Cleanup :Scientific publications -- weak Gone --SV Resolution(Talk) 15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Alleged conflict of intrerest prior to 1996 -- should this be merged into discussion of approval?
Expand : Why the US approval process caused controversy
Charges of COI in DOJ handling of FDA's Fraud allegations against Searle.
Charges of COI in hirings of 6 FDA personnel (described in GAO 86 report to Metzenbaum)
Studies by Olney and others dismissed.
Expand and integrate the timeline in the article
Charges of COI when new FDA commissioner overturned unanimous decision of PBOI
Senator Metzenbaum's role in returning the controversy to the news. Why the Ramazzinni studies contribute to the controversy
Allegations of COI in industry-funded critiques of Soffritti studies
NPOV : Remember that parts of this article that deal with medical safety follow WP:MEDRS and should rely on secondary sources and must reflect the preponderance of medical opinion, while other parts of this article that deal with historical, social, legal, etc. aspects explain the controversy should rely on secondary sources as much as possible but are not subject to WP:MEDRS.
Verify : Different types of sources are appropriate to different sections of this article.
Popular press reports of research are only useful as ajuncts: lay summaries; popular press medical opinions are not of use (see WP:MEDRS). Additionally, recent is not necessarily good. The article is missing any analysis of any particular controversial element. Thank you for you attempt to improve this article.Novangelis (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This article is on my watchlist and the revert that was made seemed to make the article extremely non-neutral and weasily so I reverted. After coming back and reviewing the sources more closely realized the wording is appropriate. I made two small changes:
whose existence has never been confirmed - leads the reader to imagine that she is being actively hunted for but the source only says yet no one has come forward claiming to be the author.
are never supported by medical studies. - in common conversational English this can have the implication and never will be supported so I made the change to the accurate and passive have not been supported by medical studies.
Sorry for my first inaccurate revert. Alatari (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
"Nancy Markle" is a pseudonym for the most prominent activist. The search for the existence of "Nancy Markle" has indeed been an active hunt, with no results. No one has found out that she even exists as a real person, and she has never come forward. In fact, her real name is pretty certain. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You should add something about the Panara restaurant chain announcing that they will not be serving anything with aspartame and many other substances after the end of 2016. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Lots of companies choose not to sell products that contain artificial sweeteners. Is there something notable about Panera's choice that would make it relevant to this article? Deli nk (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)