if you'll just be specific, but you're choosing to dwell on imagined petty slights. Whatever. I altered the indents, not your post. Read the link I provided which explains that this is allowed. Please comment on content, not other editors. Stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground.

Otherwise you'll have to get a consensus here to make that change, and you're not getting it. The fact that your comments have repeatedly been rebuffed/snubbed by multiple editors is proof that you don't have a consensus. That's how things work here. You win some and you lose some. I suggest you either drop the matter or pursue dispute resolution. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Take your own advice (battleground) and help yourself before you try to "help" others. When I am treated rudely I have a tendency to respond. Don't pretend to "offer" me anything, I already gave you a specific reason on why this sentence needs to be clarified (several times). So again I ask: What OTHER reason(s) is there for not attributing the sentence, "The validity of these claims has been examined and dismissed."? Jmpunit (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It is attributed in the references. Since it's a statement in the lead, it really doesn't have to have references right there since it refers to referenced content in the body of the article. By reading the article and the supplied references, you'll get an answer to your question. It isn't the job of other editors to do your homework, but we're trying to point you in the right direction. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No I mean other points besides redundancy. To say that the reader is required to discover information outside of the text in order to gather an understanding of the article is absurd; there should be no hidden points that the reader must search for. This is not a scavenger hunt, it is a wikipedia article. All points that are discussed need to be attributed in the article. Also the references themselves should not be grouped together: GAO report (US government), a newspaper (media is not reliable enough to discredit scientific studies), and an article on about.com that deals with a "hoax" letter (instead of the actual studies that have shown adverse effects of the sweetener). Please state a VALID reason why the statement should not be clarified. Jmpunit (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ever write an essay in highschool? You lay out the points you're GOING to make in your introduction, and then actually make them in the body paragraphs. If you ram everything into the lede, you're going to get a D (or an unreadable article). Honestly, this is like complaining that an article mentions that someone has died in the lead, but doesn't say HOW until the body. It just doesn't matter. No one is required to go outside the text- they just have to read the whole thing. We aren't Cliff's Notes. --King Öomie 14:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Check your attitude Oomie, this is not a high school essay. Instead of mouthing off to editors in belligerent posts try addressing the questions. Since you know so much about writing essays this should be a breeze. You make a gross exaggeration by accusing me of trying "to RAM EVERYTHING into the lead". I simply want clarification for one sentence, especially since this sentence which now reads "These claims have been examined and were later dismissed as invalid." is supported by three sources that must be justified: The last source is focused on the old "hoax" letter and is outdated. The second source is a review headed by Magnuson, B. A. who is paid by Coca-Cola to make trips and speak about the sweetener (conflict of interest). The first source is from 1987 and is also outdated as many studies have been conducted since. If you can't engage in discussion of the issue then there is no need for you to post anything (especially belligerent remarks that have nothing to do with this article). Jmpunit (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Jmpunit is correct, the statement is backed up by ludicrous sources, as has been raised numerous times before, and no, not rebuffed. However, getting any changes to this article, and the aspartame article, that could even be perceived as negative to aspartame seems strangely difficult. The points tend to be misunderstood, answered with straw men or not answered at all, and any changes reverted with sarcastic commentary. Comments such as "it really doesn't have to have references right", as made by Brangifer above, perhaps sum up the result well. In the case of aspartame, there was a recent discussion where editors insisted information must be sourced outside the article. Anyway, the sentence in question here, backed up by a rebuttal of a hoax, a 1987 source, and an industry study, clearly has no merit cited in the way it is and "really doesn't have the references right". This state seems acceptable to most here, but Jmpunit, if you can suggest a better alternative I will support you, but be prepared for virulent objections and wild accusations. Greenman (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Greenman, if you're going to quote me, please don't misquote me by leaving out the critical word "there", which makes a big difference. If there's anyone who believes in proper sourcing, it's me. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nice to receive a courteous reply. Currently we await the rebuttals of the concerns already addressed. If they do not come consensus will be assumed. Jmpunit (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"but be prepared for virulent objections and wild accusations." -This is courtesy? --King Öomie 13:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You're just proving my point with comments like that. Jmpunit (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You will not assume consensus, when it is plain that there is none. This ongoing approach of ignoring the discussion and then proclaiming you will act by fiat is not appropriate. The assertion that Critical Reviews in Toxicology can be dismissed as a source for toxicology holds no water. If you think that the journal should withdraw the article, convince its editors. Until then, it is a reliable source for medical claims on Wikipedia. The GAO report cannot be considered outdated since it is also the source for so many of the allegations which were clearly dismissed by the time it was published.Novangelis (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's take one at a time. About.com, much like Wikipedia, may reference other reliable sources, and be a useful starting point, but it's is not a reliable source . Any objections to dropping that reference? Greenman (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinions seem to vary as to whether about.com is reliable or not, though it points more towards the reliable than unreliable according to this discussion. I see nothing particularly unreliable about it, especially since other references we have back it up. Yobol (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

While you may object to the choice of source, you cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear. The Nancy Markle hoax email will remain a hoax. You can only object about which of the numerous sources will be selected for the lede out of the various sources cited, not the content, so that argument is hollow. Just for fun, here's another.Novangelis (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is assumed when there is no reply however this is now not the case. The Magnuson review was funded by Ajinomoto (manufacturer of the sweetener) and Magnuson herself is paid to give talks on the safety of aspartame. This reeks of conflict of interest which in itself compromises the integrity of the review. The Searle studies are another example of ethically questionable publications. On the 60 minutes report titled "How sweet is it?" former senator Howard M. Metzenbaum stated regarding the Searle studies, "According to the FDA themselves Searle in making their presentation to the FDA had willfully misrepresented the facts and had withheld some of the facts that they knew would possibly jeopardize the approval of the product." So no it is not a reliable source.

The GAO report does not examine the scientific or safety issues of aspartame and is therefore not a reliable medical source. The about.com source is similar to a wikipedia article; anyone can write for it. It is therefore not a reliable source. Thus the newly revised sentence "These claims have been examined and were later dismissed as invalid." is in need of serious editing. Jmpunit (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, the Magnuson review is peer-reviewed and supported by practically every other review in the medical literature. Attacking the review as if it is an outlier when it is only one of many that say the same thing is dubious. The GAO report and Markle review only note other parts of the controversy that have been looked at and dismissed. Please review WP:LEAD; we summarize what's in the lead, we don't rehash everything in detail. Yobol (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are many reviews that come to the same conclusion as the Magnuson review and they are independent (not reviewed by one that has a conflict of interest as is the case with Magnuson) please provide them.Jmpunit (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean besides the over 100 government agencies that say aspartame is safe for use? Have you even read this article? Yobol (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You know I have so don't be rude. Is a statement made by a government agency considered a reliable medical source? Jmpunit (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking if the FDA or the EFSA is a reliable source for whether or not a food additive is toxic? Yobol (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Engaging in speculation (WP:No original research) and potentially violating WP:Biographies of living persons is improper. Attacking one author and ignoring the fact that there were other authors on the panel is improper. Insinuations do not revoke published data. Again, this is not a Wikipedia issue. Good luck convincing the journal to withdraw the article.

Guess who the GAO reported to: Howard M. Metzenbaum. Thank you for establishing its relevance.Novangelis (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No this conflict of interest is not speculation, it's a fact. It would be the same as if there was a trial where the plaintiff was suing Ajinomoto for damages because ingestion of aspartame had caused adverse health effects and the judge presiding was a former lawyer for the corporation. This judge would be ethically obligated to remove him or her self from the case. This is not speculation but a fact. How am I potentially violating wp:biographies of living persons? Neutrality is the aim of all wikipedia articles. Since conflict of interest is oppositional to neutrality and this source is marred by conflict of interest it is an issue. I am not attacking anyone but merely pointing out that the lead author of the review is employed by a company that has interests in the sweetener.

Yes I know who the gao reported to. In the 60 minutes interview when Mike Wallace refers to the conclusion made by the gao he states, "The gao looked into all of that and they saw nothing wrong with this so called 'revolving door'." The former senator replied, "I'm not saying that there was something legally wrong. What may be legally right might be ethically questionable." One who has a basic understanding of science knows that ethics are considered very important in the discipline. -You're welcome. Jmpunit (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And your point about some of these studies being funded by industry has been brought up before and no credence has been given to them. Please stop bringing up the same points over and over, it is disruptive.Yobol (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You say that my points have no credence. Please be specific.Jmpunit (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I said your objections about supposed COI tainting studies have been given no credence, as has been stated multiple times here, and if your memory fails you, a quick review of the talk page archive can refresh your memory. This disruptive WP:IDHT behavior needs to stop. Yobol (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive and a BLP violation. The expert panel was employed by a firm which did not reveal who was funding it. Anything that happened after the panel does affect the content of the report. To imply that the science was skewed, especially when you omit the fact that the funding was anonymized, is a violation of BLP -- an accusation of corruption. Again, if you can prove it, the correct approach is to take your findings to the editorial board of the journal. If they concur and withdraw, you made the case. It is not a Wikipedia matter; the published expert opinion is considered valid. It's interesting that you take the views of one politician at face value; are you saying they never get speaking fees?Novangelis (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a biography and Magnuson is only briefly mentioned in the article. Your accusation is therefore invalid. You imply that Metzenbaum's statement is questionable because of his speaking fees yet you are willing to take Magnuson's statement at "face value" even when she is known to receive speaking fees from a company that has heavy interests in the sweetener. This is illogical.Jmpunit (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Novangelis imply any such thing, he was merely pointing out that it's inconsistent to say one can't trust people who get paid for giving talks and then citing a politician even though they're just as likely to get speaking fees. In most fields you'll only have a handful of real experts. Those are often invited to give talks, and yes, they're getting paid for that, just like you would if you were an expert on something and gave a talk. About the BLP issue: WP:BLP applies to every page on Wikipedia, so if you make allegations about someone like implying they are manipulating studies because they're getting paid to do so, that's a BLP issue everywhere on Wikipedia. You've been told (many times already) that Magnuson wasn't the only author of this review, so we're not even taking “her” statement at “face value”, we're citing a review with multiple authors that was published in a highly respectable toxicology journal - we couldn't ask for a better source. Additionally, we have reports of several government agencies who were reviewing all data available and came to a similar conclusion. Whether you like it or not: this is the mainstream opinion. Six words (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Controversies are never "mainstream opinions", hence the meaning of this article. We have a controversial sweetener where independent researchers find health issues and the industry denying that. Look at the history of products that turned out to be unhealthy. It usually starts with the governments approving them, then as the list of victims grows, the industry starts the denial process and the governments are the last ones to acknowledge it. Perhaps the scientists involved in Magnuson's review were never informed about the sponsor Ajinomoto. But Ajinomoto hired the Burdock Group to manufacture the review. Maybe we should mention the facts that this is a lobby group for the Food Industry. 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). Burdock's slogan: "To find out more about how we can help bring your product to market quickly and effectively, contact Burdock Group today for a complimentary consultation." We shouldn't write a naive article about the assumed neutrality of the industry regarding the safety of their product. Neutrality comes from independent researchers. Immortale (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, let's not do that, that's against consensus. Almost all high quality secondary reviews in the literature says it's safe (as well as the independent review of over 90 government agencies). It is not your or my role to cherry pick out specific studies to suggest otherwise, and it would be against our guidelines to do so. Yobol (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I strongly disagree about there being no mainstream opinion about aspartame, but that's beside the point. We're not citing a Burdock press release, we're citing a review that is published in a high quality scientific journal. Before publishing, this review itself was reviewed by other scientists (neither paid by Ajinomoto nor by Burdock), who seem to have found it OK, so that's what we have to assume, too. Six words (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame administered in feed, beginning prenatally through life span, induces cancers of the liver and lung in male Swiss mice

Another piece of independent research showing the carcinogenic effects of aspartame. See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajim.20896/abstract Immortale (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is is based on secondary sources and this is especially true in medical articles. The reliable secondary sources (medical literature reviews) show that aspartame is safe, and does not cause cancer at doses used as sweetener. We do not rebut secondary reviews with primary studies, especially primary studies done on animals. Please familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS Yobol (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So all research that shows aspartame is safe is reliable and all research that shows aspartame is not safe is unreliable? Is that the policy here? And it's just a coincidence that all industry-sponsored research shows no dangers with aspartame? Or as the industry mentioned it: all independent research is based on quackery. And this article is not just a medical article, it also needs to report the controversy. And what's wrong with the "American Journal of Industrial Medicine". Immortale (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources do not trump reviews. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me quote from WP:MEDRS: "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge." And this one: "Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used." And why is this article interpreted as a medicine? Aspartame is a food-additive. Could anyone point to a wikipedia rule that food additives should be interpreted as medicine? Immortale (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You are discussing medical claims. Medical claims are held to the standard, regardless of the article, just as the "biography of living persons" applies to all articles.Novangelis (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS basically covers any biomedical and health claims. That obviously applies here where there are claims being circulated that Aspartame causes people to drop dead like flies every day. (Yes, the one who started the conspiracy theory says that.) -- Brangifer (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, please point to a wiki rule about this because what you're saying might as well be your own private opinions. And Brangifer, no reliable source claims that people drop dead like flies every day because of Aspartame. Please keep out the ridicule. Immortale (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Where did I say that a RS claims people drop dead? I was addressing what ordinary people who believe the conspiracy theories against aspartame are told by B.M. and why they end up at this article. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that inferring or suggesting aspartame causes cancer, as you seem to be advocating, isn't a medical claim?Yobol (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:MEDRS which would keep us from mentioning the research. u n☯mi 19:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "wiki rule" would be WP:MEDRS. Its lead reads:
Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. (IOW: it applies to all biomedical/health claims, as Brangifer said). It also tells us we have to respect secondary sources, i.e. reviews (= what Dbrodbeck said). --Six words (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that we write in wikipedias voice that aspartame causes cancer, what is being suggested is that we mention what specific studies have concluded. u n☯mi 19:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Or, we could stick to what the reviews say. I guess we could do an exhaustive literature search and mention every paper published in the area. It seems better, and in line with policy, to stick with the secondary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned about recentism here, as is often the case with recently published primary studies. The phrase No carcinogenic effects were observed in female mice in the abstract makes me especially leery of citing this paper without confirmation from the rest of the research community that this is an interesting and relevant result.

As for WP:MEDRS, it obviously applies to most of this article. The exception, I would say, would be in covering what partisans consider important. If someone comes out with an influential book citing this research, I would not have a problem citing it in that context. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This is not only recent primary research, it's from the same people behind the debunked Ramazzini studies.

See also this commentary on this newest production from them: Study flawed linking aspartame to cancer, carcinogenicity protocol not followed -- Brangifer (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not refer to www.aspartame.org as it is a PR website owned by "The Calorie Control Council", ("representing the low-calorie food and beverage industry"). It's so full of false statements and plain lies, that no researcher takes this seriously. It makes me wonder about the COI of people here, when they are so faithful towards the food industry. The Ramazinni Institute, a very prestigious and highly esteemed research center is being doubted while a industry PR website is being trusted. Apparently Wikipedia is not about truth, but don't make it that obvious. Immortale (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Assuming people that disagree with you are industry shills is hardly assuming good faith. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How long am I supposed to assume good faith? This here is going on for several years now. Immortale (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's the policy here. If you can't do that, then leave and don't come back. You could just as well be an editor paid by the sugar industry and the diabetes industry, since your efforts help them. (Follow the money...) How's that for a COI to have hanging over your head? What if we constantly said that about you, without an ounce of proof, just as you do to us? Do you like it when I say that? How do you think the rest of us feel when you imply that we are somehow in league with or supporting the aspartame industry? That's nonsense. I have no special liking for the stuff and avoid it, preferring a little bit of sugar in my coffee. My editing here is guided by our policies. Get used to it and stop your assumptions of bad faith and innuendos. We've been hearing this from you for far too long. It's about time you stop it or be stopped. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can understand Immortales frustration - using a website that I think it is fair to say represents vested interests to counter a study published in a peer reviewed journal is not really something that would normally be attempted. u n☯mi 09:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That study is contradicted by multiple reviews and independent evaluation by over 100 governmental agencies. To portray this as independent researcher vs. corporate interest is a basic misunderstanding of how science works and how we are supposed to build a serious encyclopedia. We use secondary sources (reviews) precisely because we should not cherry pick one out of hundreds of studies that have been done. If you find another review, please feel free to add it to the article, but let's not waste everyone's time or insult anyone's intelligence to suggest one study in mice is somehow going to overturn the consensus that aspartame is safe in humans, ok? Yobol (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, you seem to be intimating that I wish to use it to dramatically change the narrative of our article, indeed I do not, but to me it seems that the research has been undertaken in light of the controversy and indeed contributes to it. To argue that we should not cover the elements of the controversy strikes me as working against the task we are charged with. I am not sure what you mean with: "To portray this as independent researcher vs. corporate interest is a basic misunderstanding of how science works". Please remain calm ;) u n☯mi 21:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am calm, thank you. You seem to not understand that including every single study in this article may place undue weight on each study with respect to its prominence in the medical literature and that we need to rely on secondary sources (i.e. review articles) to tell us which journal articles/concepts have enough prominence to mention here. This is why the Ramazzini studies have such prominence in this WP article; they are prominently mentioned in multiple secondary sources. This is why we rely on secondary sources. Please respect this. Yobol (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Unomi, you and Immortale have been in trouble before (even to the point of sockpuppet accusations) because of your nearly identical POV, but that's not any reason to block or ban either of you. Sharing a POV isn't wrong, but it would be more helpful if you would use your obviously superior (to Immortale's) intelligence to help Immortale see they are barking up the wrong tree with their approach here. Help them follow policy. Don't back them up by using fallacious arguments. Showing sympathy to such people only encourages them and it implicates you in their disruptiveness. You then get tarred and feathered because of guilt by association. Sure, it's not fair, but that's life, so I suggest you distance yourself from Immortale and side with Wikipedia's policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when I first started on wikipedia there were editors, you included as I remember, who tried to get me banned, I am not quite sure how that is germane to the current discussion, as I remember the result of that was that the WP:OWN issues were, at least temporarily, resolved and GAO-HR87 was no longer blacklisted from the article. I find it somewhat disappointing that you employ language and themes which could well be interpreted as bullying attempts, both towards me and Immortale. I would suggest that you stop acting in a manner which could be construed as such and you discuss the matter civilly, as a long term editor I think that it would behoove you to set a better example for newer editors, it would be a shame if people got the impression that you were enabling poor behavior. I think that all parties should strive to remain calm, and stick to what has actually been said rather than argue all sorts of imagined POVs and motivations. u n☯mi 21:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that instead of encouraging Immortale, IOW "enabling poor behavior", you should be encouraging them to follow our policies, especially NPA and AGF. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

My appeal above: "I think that all parties should strive to remain calm, and stick to what has actually been said rather than argue all sorts of imagined POVs and motivations." covers Immortale as well, I don't know what you mean by 'encouraging Immortale', your use of CCC.org to discredit the study and the Ramazzini foundation was clearly ill considered. u n☯mi 11:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment above implies I would use the link in the article. Of course not. I only provided it as a source which debunks that research and shows that the Ramazzini foundation isn't so good as supporters of the aspartame hoax would believe. It's really lousy. They need to learn how science works, do quality control, and allow other scientists to examine their work. They remind me of the shoddy work done by the homeopathetic "researcher" (now dead) Jacques Benveniste, who pushed his water memory nonsense using shoddy research. At least he finally allowed his lab to be examined and things weren't done properly there, either. Immortale's reaction to that source seemed to indicate that they didn't even bother to read it. Too bad, because they make some good points. Ramazzini and Sofretti are scientifically unreliable. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the problem though, it does not debunk anything, it should not even be used in the talkpage discussion, and certainly not be sought to be used to discredit a journal article, I find it entirely understandable why doing so would be met with incredulity. All that link contains are a loose collection of claims, the veracity or impact on the final study they are neither an RS for or understood to be knowledgeable of, it is an unsigned, unattributed web page on a site that is understood to "support the availability of Aspartame"[3]. I think you should consider your words and sources more carefully as you seem to be skirting the line of a WP:BLPTALK violation. u n☯mi 21:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We are discussing the use of a recent and unduplicated primary study by Ramazzini. That's very much on topic for this page. That there are objections to using that source is very germane, and our exchange (including various unpleasantries) has been in that context. That's unfortunate, and I'll try to stay more focused. Will you please help Immortale to do the same and not attack other editors? We're getting tired of it. We are no more representatives for Monsanto and aspartame than Immortale and you are for the sugar and diabetes industries. Baseless COI accusations by Immortale don't belong here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bringing the discussion back to the topic at hand (whether the addition of this particular study would improve this article) ...

Unomi, I think that the problem lies with to me it seems that... On controversial articles, we need to be especially careful to cover the controversy without engaging in it ourselves. I think that, at this point, we seem to have a consensus that we should adopt a "wait and see" attitude with respect to this potential source. Yes? - 2/0 (cont.) 23:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be careful about how we present material, failing to do so would indeed make us fail to cover it adequately rather than taking part of the conflict. As I state in the sentence you quote: "but to me it seems that the research has been undertaken in light of the controversy and indeed contributes to it. To argue that we should not cover the elements of the controversy strikes me as working against the task we are charged with." The Ramazinni institute and Soffritti, as well as other research bodies, continue to publish research that are pertinent to the topic at hand, but we have to be careful about how we present this in the article. u n☯mi 11:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Brangifer, you're evasive and are not discussing facts. This isn't about me. It's about the controversy. And we need to have independent sources and recognize that the industry has defended their interests with all means to protect their unhealthy product. If you have accusations because the source I quote has financial ties with the sugar industry, please mention them, but we're not writing about sugar here. That you also mention both Unomi and I have had accusations thrown at us in the past, is inappropriate in this discussion and as you know we were fully cleared from any of the accusations and if I remember well, you and your buddies were almost banned because of continuous bullying us anyway. I follow wikipedia guidelines, if you think I'm not, follow the necessary procedure. I haven't added anything in the article that I haven't discussed here. What are you actually suggesting? That critics are not welcome here in the talk page/ article and you want everyone to agree with your POV? And we have mentioned many times that www.aspartame.org is an industry PR site. I'm supposed to keep good faith while you keep mentioning it over and over again? The Ramazzini Institute is a collaboration of the Collegium Ramazzini, an international academy of more than 180 members from 32 countries, experts in the field of occupational diseases and environmental medicine. Hardly anything to compare with Jacques Benveniste (who has nothing to do with this article). We'll wait and see... Immortale (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Note to editors trying to edit in some balance: when I have come across trenchant opposition, on other wp articles, to the inclusion of material that in all fairness should be there, the cause has turned out to be (I later found out through private communications) that legal threats had been made to the foundation. I'm not saying that this is definitely the case here, but I note the fierce opposition to any edits that would balance this article, and I note that The Independent has printed a legal warning on it's aspartame articles to the effect that: "LEGAL NOTE: Please do not publish articles about the alleged dangers of aspartame without contacting the legal department and the aspartame information website " [4] [5] [6] etc. So I submit to my fellow editors that trying to edit this article may be a complete waste of your time. TickleMeister (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Or, we could follow policy and assume good faith.. I would wager none of us here has anything to do with the wiki foundation (I assume that is what you are referring to). That that is in the Independent is quite independent of us here. In fact, it is irrelevant. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

These are from 1993, 1994, and 1996. One is even cited by BM (promoter of the original hoax email). Pretty irrelevant now! That sounds very bizarre considering the most strident conspiracy theorists write very openly about it, with some pretty outrageous claims that are very libelous (except one can't libel an institution or company), and they aren't threatened with lawsuits. I've never heard of this, even from them, and I've exchanged dozens (hundreds?) of emails with them. Whatever the case, it has no effect on us. Wikipedia is uncensored and we just follow policy, publishing uncensored information from RS in a well-documented and encyclopedic manner. Anyone threatening Wikipedia or its editors with lawsuits usually gets blocked immediately. Any website which outs or threatens Wikipedia editors is placed on its blacklist. All editors should be able to edit without fear. Just follow policy and all is well. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in regular receipt of legal threats. That is a fact. TickleMeister (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Duh?! Of course. Nothing new there, but we weren't discussing that now were we? We were discussing articles in a British newspaper from 1993, 1994, and 1996, where there was some interesting wording, but no evidence that a legal threat existed. It's old and it doesn't relate to us at all. Your attempt to discourage editors from editing this article is very misguided ("So I submit to my fellow editors that trying to edit this article may be a complete waste of your time.").

If there is anything current we should know, then tell us, otherwise that old stuff is irrelevant information. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Open mind

I think we should keep an open mind on all possibilities. To that end I posted a web page on aspartame experiences at http://www.aspartametestimonials.com/. Also perhaps someone can explain to me how experiments with rodents can ever approximate a 20 or 30 human year exposure. Arydberg (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look up confounding and anecdotal evidence. Also consider (1) why these people would even get the idea that aspartame might cause their problems and consider (2) who might have gotten them to think in that manner. I know you have previously stated that you think these are "testimonials". Call them what you will, but they aren't usable as "evidence" in a scientific sense, and in fact can be worse than useless because they can be very misleading considering the inspiration for them doing this in the first place. I'm not referring to you but to the prime mover and main activist on the internet, IOW the initial spreader of the hoax email. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotes often refer to the exception, rather than the rule: "Anecdotes are useless precisely because they may point to idiosyncratic responses." Pediatric Allergy & Immunology, 1999, Nov;10(4) 226-234 Even when many anecdotes are collected to prove a point, "The plural of anecdote is not data." Roger Brinner -- Brangifer (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please answer my question. "Also perhaps someone can explain to me how experiments with rodents can ever approximate a 20 or 30 human year exposure." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place. This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Wikipedia has a WP:Reference desk where questions from the public can be asked. Try there. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Your use of the term anecdotal is misleading. It implies these are third and forth hand stores when in fact they are personal experiences. Also this is an article about a controversy all you do is present one side.Arydberg (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

a single story is an anecdote. People think all kinds of things, it does not make their thoughts useful at all. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I would challenge you to take it to a noticeboard, but since you already have and were soundly rebuffed, any protracted efforts to re-argue your case here will be treated as disruptive. Trying to characterize a classic example of anecdotal evidence as anything else, by virtue of semantics, will not help your case.Novangelis (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

All I am trying to point out is that all the studies as well as the very existence of the FDA is to prevent people from becoming sick. My website lists over 100 testaments from people who have become sick from this substance. Does this count for anything? After all this page is not about aspartame but is about the aspartame controversy. Arydberg (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, these anecdotes count as nothing, these people do not know what made themselves sick. If this site is indeed yours, you are also in a conflict of interest. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you read any of the accounts? Arydberg (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. This is an article discussion page, not a soapbox. Your self-published website is of no use to the article, nor will it ever be, so simply put, enough is enough.Novangelis (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Arydberg, I'm surprised you haven't heeded some of the advice and cautions you've heard, and I'm also worried that your failure to understand our WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies will end up getting you blocked for disruption. Please stop misusing Wikipedia. This is not a blog, discussion group, free webhost, soapbox, or a place to use your website as a reference. It won't happen. If you wish to retain your rights to edit, please find some other topic and avoid confrontations with other editors. If you take the advice of more experienced editors you'll do fine.

BTW, I have read many of those accounts and many like them for many years. You're not the only one who solicits and collects them. No website which collects such reports would ever be considered a RS here. They are all the websites of conspiracy theorists and/or fringe groups and individuals. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn. You found me out. Was it the tin foil hat? Arydberg (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagging each mention of "multiple reviews" with "Which?"

While I still think it's not asking too much to wait until the end of a sentence for the references, I'd like to have some input from others regarding this. Do we need to put the refs right behind "multiple reviews" or is the current position OK?Six words (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, we need to actually state the number of reviews, or else inline attribute the statement to a source. u n☯mi 11:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit over the top, this would imply that we know exactly how many reviews are out there. I think 'multiple' is fine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see why imperfect knowledge prevents us from stating what we do believe we know. We are throwing around words like 'some', 'many', 'multiple' - I would expect that such statements are either directly attributable or based on actual knowledge of how many we are talking about, in any case they contravene the policies which are the grounds for creating templates such as {{Which?}} and {{quantify}}. u n☯mi 13:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's because English is my second language so I sometimes don't notice tiny differences in meaning, but I was under the impression that saying “multiple” was just a more elegant way of saying “more than one”, especially when the exact number (in this case at least three, presumably more) is unknown. I was also under the impression that multiple and several were interchangable. Anyway, I don't see why it is important to quantify the exact number when we have three or more refs at the end of the sentence. I know you disagree on this, so let's wait and hear what others think. Six words (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, the problem is that WP:WTA policy specifically prohibits this kind of vagueness, we can write of the ones that we know and add others later as research uncovers them, wikipedia is not finished, after all. u n☯mi 14:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

All WTA asks for is attribution so the readers can asses the sources used. Since these are at the end of the sentence, I don't think there's a problem. Six words (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Six words and Dbrodbeck; do not see that this is a violation of WP:Weasel, and requiring this level of specificity is very much over the top. "Multiple" works just fine. Likewise, the requirement for specificity of the ADI beyond "well below" - which is the wording in the source, btw - seems peculiar to me. Yobol (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: tagging a sentence with "Which?" when there are three sources inline cited at the end of the sentence seems peculiar to me as well. Yobol (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The use of vague wording in the wikipedia voice is frowned upon, if you wish we can use "well below" within a direct quote from the EFSA sponsored meeting report. The same issue exists with the parts requiring the {{quantify}} tag. In the case of the reviews, I don't think that asking for the number that we are referring to is "over the top". u n☯mi 05:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, again, please engage on talk rather than reverting tags that seem mandated by policy - the use of vague wording is inconsistent with the tone we seek to use on wikipedia. u n☯mi 13:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I and two other editors have already engaged your concerns here and found them lacking. Other editors do not seem to find the wording vague at all. Consensus appears to be against tagging, so please get it before placing them back. Yobol (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Intake from soda

I removed the paragraph about the characterization of most studies being based on soda consumption, as I'm not sure what relevance that particular fact has in the context of the other paragraphs or points raised in the review. If the reader wants to get into the details of the studies, they can read the review themselves; no need to place unnecessary details in an otherwise already large article. The information about the Netherlands was also of dubious relevance to this article and surely was an UNDUE information about one particular country. Yobol (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This was a study considered by the EFSA meeting report that we use as a reference, the section serves as explanation for why we seem to be focusing almost exclusively on diet soda, ie that most studies consider it the main source of aspartame in diets, obviously this needs to be tempered with the fact that aspartame figures in a variety of foodstuffs. u n☯mi 05:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Please engage on talk rather than reverting sourced information that explains the focus of the studies. I am fairly sure that you don't believe that aspartame does not figure in a variety of foodstuffs, I cited the Netherlands study because that is the one we have at hand and because we should tell the reader which studies we are referring to. u n☯mi 13:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit to include mention of other dietary sources. u n☯mi 13:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"several controversies"

My knowledge is that there is one controversy about aspartame. That it is unsafe and leads to illness vs that it is safe. The first sentence states that there are several. What are the others? Arydberg (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Critics allege that conflicts of interest marred the FDA's approval of aspartame
question the quality of the initial research supporting its safety
postulate that numerous health risks may be associated with aspartame Yobol (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To me it is all one controversy and all these are intertwined. Arydberg (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

history section

I would like to add this link to the history. link Arydberg (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unpublished materials in repositories do not meet the requirement as reliable sources.Novangelis (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What is your source for this. To me Harvard Law School seems like a respectable institution especially with sources included. Arydberg (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a third year paper and not published. Does not appear to meet WP:RS. Yobol (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is in fact published, it is part of an online electronic book - I agree though that we can only use it directly attributed or perhaps as an external link. u n☯mi 11:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not published, nor is it part of an "electronic book". There is no editorial process. It is merely uploaded.Novangelis (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, especially when involved in writing an encyclopedia, it can be a good idea to do just a little bit of research, see here. There it states that the editor is one Peter Barton Hutt, coauthor of a Food Law resource referenced 8 times at Regulation_of_food_and_dietary_supplements_by_the_U.S._Food_and_Drug_Administration#cite_note-text-1. If you read the intro you will also see "Harvard Law School requires the preparation of a substantial third year paper as a condition for graduation. Some students in the food and drug law course have combined their paper for the course with the third year paper, resulting in a major analysis of a subject." and "A paper in satisfaction of the third year written work requirement is marked by an asterisk (*) in front of the student’s name.", further, if you look for the paper in the ToC you will find an asterisk (*) next to Ashley Nill's paper. So, yes, the paper was published in an online book with an editor - and the paper, while not published in a peer reviewed journal, was found to meet the standards for a required paper granting the privilege to graduate from Harvard Law, by who seems to be a notable professor in the field. u n☯mi 14:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The onus is upon the person presenting the information. What was proposed was a link to a repository. If you read past the table of contents, you would also discover that the book is a compilation of papers which were uploaded as they were submitted without editorial change. The criterion for inclusion was author consent. Presented as an ebook entry, it is dubious, at best.Novangelis (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I wrote above I don't think we can use it without particular, in text, attribution if indeed at all. Nonetheless I would encourage you to read it in its entirety, should you not already have done so. u n☯mi 15:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

From that electronic book: "All papers on food and drug law that I have received from Harvard Law School students or that I will receive in the future have been or will be included for publication in this electronic book if the student consents. Many reflect original research that is extremely valuable to the field. Some are in final publishable form. Others are more in the nature of working papers" and clearly states the "editor" chose this format to avoid actually editing these papers. It is therefore essentially a self-published source, written by a 3rd year law student, which clearly fails WP:RS and WP:SPS, and should not be included, attributed or not. Yobol (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I must protest. You can throw out a paper from a 3rd year Harvard Law student that granted the privilege to graduate if you wish BUT to include references from an Industry sponsored group like # 19 ( ^ "Aspartame Information replies to the New York Times". Aspartame Information Service. 2006-02-16. ) is just not fair. Arydberg (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The article clearly states that this is a rebuttal by the producers of aspartame. What's unfair about that? --Six words (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It is disappointing that you ask. It is both self published and promotional. It is not peer reviewed. It goes against RS. From WP:RS "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional," Please remove it. Arydberg (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

From WP:RS:

Statements of opinion
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

So again I ask, what's unfair about that (other than that you don't like what they say)? --Six words (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yobol, This appears to be your article. What do you think? Arydberg (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN, WP:SARCASM --King Öomie 16:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This type of source can only be used for statements about the authors opinion. You present their allegations as facts. This is not allowed. 72.200.135.180 (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

This entire article needs to be redone. The title is the “aspartame controversy” but the subject matter describes and argues only one side of the issue.

This controversy has arisen because of large numbers of people who appear to believe that the use of aspartame has caused them bodily harm. Perhaps they are mistaken. Perhaps what they say is true. Regardless of whether they are right or not this is the controversy. This is what the article should be about.

The safety of aspartame is a true dilemma with very strong facts on both sides of the argument. It comes down to the personal testimonies of people vs repeated medical experiments. Both sides are very strong but both cannot be right.

In the end it may turn out the that the use of dogs and rodents to test for toxicity does not adequately represent the dangers inherent in the use of food additives. Or perhaps there is another explanation for this controversy.

Anyone who reviews this question is soon struck by the fanatical zeal of the industry forces that are so convinced this is a wonderful product that they will sue to prevent any disagreement. These are very powerful forces. Is it true that Wikipedia has been threatened with legal action?

I respectfully ask that this article be rewritten to truly describe this controversy. Arydberg (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome to write an alternative in your userspace. Complete rewrites are unlikely to gain acceptance, especially in contested articles, it is better to focus on specific changes and take the discussions one at a time. u n☯mi 14:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. For starters how do I add to the history section the link I discussed above. Also if it is removed is there a way I can be notified? Arydberg (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"Perhaps they are mistaken. Perhaps what they say is true." SEE WP:FRINGE: "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific, editors should be careful not to present those views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views." TFD (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Which "reliable sources" say the case against aspartame is pseudoscientific? Arydberg (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of failed verification tag

Yobol, in this edit you remove the failed verification tag, indeed you remove all tags added without engaging in policy based discussion - I would urge you to reconsider the editing style you are employing. As you can see in the source that you use, EFSAExperts - at least one study indicated that at-risk children could consume more than the ADI in, as you write, worst case scenarios. The rationale for adding it was made clear in my edit summary when I added the tag. Please focus on improving the details of the text rather than removing tags or content wholesale. u n☯mi 13:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviews can come to conclusions - in this case, "The SCF concluded in 2002 that high-level consumers, both adults and children, were unlikely to exceed the ADI of 40 mg/kg bw per day for aspartame. Consumption by subgroups such as diabetics who are likely to be high consumers of foods containing aspartame were also well below the ADI. The data on aspartame exposure since 2001 confirm the SCF conclusions of 2002 and the National Experts conclude that there are no indications that a population group could exceed the ADI for aspartame" - that go against one specific primary study being analyzed. I am using the conclusion of the reviewers who have analyzed the body of the data. This is why we use secondary sources such as reviews. We do not second guess the conclusions of the reviews by cherry picking one study they have analyzed and placing our own emphasis on it. Yobol (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Note also "High intake scenarios performed by Arcella et al. (2004), Illback et al. (2003), the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) Report (2007), and van Rooij-van den Bos et al. (2004) suggested that chronic intakes will not reach the ADI", which specifically takes Illback into consideration.Yobol (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nod, but do you see why "chronic intakes" is presumed to not reach the ADI for at-risk persons who are now children? Have also a look at the authors' response to request for further insight on the matter: "General consumption by adults and children was found to be below the ADI. One study taking the worst possible case for diabetics shows potential for the subgroup of diabetic children to exceed the ADI, but the authors state that this was for a small number and not by a high percentage (114% of ADI) and conclude that based on toxicological and pharmacokinetic data there is a safety margin even for high consuming diabetics." [7]. There is no need to mention that in the article unless you insist, but I would certainly suggest that we tone down the language a bit regarding this. u n☯mi 13:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

ADI recommendations are specifically geared toward chronic consumption so I'm not sure what your point about "chronic intake" is. I have "toned down" the wording of the worst-case scenario portion with the word "suggested" as it is used in the source. Yobol (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The point is of course that the ADI is exceeded, in that study, for those population groups, tempered by the fact that they are expected to not be in that population group indefinitely. I find it difficult that you would use that to support: "Reviews have also found that populations that are believed to be especially high consumers of aspartame such as children and diabetics are below the ADI for safe consumption, and this is suggested to be true even under very conservative worst-case scenario calculations of consumption" u n☯mi 14:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the point is that the study you are referring to is a worst case scenario study that isn't reflective of actual consumption. Your interpretation of "chronic intake" would make use of such terms in all ADI and long term exposure studies useless, which is I doubt what the authors meant. The authors state one study found this, while the others did not, and made a decision that they did not want to place significant weight on that one study. It is not our role to second guess the secondary source's conclusions. Yobol (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Your response has left me a bit confused; You may respond point by point.

What makes you think that my interpretation, as you say, of "chronic intake" is different than theirs? u n☯mi 10:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The EFSAExperts response states clearly : "One study taking the worst possible case for diabetics shows potential for the subgroup of diabetic children to exceed the ADI, but the authors state that this was for a small number and not by a high percentage (114% of ADI) and conclude that based on toxicological and pharmacokinetic data there is a safety margin even for high consuming diabetics." - Can you see why your preferred text of "Reviews have also found that populations that are believed to be especially high consumers of aspartame such as children and diabetics are below the ADI for safe consumption, and this is suggested to be true even under very conservative worst-case scenario calculations of consumption", my bolding, is not supportable in its current form? It is not me that is second guessing them, it is you that is using the source in a manner that is untenable. u n☯mi 10:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Such an interpretation of "chronic intake" would make any discussion of "chronic intake" in children useless as all kids (hopefully) grow up eventually. It is doubtful that authors would interpret the phrase "chronic intake" in children in such a way as to make a discussion of the subject moot. I note that this sidetrack has little to do with actually how to improve the article and will drop the subject unless some clear relevance makes itself clear.
The part you just quoted was based on a direct question in a side article that directly asked it about that study. I see nothing in what you just quoted that alters their conclusion, nor have the authors attempted to change it since that discussion. As such, I will take the conclusions of the authors at face value, namely, "High intake scenarios performed by Arcella et al. (2004), Illback et al. (2003), the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) Report (2007), and van Rooij-van den Bos et al. (2004) suggested that chronic intakes will not reach the ADI". Perhaps others may disagree, but I'm just paraphrasing their conclusion. Yobol (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do not disagree Yobol. Good stuff. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you are mixing together 2 different contexts in a bit of synth. Apparently in order to support that you employ cognitive dissonance to the degree that you assuming that chronic does in fact not mean what it actually means, ie long-term, often lifetime, intake. You are not paraphrasing them at all - the very conservative worst-case scenario calculations do indeed show that some children could reach 114% of ADI - this is then offset by presumptions of actual foodstuffs not reaching MPL, likely combined with the notion that members will not be in that high risk grouping indefinitely - the very reason that the term "chronic" is employed in that context. Please reread the sources and reconsider. u n☯mi 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The source and its conclusions, including the sources, were quoted above, and I paraphrased it. You have not disputed this is the conclusion of the authors or that I have in any way misquoted them. The only person engaging in synth now is yourself, in trying to undermine the conclusion of the review by citing a primary study which the reviewers already took into account. Perhaps you should look in the mirror before suggesting others of cognitive dissonance. Yobol (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to "undermine" the conclusion, I am trying to tell you that you are misrepresenting it by the text you employ - hence my request for toning it down. Again, please reread the sources and reconsider my request. u n☯mi 18:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And I disagree. I think this discussion has run its course now. The wording used in the article is a paraphrase of a conclusion in the source cited (note that Magnuson review also agrees with this source and is also cited). I don't see how it could possibly be misrepresenting it when it is a paraphrase of it.Yobol (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you truly believe that you are paraphrasing it, which is unfortunate. I accept that the two of us are unlikely to be able to reach common ground under these conditions. u n☯mi 18:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PKU

I posted the following and it was removed. Is there a way to improve it? I do not understand why it was removed.

Phenylketonuria (PKU)

Resolved

Aspartame is not allowed for people suffering from Phenylketonuria ( PKU) , a genatic disorder characterized by a deficiency in the hepatic enzyme phenylalanine hydroxylase (PAH). It’s frequency varies from 1 in 2600 to 1 in 15,000 for different countries.66 In the United States A statement must be included in foods with aspartame in them reading “ phenylketonurics: contains phenylalanine”. 67 Arydberg (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not controversial, so why would we include it in the controversy article? --Six words (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the relationship with PKU is already briefly mentioned in the phenylalanine section; any more WP:WEIGHT would be inappropriate in this article, as this is about the least controversial information about aspartame. Yobol (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not new at all and is already covered. That's why I wrote this on your talk page: "I hope you understand why your addition was reverted." If you had just asked or done some reading here you wouldn't have wasted a lot of time writing and including that content when the subject was already dealt with. It's interesting that you still protest against the use of aspartame when the very source you use above says "§ 172.804 Aspartame. The food additive aspartame may be safely used in food in accordance with good manufacturing practice as a sweetening agent and a flavor enhancer...." Note "safely used".... Like every substance, there are exceptions, and the warning for the extremely small group of people with PKU is important and we've mentioned it here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a fair question. Why do I still protest the use of aspartame? All my life I never heard of a seizure until now. My sister in law gave up smoking, took up chewing aspartame gum and wound up with a seizure. My friend got addicted to diet coke for many years. Today he has a pacemaker and is legally blind. A friend in Mexico is a heavy user of Aspartame and is going blind. A member of a flying club I belong to who drank diet soda quit the club after having a grand mal seizure. The spouse of a worker I know drinks diet soda and has a brain tumor. My view of the world is tiny. If only one of these 5 cases really is caused by aspartame there is a high probability that the scale of the problems caused by aspartame is huge. An additional point, as a pilot it scares me that if this stuff causes seizures as many people say that a airline pilot may suffer a seizure in flight. This is why I still protest. Arydberg (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's where you need to learn critical and scientific thinking and bring your anecdotal thinking into line with the evidence. The evidence is that those things are not caused by aspartame. You (and I) are getting older and we will see more and more of these things, including deaths of those near to us, not because there is actually more of it, but because that's the nature of getting older. When one works in the medical field like I do, one learns about various diseases and what causes them, and most of those things you are seeing likely have very easily diagnosed causes which their doctors have even written in their patient charts. You don't know what's written there, but you've been programmed to suspect aspartame, even though there is no scientific evidence - in spite of much research - that it causes seizures, blindness, tumors, etc. at normal doses. But one thing is certain....if someone who drinks lots of diet sodas every day, or even regular soda, and they suddenly stop, they will probably experience an improvement in their health, so it's still a good idea to cut down or stop altogether. I rarely drink sodas, diet or normal, simply because I value my health, not because of any fear of aspartame. No, I fear lots of sugar and caffeine far more. I don't want to get diabetes or frazzled nerves.

Well, we've deviated away from the purpose of this page long enough and need to get back to business per WP:TALK AND WP:NOTAFORUM. It seems that the concern about mentioning PKU is unwarranted since we do cover that subject, let's I'll mark this section as RESOLVED. Take care and I wish you well. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Some concerns raised by Arydberg

TickleMeister is absolutely correct. This entire article is supposed to be about a controversy but instead it presents one side and vilifies the other. There is simply no discussion allowed. There is no neutral point of view. This is a medical subject. It should not include promotional literature but it does. There is no peer review with advertisements? Arydberg (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Vague complaints won't get you anywhere, but specifically worded discussion will. Let's take a look at your complaint and see if there actually is something there that we can deal with. I'm going to make a serious effort to parse this and I hope I don't do it wrong. I hope you correct me if I divided it wrong:

Statement 1

Statement 1: "TickleMeister is absolutely correct. This entire article is supposed to be about a controversy but instead it presents one side and vilifies the other." Arydberg (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Response: You perceive it to be that way, but isn't that because RS actually do just that? We are required to follow the sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense! There are reams of evidence against aspartame, as you can see at the SourceWatch page on the drug. This evidence was systematically exlcuded and removed from the article here, on thoroughly egregious grounds, by a tag team of like-minded editors, including you. TickleMeister (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcewatch is not a RS. It has far worse quality control and sourcing policies than Wikipedia. I have read libelous hit pieces written there without any sources. That's not allowed here. No, you'll have to stick to RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Sourcewatch article is sourced 95% to wp standards, so your argument is null. TickleMeister (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcewatch is a wiki. Wikis aren't considered RS here. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested using the Sourcewatch article as a spource for anything, but merely as an example of all the data excluded from the WP page. TickleMeister (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement 2

Statement 2: "There is simply no discussion allowed." Arydberg (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Response: This talk page is for discussion that will forward improvement of the article. There has been lots of discussion, but too often it has been complaints without specific suggestions for improvement, so let's all try to do better. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense! Very specific issues were raised by me, but excluded with the same bogus arguments you have used above. A controversy article is supposed to have both sides of the argument FULLY AIRED. Even wp:MEDRS says that. But that has been flouted here. TickleMeister (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Both sides are indeed fully aired. Are there any arguments or conspiracy theories that have been left out? I thought they were all described in detail. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, come on, you've got to be joking. Read the Sourcewatch article. Most of it has excellent sources, fully RS. And most of it is excluded from the wp article. TickleMeister (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sourcewatch is a wiki. Wikis aren't considered RS here. Now are there any arguments or conspiracy theories that have been left out? Please name them and we can move forward. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested using the Sourcewatch article as a spource for anything, but merely as an example of all the data excluded from the WP page. TickleMeister (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What I see here is nitpicking over a minor detail in his post, not an answer to the actual question in it. I'm not running off to read the hatchet job at Sourcewatch. (This, by the way, is an example of editorializing, and doesn't represent the locus of my statement, thus it would be inappropriate to spend the entirety of your response talking about it). --King Öomie 14:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement 3

Statement 3: "There is no neutral point of view." Arydberg (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Response: What specific wording violates NPOV? Please provide exact quotes from the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is breached by information exclusion, more than anything. TickleMeister (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

“The weight of existing scientific evidence indicates that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a non-nutritive sweetener. [4]"

Not true. The official party line is that aspartame is safe. It is defined as safe by the government after some very flawed proceedings. The real problem is that it makes people sick. There are literally thousands of internet pages that attest to the medical problems due to aspartame. There is a very real possibility that aspartame is a cumulative poison. Arydberg (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please find a source for that, a secondary source, a review article, that satisfies WP:MEDRS Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Arydberg, please find RS for that. You know that anecdotes on personal websites aren't RS and do not give an accurate picture of what's really going on. Activists and scared people make those websites and they're a dime a dozen. Nearly all can be traced back to the influence of ONE person(!), so they should be counted as one, not many, and since that ONE person is deluded, they don't count as evidence of anything in a medical sense. So far there is no reliable quality research that proves that aspartame is a cumulative poison in humans. You start with the quote we use. You don't like what the RS says. That's not our problem. There is no evidence that the statement is not true. That's just your opinion which contradicts the scientific evidence, so please stop repeating it here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement 4

Statement 4: "This is a medical subject. ~~It should not include promotional literature but it does."~~ Arydberg (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Response: Medical articles, just like all other articles, are required to contain ALL information about the subject, not just medical information. Since this one is about the controversy, it will contain a large amount of information that isn't directly medical, but more political and polemical. The medical information is governed by our MEDRS guideline, while the rest is specifically NOT governed by it, but instead by our genereal RS policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a controversy article, not a medical article; or rather, a medical controversy article. You keep raising the red herring argument of RS. I have had oodles of data backed by RSes excluded from the article without good reason. TickleMeister (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the top of this page, "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follows the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. " Arydberg (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What is there about my statement that you find disagrees with our RS and MEDRS policies? A medical controversy article must contain both medical and polemical details, so both RS and MEDRS apply. That's not a red herring. That's policy. One must apply MEDRS ("high-quality medical sources") to the nitty gritty medical details, and RS to all the others. The "others" aren't covered by MEDRS, only by RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of stonewalling. TickleMeister (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement 5

Statement 5: ~~"This is a medical subject.~~ It should not include promotional literature but it does." Arydberg (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Response: What "promotional literature" is included? If any, does its inclusion violate our sourcing policies? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Some of the phrasing is blatantly presumptive and conclusionary, eg "These claims have been examined and were later dismissed as invalid". That sentence alone should be carefully re-written to point out that these are industry-funded studies. TickleMeister (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference 20 is a advertising web site. It is about as far from RS as you can get.

Reference 19 is written by employees of NutraSweet it is taken from a text where one of the editors is a employee of NutraSweet. Again very poor RS. Arydberg (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference 20 is not an advertising website. It's an official website, so regardless of its POV, its funding, or even whether it is right or wrong (unless even better RS prove it's wrong), it's considered a RS here. Read the RS policy. It is cited and attributed properly so that readers know it is from "the 'Aspartame Information Service' (a service provided by Ajinomoto, a producer of aspartame and supplier to well known food and drink makers)..." What more can we do? That's pretty upfront editing. Those who don't like aspartame obviously don't like that it points out all the errors made by Walton, but that's life. We'll just have to admit he got outed. He is the one who goofed, not the sources that expose him and not Wikipedia for reporting what the RS say. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference 19 is from a book. That means it's a RS here. It too exposes Walton's errors. There is nothing we can do about that. He is the one who goofed, not the sources that expose him and not Wikipedia for reporting what the RS say. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Statement 6

Statement 6: "There is no peer review with advertisements?" Arydberg (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Response: "Peer review with advertisements"? I don't understand. Please be specific using exact quotes from the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

When replying, please specify the number to avoid confusion. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As to 6, he's saying that ads violate MEDRS because they're not peer-reviewed. I'm aware that's moot, but hey. --King Öomie 20:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's moot for those who understand RS, but I went ahead and covered that base in no. 4 just to provide some enlightenment. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is not supposed to promote aspartame conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "promotiing conspiracy theories" and fairly airing both sides of a controversy. The very fact that there is so much discussion and unhappiness with the article, as can be seen from the enormous amount of discussion on this page (and the archives to this page), shows that the article is grossly POVed and unbalanced. TickleMeister (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's job to make you happy with the results on this subject. The scientific POV will always be rated higher than conspiracy theories and things written on fringe websites. Regardless, we have still described the POV from those types of sources, so you can't complain that we haven't covered all the bases. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I have wanted to include on the page is sourced to a conspiracy theory or a fringe website. Most of my edit were cited to sites like webmd, newspapers and published studies ... none of which stopped them from being deleted on spurious grounds like undue weight, etc. TickleMeister (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, you often wanted to use primary sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, which is allowed by MEDRS, and especially allowed in an article about a controversy. TickleMeister (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion area is a small example of what the aspartame industry is. It is a industry that has used it’s political muscle to overthrow the results of a board of inquiry and to persuade the FDA to simply defined aspartame as safe. It does not matter how many congressional inquires are held or how many monkeys die or suffer seizures. It does not matter that many researchers are against aspartame. It does not matter how many web pages are posted by outraged users of this substance. Or how bad their health problems are or how many letters they write to the FDA. Nothing matters to this industry except producing and selling aspartame while silencing any and all public discussion that dares to question the safety of aspartame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum. This is a talk page about improving the article. Implying that people here are somehow part of a conspiracy is a bit rich. The number of web pages etc is immaterial, find sources, as has been mentioned to you before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you or do you not accept that the official stance on asp. is colored by studies that are industry-funded, and that this funding may have compromised the findings? In other words, do you automatically accept exculpatory studies funded by manufacturers as wholly legitimate? Because if you do, you are sadly deluded. TickleMeister (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I am not a shill, and, I am simply following policy. Your edit summary is uncalled for. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow you. My edit summary paraphrases what I am asking, namely, are you naive enough to believe we should allow the controversy article to be wholly ruled by the conclusions of industry funded studies. Yes or no? If yes, you need to read an article in the Feb 2003 edition of Scientific American. The piece is called "Bad Medicine, Why Data from Drug Companies is hard to swallow". courtesy link It shows that drug companies (even the biggest ones) are massaging data to an unbelievable degree to get their drugs approved. This includes excluding data and misrepresenting data. It also shows that manufacturers pay the FDA $500,000 for each drug approved. The FDA is therefore approving more and more (useless and sometimes harmful) drugs, even when the studies supporting the drugs are clearly flawed and massaged. In addition, nearly ½ of all medical school faculty members who serve on boards designed to protect patients enrolled in clinical studies also serve as paid consultants to drug companies and other sectors of the biomedical industry. Read the report here. And another study a few years ago found that the principal authors of 34% of studies published in the 14 leading medical and scientific journals had financial interests in the drugs or devices they were testing. I quote: "Studies funded by the private sector tend to produce outcomes that are much more aligned with the financial interests of those sectors than studies funded by the government, etc." said Prof. Sheldon Krimsky, Tufts University, author of the upcoming book: 'Science in the Private Interest.' In the light of these facts, it behoves us as editors to be skeptical and inclusive, rather than to slavishly conform to the conclusions of the one review study in the field, which just so happens to be funded by people who profit handsomely from its conclusions. TickleMeister (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Stop bringing it up. The consensus is against coloring our evaluation or presentation of the sources due to funding. Continually bringing up topics that have been discussed before and consensus has been against you is disruptive. Drop the stick already. Yobol (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus changes, and btw who the hell are you to forbid me mentioning the most important aspect of the article? Whether you like it or not, the review study WAS industry funded, and the effect that funding had on undermining its findings was mentioned in a RS [8]. As such, the absence of this fact from the controversy article, when it is at the very heart of the controversy and can be cited to a RS, is appalling. TickleMeister (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That RFC was 6 months ago. No, overwhelming consensus like that doesn't change that fast. What you find appalling is irrelevant. Do not go against consensus, and stop bringing up subjects over and over again. It is disruptive, and needs to stop. Yobol (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I repeat, wp:consensus can change, and when sourced key information is excluded from an article because someone decides it is "pejorative" (as one of the dissenting editors stated erroneously), then it will be raised when the roster of editors here changes, as seems to be somewhat the case now. TickleMeister (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing new about any of the information you are bringing up now (the WebMD article was already brought up in that RFC), and the only editors that are "new" are Arydberg and Brangifer; two editors, no matter how they express their opinions, will not change what 13 editors already decided on 6 months ago. Drop the stick. Yobol (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not how consensus works ("13 editors decided 6 months ago, so 3 cannot decide now"). TickleMeister (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't seem to understand that you don't get to keep bringing up the same set of grievances every month or two in a disruptive fashion. Enough is enough. Short another RfC with a dramatically different result, the consensus is exactly what the last RfC said. More WP:IDHT isn't going to change it.Yobol (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have some serious wp:OWN issues here, Yobol. I suggest you noticeboard me if you think my mentioning of the fact that a RS carries a complaint about the poor quality of the review study is disruptive. Meanwhile, stop threatening me and giving me orders. TickleMeister (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm advising you on how to contribute productively here. I would prefer you to stop disrupting talk pages rather than "noticeboarding you". I don't see why it is so hard for you to abide by our behavioral guidelines. Yobol (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Disengaging from ad hom argument, and collapsing. TickleMeister (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just one more comment on the flawed decision in the RFC six or so months ago, where a decision was taken disallowing us to call the Burdock industry funded study an "industry funded study" — the mainest of mainstream press sources (Reuters) calls it exactly that, an "industry funded study" [9]. This makes the RFC decision look absurd. TickleMeister (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ticklemeister, we have discussed this all before. The scientific community has decided that aspartame is safe, and it is an approved food additive everywhere. Isolated studies have questioned the safety but they have all been challenged. While scientific consensus may change, it is our role as editors to ensure that articles reflect the current consensus. If you are unhappy with the scientific consensus then you are free to attempt to change it. But Wikipedia is not the place to do that. If you disagree with that policy, you are also free to lobby to have it changed. TFD (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have absolutely" no idea what a controversy article is supposed to do. No.Idea.At.All. TickleMeister (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course I do. We have a safe product and a movement that believes it is unsafe - hence a controversy. TFD (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha! "We have a safe product" do we? Yes, as long as we ignore the numerous independent peer-reviewed studies that raise questions. Oh, hold on, that's exactly what we've done in this article — all of those studies were ignored —actually, they were edit-warred out— because they were not review studies. Pity the only review studies are paid for by the manufacturers though. TickleMeister (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter who paid for them so long as they were accepted. If you want to change scientific consensus, then do so. Then and only then can these articles be changed to reflect your point of view. TFD (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Huffington Post article

Link here. Seems a possible source for a controversy article. TickleMeister (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A blog entry from a musician cobbled together from unreliable alt med sources? Really? Yobol (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Yobol here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

So a major news source publishes an article on the aspartame controversy, the first article in the popular media for yonks, and it's dismissed summarily? This is a controversy article, not a source for medical information. Maybe if it was written by a scientists like Bernadine Magnuson, an Ajinomoto employee, we'd snap to attention, eh? TickleMeister (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Since when does a blog post by a musician = "major news source"? Have you ever read WP:RS?Yobol (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Check out the "sources" he used to cobble that together. Sort of like some of the sources used in the Sourcewatch article. RS? No! Maybe Illuminati lizards are behind this... -- Brangifer (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Check out the comments. Sort of speaks for itself, doesn't it? Yobol (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

HP is a reliable source for statements as to the opinions of its contributors. In a CONTROVERSY article, opinions published in major news sources (HP has about 10 million uniques a month [10]) are good sources for opinions to insert into the article in order to illustrate what people feel is the meat of the controversy. Whether or not you like the sources used by the article is totally immaterial. We are not here to DECIDE what the controversy is about. We let published sources do that. We follow and document what is said. TickleMeister (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In principle what you're saying is according to policy, but it doesn't stand alone. As pointed out below criterion for inclusion of blogs also must be applied. That's why there are some blogs that are accepted as RS here. They are the equivalent of an official news column written by well-known journalists in RS websites with editorial control and factchecking. Many such websites also host forums where literally anyone can start a blog or start a forum. Those aren't considered RS. There is no quality control or fact checking on them. The example you provided is one of them and uses some of the worst sources of information imaginable. He even uses Jeff Rense, conspiracy theorist and fantast! Seriously?! No, the author of such a blog must write quality stuff using quality resources, and this one you've chosen really scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

But, since I know you won't take my word for it or accept our policies on the subject, there is another option for you.....start a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard and ask them. Seriously, you're not getting anywhere here, but maybe you can convince them. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Blog posts by musicians, no matter what website hosts them, are not WP:RS for this article. Yobol (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, put your fingers in your ears. I pointed to an article with a massive readership, on the topic of this article. That's what the controversy is all about, that's what people are saying. I suppose it's much easier for us to decide what the controversy is about ourselves, using industry funded studies as the major source, and prefixing all other arguments with adjectives like "so-called", the way you did today, and deleting the rest. TickleMeister (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion of blogs as reliable sources is not readership, but editorial control. This clearly fails.Novangelis (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It scrapes a hole in the bottom of the barrel. It's no better than any schoolboy's blog using sources written by his classmates. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"HP is a reliable source for statements as to the opinions of its contributors." I agree. How would you add this particular guy's opinion? "The majority of scientists in several relevant fields point out that there is no credible evidence for Aspartame toxicity. Guitarist Robbie Gennet disagrees, based on Googling."

Obviously I'm being facetious, but I really don't see how one can justify adding what amounts to a lay opinion without ascribing it undue weight simply by virtue of its inclusion. Blogs are reliable sources for the opinions of their authors, right? Give me 10 minutes with Wordpress and I'll go ahead and source my own opinion in the mix. Who cares if I have any kind of degree? --King Öomie 08:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is another news article this time from the New York Times... It too will be discredited. "ASPARTAME Sugar substitute marketed as NutraSweet and Equal. 1965 - Aspartame discovered. 1970 - It is found that aspartic acid, an aspartame component, produces brain lesions in test mice. 1974 - F.D.A. approves use; agrees to inquiry into sweetener's safety. 1980 - Inquiry board advises more testing; would forbid marketing. 1981 - F.D.A. overrules board; approves aspartame in dry foods. 1983 - F.D.A. approves aspartame in carbonated beverages. New studies suggest it might be serious health hazard; F.D.A. alerted. Reports of side effects, such as brain seizures, increase. 1986 - Community Nutrition Institute, a Washington consumer group, petitions F.D.A. to ban aspartame. Petition rejected. On appeal in Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. Status: Studies continuing. Aspartame replacing saccharin in diet beverages." FROM: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDF1138F933A25755C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&scp=27&sq=aspartame&st=cse&pagewanted=2 Arydberg (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is from 1987, so it's slightly outdated. I agree with Yobol, Dbrodbeck and King Öomie about the HuffPo piece - it's a blog post and as such only a reliable source for the author's opinion. I've never heard of the author - is he a specialist in food additives? --Six words (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

apology

Collapse off-topic

If you have a problem with a particular editor commenting on your talk page, take it to theirs

I got this on my talk page,

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Aspartame, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia has a policy called Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so your personal beliefs about the future are meaningless to article improvement.Novangelis (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully intend to go right out and buy 3 gallons of Diet Coke. And drink all of it. Perhaps that will cure me. Arydberg (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You believe that aspartame is a dangerous toxin and that the government, the scientific community and the chemical companies are hiding this fact. While you are entitled to your beliefs, articles about aspartame cannot reflect your opinion until it becomes generally accepted. In addition to following Wikipedia policy, you should also be aware that spreading false science about aspartame can be damaging to people, because uninformed individuals may believe the aspartame theories and avoid necessary medical treatment, believing that they are suffering from [fictitious] aspartame effects. TFD (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Misery as an external link

The film Sweet Misery is certainly a big part of this controversy, and should be both mentioned and linked in the external links section.

Movie at YouTube

But this is the "other" side of the argument, so let's see the wikilawyering to exclude it. TickleMeister (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is applicable for inclusion as an external link - as it relates directly to the controversy debate. u n☯mi 09:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been brought up three times according to the archive index- [11][12][13]. --King Öomie 15:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has previously been brought up and, imo, the arguments against it have not been compelling, I will address some of them here, please bring others to my attention if I have missed some.

An EL does not need to be notable on its own.
An EL does not need to be an RS, indeed it does not even have to be factually accurate see: "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting."
And uhm, I couldn't see other policy based arguments in the archives, correct me if I am mistaken.

u n☯mi 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Unomi, do you know if this has been brought up at WP:EL/N? If not, that's probably a logical way of pursuing DR. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

True, I don't remember that it has, I'll have a look there. u n☯mi 22:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There are probably many reasons why this link should be excluded but the most obvious is that it is a preview of a documentary that one must purchase and therefore does not conform to WP:EL. TFD (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how you read that from WP:EL, care to quote or point to the exact section that you feel supports such a contention? u n☯mi 16:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"This has been discussed before. Stop bringing it up. Continually bringing up topics that have been discussed before and consensus has been against you is disruptive. Drop the stick already." Yobol (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Would Sweet Misery be acceptable if it was available in a (or many) public library(s)? Arydberg (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

See Links normally to be avoided. TFD (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Could explain further how WP:YT disallows this? u n☯mi 18:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifically the copyright status of that particular video.Yobol (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status on a trailer? I am not following your rationale. u n☯mi 22:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it a trailer? Is it just a part of the movie that is reproduced? 10 minutes is a long time for a "trailer". Yobol (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This youtube video is an ad for a DVD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the term is Movie trailer and we link to them routinely. How about the imdb entry? u n☯mi 18:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We routinely link movie trailers on the articles for those movies. Why specifically are we linking this movie? Are there any independent secondary sources that show it has made a significant contribution to the controversy? Yobol (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We are linking to it because it relates to the article. As for "significant contribution" - perhaps, but that isn't really pertinent, there is no indication that I can see that such conditions need be met for EL. u n☯mi 22:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We don't link everything that "relates to the article." The current external links are to government websites that seem relevant. We don't link Amazon.com links to books, we don't link to every website out there about aspartame. Why is an imdb link to this movie appropriate for this section? Yobol (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep it out per WP:ELNO #1, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." #2 and 5 might apply as well. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand, do you believe that the contents of the documentary should be reflected in this article in greater detail? u n☯mi 12:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that the link doesn't belong because it's a poor resource. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

TM, please, I implore you, can you WP:AGF? Please? When people disagree with you, or when you (in this case) correctly figured people would, you accused them preemptively of wikilawyering. This is not civil at all, please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

perhaps he is just being sarcastic... I thought sarcasm was encouraged Arydberg (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM is written sarcastically (and I'm not sure why I have to point that out, unless you're not a native English speaker). Sarcasm doesn't set a tone conducive to forging consensus on controversial issues.. --King Öomie 06:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

help needed

I made an addition to the weight change and hunger section but am having trouble correctly putting in references. How do i do it. Arydberg (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What is your reference? u n☯mi 12:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the entire article & sources; Conventional wisdom says that any substance that replaces sugar must contribute to weight loss. It now appears that artifical sweeteners may contribute to weight gain[66] Weight gain may occur even without increased food intake[67]

[66] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20589192 [ 67] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21138816 Arydberg (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Read up on Template:Ref. (This does not constitute support for these particular links) --King Öomie 14:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You've done the right thing by asking here. That's what this talk page is for.

You place your text in the article at the right spot. It can be at the end of a sentence or right after the word or phrase which needs documentation. Just make sure there is no doubt about what is being referenced. The reference goes immediately after any punctuation, with no space between. If there are multiple references, there is still no space between. Here's the code: <ref>Place source here</ref>

Note the content needs to be in the right article. This content doesn't belong in this article. Don't sign entries in articles. Do that only on talk pages. If the content might be disputed, it's often best to try the talk page first. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK so is this right? Conventional wisdom says that any substance that replaces sugar must contribute to weight loss. It now appears that artifical sweeteners may contribute to weight gain[66] Weight gain may occur even without increased food intake[67].<ref>[66] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20589192</ref>

And please explain. "This content doesn't belong in this article."Content by Arydberg (talk); signature not processed because of unclosed <ref> tag.Novangelis (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that they primary sources. We would need secondary sources in order to insert these studies. Content by TFD (talk); signature not processed because of unclosed <ref> tag.Novangelis (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Arydberg, please resume using the sandbox prior to posting. You left unclosed <ref> tags on the talk page which fouled it ordinary operation. As you were shown, every <ref> has to be followed by a </ref> with the reference between the tags. In the sandbox, put "{{reflist}}" on the bottom line to see the results.Novangelis (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the botched editing I tried sandbox and things seem OK now. I do however respectfully disagree about not using the references. What can i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also could someone please point out what the 3 references listed have to do with weight gain? Arydberg (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about this section? Because the only refs here are yours. ---King Öomie 03:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the existing weight change and hunger section. References 4, 47 and 49 seem to be directed at the safety issue and not about weight change or hunger. Arydberg (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the references themselves rather than go by what they "seem"? Yobol (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern is the relevance of that whole section to the controversy. It seems more relevant for the main aspartame article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a controversy over whether it causes weight gain or not. Seems perfectly appropriate here to me. Yobol (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

And it needs to be kept in the context that it is not a property specific to aspartame, but may be a property associated with all artificial sweeteners or even all sweeteners, both natural and artificial. The first source is a review. The second source is a primary study and probably shouldn't be used.Novangelis (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ramazzini studies

I have made some tweaks to this section as it doesn't cover the subject well enough. References to the major studies should be provided. I have also divided the existing material into three paragraphs since they are logical subjects for paragraphs. Lumping everything into one paragraph is just poor practice. Now let's develop this section better. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Magnuson citation clearly talks about the Ramzzini studies (see pp 662-669). I do not have an objection of changing it to the citations of the actual studies for discussion of the first two publications, though a look through the Magnuson review notes that the findings by Soffritti are largely dose indepedent. I'm not sure we should be giving any more WP:WEIGHT to these studies. That section is already larger than the entire other "Cancer" section; I think any more coverage about them is probably undue at this point.

I'm not sure we should include of discussion of the 3rd Ramazzini study; it hasn't garnered nearly as much publicity as the first two, nor has it been reviewed by a 3rd party WP:MEDRS; obviously the Calorie Control Council doesn't count. I'd leave any discussion of this 3rd study until there is some signal that it is of significance per a 3rd party source; otherwise, it's "just another" primary study, which we should keep out of this section as much as possible, per WP:MEDRS. As you will note, I took great pains to remove primary studies from this section to be WP:MEDRS compliant. As such, I'd remove the CCC reference. Yobol (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the CCC reference, per my reasoning above. I strongly think the "safety section" should be a high quality MEDRS only zone, which this source does not qualify (which is not to say I doubt that the information is accurate from that site). Obviously, I defer to the consensus if others believes it is appropriate to use in that section. I wonder if it can be incorporated earlier in the article in the more generic "controversy" section. Yobol (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Could the entire Ramazzini section be moved up to the controversy section? It hasn't made much effect on the overall "safety" literature, I wonder if it would be better served higher in the article. Yobol (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you (you can self-revert if you wish), but you're not abiding by the MEDRS guideline. WP:MEDRS doesn't govern all content. (See third paragraph.) The CCC report doesn't deal with biomedical facts but with methodological and ethical details. Such details are explicitly exempted from MEDRS. Only RS governs them. You are unfairly raising the bar. The matter was discussed here. The Ramazzini section should deal with the MEDRS content and the controversy surrounding their reports, and that type of content is specifically exempted from MEDRS. Weight and undue can still be legitimate arguments for exclusion, but not MEDRS. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the CCC.org does not add much to the article, and if present in the article they would need to be characterized according to their nature, which would likely muddle that section even further. u n☯mi 15:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

European Journal of Oncology

While trying to locate the actual journal, I found that it's not listed at PubMed. Odd! There are some variations, but if it's one of them, then which one? Has there been a name change or is there some other explanation? I can find the first Ramazzini paper on their own website, but we need a citation from the journal itself. Please provide some links.

Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats Eur. J. Oncol., vol. 10, n. 2, pp. 107-116, 2005 Found on Ramazzini website.

What's interesting is that this first study is listed among the references in the second study (below). Many of the refererences contain PubMed links, but not this one! Why?

The full second study is available:

Life-span exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases cancer effects in rats. Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Tibaldi E, Esposti DD, Lauriola M. Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Sep;115(9):1293-7. PMID 17805418

Brangifer (talk) 17:25, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pubmed citation for first study. I believe the European Journal of Oncology is an "in-house" publication of the Ramzzini foundation, which is probably why it isn't Pubmed cited. Yobol (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the publication of the Società Italiana Tumori (Italian Cancer Society).[14] According to the 2009 Journal Citation Reports, the Eur. J. Oncol. has an impact factor that rates 157 out of 166 in the filed of oncology. It is not currently indexed in MEDLINE. Industry sources refer to Eur. J. Oncol. as the "Ramazzini Institute's own journal"[15], but I could not verify this... — Scientizzle 18:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

[16] "The first results have been published in the foundation's journal, the European Journal of Oncology, and have been peer-reviewed by seven international experts, according to the journal's editorial board." Yobol (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Earlier, I couldn't post my answer here, so I answered at Brangifer's talk, but I'll re-post the official journal homepage here: [17] [18] (seems to be the same journal, perhaps one of the pages is outdated). --Six words (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting is that the page of the Società Italiana Tumori ([19] does not mention the journal at all (at least I could not find it), but shows another publication as theirs. Knorrepoes (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"Curioser and curioser!" I wonder about Soffritti's role in all this. Was or is he the director of the Ramazzini Foundation as well as editor of this non-PubMed listed journal? Is it a false claim he makes that it's the official journal or was it true at one time, but that it's been changed? Are we dealing with an Andrew Wakefield-type situation of self-promotion, in this case misuse of a self-published journal and a personal institute? Questions.... Maybe Brian Deer should start digging here...;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)