Talk:Aspartame controversy

Aspartame is Dangerous--Originally banned by U.S. FDA

The initial description of aspartame in this website says that aspartame has been thoroughly tested and found harmless (my own paraphrase). This is not true. I have found many authentic and reputable sites that state otherwise; especially being the fact that the US FDA originally banned aspartame in the US. When Donald Rumsfeld took over, he let aspartame come through despite the 92 site effects that were found from aspartame consumption. I have posted two of my research article websites below as a reference. Even China (who I understand is the one who created aspartame, banned its use because of the bad site effects on the brain. There are almost 100 more side effects that I do not care to note here. See research for yourself and watch for it in food products. I purchased a Yoplait Light Fat Free Very cherry yogurt this past weekend not realizing it has aspartame in it. It "tastes" wonderful, but I will never buy it again. See these links: http://www.laleva.org/eng/2006/07/china_to_restrict_aspartame_production.html. and see Janet Starr Hull Creator of the Aspartame Detox Program who has much good information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.93.6 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the article, read Aspartame and also, read WP:MEDRS. this should answer your questions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Environmental health perspectives article

This edit is sourced to a primary source (a scientific study) but there are no secondary sources that establish what weight the study has been given in the scientific community, whether its findings have been duplicated or rejected, etc. I will therefore delete it and ask that the report should not be mentioned until we have adequate sources that discuss it. TFD (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The introduced study is one of the Ramazzini studies, and as we can see, it has a whole section dedicated to their group and research. Yobol (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Article semiprotected for 3 months

For obvious reasons to anyone who's followed the history ( [2],[3], [4], [5], [6] )...

The article is now semiprotected for 3 months. New editors are welcome to propose changes here for others to implement based on consensus, or to wait until you've accumulated enough new editing time to have passed the autoconfirmed threshold. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not cool. Because some guy removes stuff in one swoop, the content is gone. This will kill Wikipedia. Bottom line is that this is a page about the controversy. Information about all sides of issues are very relevant. Just because someone writes a review article does not mean its settled science. Reviews can be biased. -- Stinky Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinky pete 2011 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 5 March 2011

Please read WP:MEDRS reviews trump single studies. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I still don't like it. - Stinky Pete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinky pete 2011 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is policy is all, if you want ot make a change, try proposing it here first, and it can be discussed. There are many seasoned editors here that can help you along the way. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Negative on that. Wikipedia and Science are not compatible. Science is not dogmatic. Minorities views are acknowledged and not ignored. Sometimes the minority view is right (i have no idea in this case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stinky pete 2011 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Negative on what? That is how it works here, as you are new, you should familiarize yourself with how things work here. Oh and science is exceedingly conservative actually and likes things to be replicated, so this explains why WP:MEDRS prefers secondary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit Proposal

Quite some facts are completly missing from both articles about Aspartam and the alleged controvery on Wikipedia.

Please take into consideration, below facts were broadcasted on german national television, ARD at http://www.ard.de/ratgeber/essen-trinken/gift-in-lebensmitteln/-/id=13368/nid=13368/did=1842652/25flqe/index.html

January 1981-- Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.

January 10, 1977-- The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney's office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and "concealing material facts and making false statements" in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA's history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.

Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.

Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.

July 15, 1981-- In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its' proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.

espri7 (talk) 1:18, 19 March 2011 (GMT+1)

Certainly if this information is accurate and notable, it would appear in an English source, right (being about the approval of aspartame in the US, and all...) Yobol (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We have discussed this all before. However I think that the article should mention that Rumsfeld is part of this right-wing conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to be a re-occurring theme. Do we have a reliable secondary source that provides an appropriate context? Yobol (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: If we were to use that documentary as source, it would have to say those things (but it doesn't). While Rumsfeld is mentioned as a major figure in the approval of aspartame, it doesn't cite Rumsfeld saying he will use his political power. Hull's name isn't mentioned, and the interviewed expert doesn't say that the FDA expert opinion was 50/50; It doesn't name those who were against aspartame; the last point is the only thing one could, interpreting the source very permissively, actually use the source for. They're interviewing the president of “Citoyens pour la Santé” (Citizens for Health) - the voiceover is so loud that I can't understand what the expert's original answer is, but its German interpretation is
“Einmal im Amt wischte der neue Bevollmächtigte die Arbeit der FDA Wissenschaftler vom Tisch und erklärte, dass Aspartam vollkommen sicher sei.” translation: Once he was in office, this new commissioner brushed aside the FDA scientist's work and declared that aspartame was completely safe. (last part is without voiceover, he originally says “... and then said NutraSweet is safe”).
In other words: none of the details that were suggest to include based on this documentation are acutally in it. Yes, the film makes it look like practially all of our food is a poisonous cocktail (I guess that's why ARD felt they had to side it with an interview of an independent toxicologist Interview (German)), but there's no way we can include the proposed wording based on the documentary. --Six words (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of references to Rumsfeld and the approval process in Empty pleasures, which is a reliable source.[7] TFD (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

weight gain

Since the caloric contribution of aspartame is negligible, it has been used as a means for weight loss. Although some individual studies have suggested that aspartame contributes to weight gain and obesity as well as increases hunger,[7] comprehensive reviews on this subject have concluded there is little to no data to support the assertion that aspartame adversely affects hunger or obesity.[7][50][52]

The conclusion above is not supported by the references. What am I missing?

Quione (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be specific, which parts are not supported by which references? Yobol (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The part that says comprehensive reviews...have concluded there is no data to support the assertion that aspartame affects...obesity. There is nothing in reference 7 or 50 or 52 that deals with obesity. Quione (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, you are mistaken. Ref 7 speaks to obesity in section 6.7.2 on page 688 and section 6.9.2.6 on page 697, ref 50 speaks to obesity on page 24, and ref 52 speaks to obesity starting on page S83. Have you read the sources in questions? Yobol (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's not true, they definitely have sections about weight gain/obesity. If I can find some time I'll post a few quotes later. --Six words (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As promised, some quotes from the references used in the article:

In summary, there is no evidence to support an association between consumption of aspartame and the development of obesity. On the contrary, when used in multidisciplinary weight control programs, aspartame may actually aid in long-term control of body weight.

— Magnuson et al., Critical Reviews in Toxicology (ref #7)

The National Experts note that there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake.

— efsa-Report, (ref #50)

The few studies that indicated an increased motivation to eat following the consumption of aspartame were not replicated by a number of other studies. Further, inpatient investigations of nondieting obese and normal weight individuals have demonstrated incomplete caloric compensation after the covert replacement of sucrose with aspartame.

— Butchko et al., Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (ref #52)

I think the part you're objecting to is a good paraphrase of these sources. --Six words (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Both references 7 and 52 require payments to view them. I did not think you can use references that are not available to the general public. Are you willing to pay the $85 that is required? Quione (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. Some editors (such as myself) have access to these references through library affiliation. Most libraries will be able to get copies for you through interlibrary loans if they don't have access to them as well. Yobol (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and general note for the future: before you claim that particular information is "not supported by the references" as you did here, it would be best to actually read the references to see if they actually do or not first; claiming that they "are not supported" seems to imply you already checked the sources, which you seem to have not done. Yobol (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a policy that only sources available free on-line are acceptable. TFD (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Freely-accessible sources are preferable, since they allow many other wikipedians to use the source (and to verify). However, it's not compulsory for a source to be freely available online (such a policy would severly limit, and bias, the encyclopædia). I can access pretty much any journal/paper which is behind a paywall, in case Yobol needs a hand... bobrayner (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Some sources, such as recent scholarship may only be available through paid subscription. Other sources may only be available through libraries. Even free on-line sources such as Google books may provide only limited access. TFD (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think some clarification is necessary: I agree that freely accessible sources for everyone would be nice; however, in no way should we imply that free sources are any more reliable or usable than those requiring subscription (indeed, that is the point of WP:PAYWALL). Yobol (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

European Parliament calls for warning label

From the trade publication Food Navigator. This should probably be integrated in the article on the section about regulatory and political development.

Environment MEPs approve proposal on aspartame pregnancy warning

The European Parliament’s Environment committee is pushing for a warning label on products containing aspartame stating that they may not be suitable for pregnant women – despite opinions from EFSA and the French food safety ANSES that scientific evidence does not warrant a reconsideration of the sweetener’s safety. [8] MaxPont (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)