Talk:Aspartame controversy

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)

You State: 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 use of the term "may" makes this statement pure speculation.

The National Experts note that there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake. —efsa-Report, (ref #50) You are totally assuming that weight gain and food intake are linked. While it may be true in most cases the fact that aspartame is a neurotoxin could sway results. You should not assume this without proof.

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) What are the studies that "indicate and increased motivation to eat"?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quione (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read the sources if you have specific questions about them. We summarize the conclusion of the peer-reviewed secondary literature, not partake in idle speculation about what you think about them. The conclusion in our article clearly matches the conclusions of these reviews, and unless you find WP:MEDRS compliant reviews that state otherwise, I think we're done here. Yobol (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Quione, it's not me who states anything and it's not Wikipedians who assume things, those are verbatim quotes from the sources, reprinted here so you can see we're not misstating them - if you need more than that, you'll have to look into the sources for yourself. --Six words (talk) 20:30, 7 May 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)

It should be integrated if and when the actual parliament passes such a requirement for a warning label (it appears from that source only a committee is supporting it now and so a warning label isn't actually required now) - with the appropriate caveats about how it is not supported by the scientific literature. Yobol (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems relevant. But it is preferable to wait until stories have received attention in more than one source and are more than a few days old, per WP:NOTNEWS. It would be helpful to have more complete details. TFD (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On scientific review. Also, scientific error in "Government action and voluntary withdrawals" section.

I understand this article is highly controversial. I am not sure myself if aspartame could be harmful: no longer term studies exist. I personally assume that it is not harmful. I acknowledge this as taking a risk, nonetheless.

To make a quick comment on the discussions below, research reviews can differ between author and cannot be taken as an absolutely correct answer. However, for sake of NPOV and writing articles with limited expertise on each subject, I think research reviews over individual studies can be a reasonable standard. Keep in mind that sometimes the conclusions of research reviews can be addressed in individual studies, however. Whether this is true or not requires careful examination of the research. It is not true that any given individual study will address the problems. It should also be noted that the research published after a review should be examined, that reviews may not include every study, and that reviews may also have flawed methodology.

On to the "Government action and voluntary withdrawals" section. It is stated that "A significant proportion of volunteers participating in the study are those who have claimed to experience side-effects. The results will therefore have added significance." While it is true that such a study may illuminate possible causes of side effects in those whom are reporting them, "added significance" could suggest that the proportion of the population that suffers side effects is any less significant. Therefore, I propose a change of wording. It should simply say that "Therefore, the results will better allow us to understand possible causes of side effects in those whom are reporting them." Either that, or the evaluative statement should be removed entirely.

If this should be split into two new sections, I would appreciate that correction. Nikurasu (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The source does not say that and therefore I will remove this speculation. Aspartame is the most studied food additive in history and no research which could be replicated has indicated harmful effects. Nonetheless a section of the public continues to press the case against the product, but that is the nature of irrational belief systems. TFD (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your edit to the article, but you're pushing your luck here, saying "no research which could be replicated has indicated harmful effects" - which is untrue, I.e. the harmful effects to suffers of PKU, to say the least! Also, it's uncivil and belittling to label a section of editors as having irrational belief systems, we are all trying to improve the article (regardless of belief). КĐ^♥ 14:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

PKU sufferers are unable to metabolize phenylalanine, which is found in meat, dairy and nuts. They are advised to avoid aspartame in order to limit their overall exposure. I am not attacking editors merely pointing out the irrationality of the anti-aspartame movement. TFD (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is insofar no evidence indicating injury by aspartame. Again, to the best of my knowledge, longer-term studies have not been performed. It would also be specious to claim that we know what the long term effects may or may not be. I do not expect negative effects given the short term data, but it is possible. Similar things have been true before. Nikurasu (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We cannot and should not predict the future. No one has died from a Ferrari falling out of an airplane and crashing into a house. But I can't say it won't happen, so because of that, we should put a comment in the Ferrari article that you may die from one falling out of a plane. There's a logical fallacy there, that's basically the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." There is NO evidence that aspartame is harmful none. It is possible, some day, in some clinical trial, we will discover some harm, but after this much testing, the probability is vanishingly small. Of course, in science, there is no black and white, just conclusions supported by evidence. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant conclusion fallacy on multiple levels. It is plausible that any untested substance could be poisonous. It is unlikely that a Ferrari will fall out of an airplane. Also, again, given an evident differentiation between the short-term and long-term effects of other substances, it would not be reasonable to state short-term research alone as so conclusive about the long-term. The possibility is hardly vanishingly small (though, there is also nothing in particular that makes it likely). If you are thinking I am making an argument for aspartame skepticism, keep in mind, it is also possible that aspartame has long term positive benefits that have not been discovered. That is the original hypothesis, in fact, and the generating drive for the marketing of aspartame: to replace sugar, which is known to be a harmful substance in large enough quantities. There is also nothing crystal-ball-like about my statement. It is a common way in some sciences of stating that something is untested. I already stated my personal doubt that it is harmful. Perhaps that statement was in lieu of a proper articulation of my thoughts. It is, in fact, more doubtful that it is harmful long-term. The short-term studies show no effects. Nikurasu (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually have to add something, however. From what I have seen of the research and the summaries here, it is not harmful. Regardless, I have not read the research in depth to the degree that is necessary to truly gauge the validity of each side of the argument. I am not stating this in support of aspartame skepticism. If anything, the research most apparently leans in the other direction. I have to state the uncertainty of my judgment, nonetheless. Nikurasu (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody gives a crap about what you think or what you conclude or what you believe. Here on Wikipedia, it is what is verifiable. If you think you're smarter than the researchers out there, and by your comments you assume that you are, then I would suggest that you publish some research in the field, and we will consider including it in this article. I look forward to reading your peer reviewed publications.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's another red herring (though, given how I wrote, one I pretty much was setting you up for, even if I didn't mean to). There are sources in the research that substantiate what I said. I know that Wikipedia policy only allows writing from references. I was not going to violate that rule. I also firmly believe that Wikipedia content does have some root in the editor's judgments. No editor here has escaped acknowledging this, even if it is implicit for some. I wanted to make sure the judgments were coming from as evenhanded and scientific standpoint as possible. I wanted to reduce the banter and make progress. You are right, though. I should have included the references and spoken more in Wikipedia policy terms. Nikurasu (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can provide sources that should be included in the article, this conversation will be unproductive. TFD (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I will include sources. I don't think that's true, though. My point is that if we are going to make things fit Wikipedia policy, why don't we do so from an unbiased point of view rather than trying to skew Wikipedia policy to fit a certain viewpoint? Is there anything terribly wrong with trying to bring the discussion away from one of that nature? The purpose of many of the rules in the first place is to ensure accuracy. Nikurasu (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

We fit the 'viewpoint' of the sources. The stuff is safe. Unless you can find sources that are of a very high quality, that contradict this, this discussion will continue to be, at best, an academic one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The OP obviously has an opinion. He has yet to provide on reliable source supporting that opinion. Nor any substantive suggestions for changes. Given those two points, I vote this thread to be a soapbox, and it's time to move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So much for Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. I take more than a day or so in finding the studies I had read, so you assume I am posting based on opinion? Or, is the fact that I said I had not read everything what made you think that? As Dbrodbeck said, when I post the sources (if, from his perspective), this will be an academic discussion rather than a Wikipedia editing one. It's also clearly a way to try to shut me down to say I offered no good suggestions. It's not a huge jump to go from "there may be contradictory research reviews" to "more research reviews should be searched for and added." The top 3 Google results for "aspartame research review" are not enough. Perhaps I have even given myself too little credit. I believe many of the criticisms I offered are valid and actionable. I would also again like to point out that, as far as I know, the research does indicate that aspartame is safe. All research is limited, however. If I were able to get a full text even of the scientific studies cited on this page, it is likely that the limitations would be mentioned. Regardless, I would appreciate no hostile, snide remarks this time, or I won't try to help out at all. I came here only looking to improve the article. Instead, I've gotten obstructionism and negative assumptions about my character, neither of which is condoned in Wikipedia policy. Nikurasu (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources you wish to present? TFD (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I do. It requires physically going to the library in some cases, however. I need a week or two. Nikurasu (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You should do your research before you comment. TFD (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You should at least be open to the view that aspartame might be harmful. see,http://ps.columbia.edu/news/diet-soda-deadly same study Government view

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=649733%20Arydberg (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Find me a reliable secondary source, that meets WP:MEDRS and we can talk. (This might sound familiar). I need not be very open to it any more, the stuff has been tested quite a bit. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit I was tickled when I went to your talkpage, Arydberg, and saw your 3-month topic ban posted "16 February 2011, Wednesday (3 months, 1 day ago)". This study has been brought up before. The kicker is in the second article- "Why the link? "It's unknown at this point," she said." Until you find a reliable secondary source stating that this study is linked to aspartame (as opposed to, I dunno, Yellow Dye #5), that link is OR. --King Öomie 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is frustrating. All of the reliable evidence, that is, studies done so well that they are published in peer reviewed journals, show no effects. Basic biochemistry tells us it's two amino acids that have no effect, except for those with a genetic disease that can metabolize those amino acids. This is just like monosodium glutamate which is a simple salt of an amino acid, which can have no physiological effect after consuming. If the clinical science says there's no effect AND there is no imaginable pathway for the compounds to have an effect, then the only controversy is an invented one. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Haven't you heard? Amino acids are CHEMICALS, which humans just plain don't understand. Only NATURAL processes can make them safely. When HUMANS put them together, we use bleach and sterno as bonding agents. --King Öomie 17:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, why didn't you say that before??? Now I have to cut out my 6 kilograms (13 lb) daily aspartame habit. Do you think we can find a reliable source on the internet to support that statement? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Orange, The articles are in response to your statement "There is NO evidence that aspartame is harmful none" Also where is the peer review for the article reference #15. I am sorry but this is a controversy with a large number of people claiming to have been harmed by aspartame That you choose to ignore them is your choice but they still do exist. Arydberg (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Large number of people claim that the world is 6000 years old, that MSG is harmful, that vaccines cause autism, and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Your commentary that I ignore these "claims" is correct, because my opinion, nor yours, has any relevance. Where are the reliable sources? Where??? And reliable means peer reviewed, repeated, accepted, and repeated again. So, your personal attack...ignored, as I ignore most things like that. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable. You ignored my suggestions, claimed I had none, and then collapsed the discussion. On the very page you cited (Wikipedia:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable), it is stated: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others." I understand that you are escalating in order to circumvent discussion. I find your argument just above to be relatively convincing, but this article still needs more sources (especially non-government scientific research reviews). As I said, I will also be going to the library to find some of the sources I had read. You can't consider the discussion closed after a few days. All scientific sources also state limitations. This article does not. I have seen many articles on Wikipedia that do. I understand the need to exclude unreliable sources, but that does not mean you make a case for aspartame safety that exceeds the research. That said, this discussion has become full of forum-like posts. Should it stay collapsed? I was not sure what to do, but I reopened this for now. We should come to a consensus before such action is taken. I understand that you reserve that right if you are an admin. Whether or not you are is not clear to me from your user page. Regardless, I would still ask that you be somewhat more patient, and ask for more explanation if you really do not understand what I am trying to say. That seems to be the case. Nikurasu (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We've been going at this for a week. You have yet to propose anything, bring any citations, or state anything but your opinion, which, as I have said, means nothing on Wikipedia. I think this thread should be deleted as a soapbox, and we move on. You've wasted our time. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk•Contributions} 03:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not easy to get up motivation to go to the library for Wikipedia, and you aren't helping. If you don't understand, stop now. It's not my fault that you are wasting your time by not listening to me. Though, maybe we're just having a major misunderstanding (one half of us at this point maybe). At least, read User_talk:Nikurasu#Aspartame_Controversy for more clarification. Nikurasu (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To add a reply to TFD, I have done the research in the past, but did not keep a record. Perhaps I should have had it on hand or found it again before I commented. Nikurasu (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Bring some sources, without a solid source back suggestion, this is a waste of time and space, and should be collapsed . Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am going to have to disagree. The sources are evidently sparse even if I do not provide more, for example. By Wikipedia rules, I should not have to argue for you what I have already said just because you are misrepresenting it. I will not any longer. Please stop. If the incivility continues, I will have to leave. This is far too unpleasant. Perhaps it is a mutual misunderstanding. however. Nikurasu (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing you have said refers to any sources or explains specific changes you want made to the article. I notice that you are a pyschology student, and that may be a good place for you to look for an explanation of the anti-aspartame movement. TFD (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I could elaborate a bit more if it is unclear to the other editors what I am suggesting. I suppose without some background in science that should be expected. I appreciate the civil reply. Nikurasu (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I await sources, and, suggestions, oh, and I have quite a fine background in science (and, I make a killer martini), thank you. However, backgrounds are immaterial, we have policies here, and one is that you need sources to back up what you say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think asking you to re-examine current articles for mentioned research limitations is outside of your scope. I could see why you would want me to point out specific articles, however. I have also agreed that for some of my criticisms it would be helpful to post sources. At least, I would be sharing in the work then. I don't understand the hardline given this.Nikurasu (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don’t you try www.dorway.com here are three articles from dorway http://www.dorway.com/92symptomsfotocopy.html

http://www.dorway.com/bresslercomplete.pdfhttp://www.dorway.com/raoreport.pdf Arydberg (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think I remember that these 'articles' from an anti aspartame site were determined not to be reliable sources. Indeed, I am pretty sure we had a very long discussion about that site. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to remind Arydberg that the dorway website is not a reliable source, not to mention a reliable source for medical claims, as has been discussed numerous times. If anyone wants to make changes, make specific recommendations of wording changes and note which sources are being used as sources for that change. Hand-waving about changes before you do the actual research and have sources to discuss is not what this page is for. Yobol (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the problems with the current Post-Modernist anti-science attitude. Claims based on intuition, opinion and anecdote apparently must hold equal weight to reliable sources based on research, double-blinded clinical trials, publication in peer-reviewed journals, and the repetition of the same results. None show a negative effect, or where they were found, they were discounted for all kinds of things like experimental design. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bressler report is a government report. Here it is from a different source http://www.scribd.com/doc/42960461/Bressler-Report-Aspartam also once again reference 15 is not a peer reviewed journal I respectfully request you replace or remove it. Arydberg (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ref 15 is about the hoax, just like everyone told you 3 months ago. Secondary sources show aspartame to be safe. Again, this has been explained to you on a number of occasions. This sort of disruptive editing is just another example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Please stop this behaviour. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not being around until a few weeks ago, I needed to catch up on all the wiki-drama. I didn't realize that Arydberg had been topic banned here for three months. Not seconds after that expired, he's back, pushing the same old same old. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He was topic-banned for directly attacking other editors (accusations of industry-sponsored editing), so this isn't strictly a resumption of the behavior that got him topic banned. It was, however, a factor. --King Öomie 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You must have missed his comment where he said that I ignored the evidence. I don't particularly care about WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, I just think he's a POV pusher. That's why he should be topic banned. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Nikurasu (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been hijacked by a pure POV discussion. This should be obfuscated as it had been before I undid it. Nikurasu (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)