Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:07, 23 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Skepticism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for Aspartame controversy: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2012-03-11 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 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. Priority 1 (top)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Timelines collected by editors of this article -- of sources, or well-sourced

Testimonials regarding health affects

The documentary 'Sweet Misery, a Poisoned World' is a thorough analysis of Aspertame's controversial approval. I personally have immediate side effects from Aspartame, including headaches, irritability, and hyperactivity. I avoid it at all costs. This occured with my first drink of Diet Sprite in the 1980's. I find it incredible that it is still purported by regulating agencies to be a safe food ingredient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayakr01 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The movie does not meet our requirements for a reliable source for medical claims, and we do not make our article about what you or I personally think about the substance, but what the reliable sources say. Yobol (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Testimonial evidence is not of use to Misplaced Pages because it is not subject to editorial review by a reliable publisher. The same can be said for the documentary you mentioned. The material is covered based on reliable sources. Medical claims are held to a higher standard. Thank you for your efforts, but all these issues have already been discussed numerous times.Novangelis (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look in the archives of the talk page you can see that this has been brought up before as well. Oh and yes, WP:MEDRS is our rule on such things. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand that this is a personal issue of importance for you, but think about this. I personally have immediate side effects from shrimp, including nausea, vomiting, skin rash, and occasional cessation of breathing. I avoid it at all costs, and it occurred from my first taste of shrimp in the early 1990s. That does not mean, however, that I'm going to go to Shrimp and make claims about its lack of food safety, or provide personal testimonials that it's unsafe. It's unsafe for me because I'm allergic to it, but most other people can eat it with absolutely no problem at all. I'm reliably informed they even like it. That's why we need medical studies, not testimonials. Kate (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is an issue that the article as it is seems to dismiss all issues with aspertame to be conspiracy theories and hoaxes. While it has had more than it's share of hoaxes, there is a large portion of the medical community that is convinced that a small portion of the population is sensitive to aspertame. Migrains are fairly well documented, Seizures are proven on one sensitivity type, others are fairly well documented in others. However, finding anything has been made impossible due to all the conspiracy theories. To be clear, aspertame is safe for the majority of the population. I would put it in the same class as MSGs on that issue, which is far from what the conspiracy theorists would have you believe, but the marketers of Aspertame seem to want to deny even that much, which is where the real contravercy lies. I'm trying to avoid soapboxing, but it is a socio-political situation, as are all controversies; so I'll wrap it up with a completely non-biased solution. We need someone with the ability to do good searches of medical documents to find medical documents referencing studies relating to sesitivity to migrains from aspertame. Unfortunately I've tried and all I can find are studies funded by the makers and marketers of aspertame, conspiracy theories, and summaries by government agencies (which seemed to run into the same issue we are having here.) All of which you have references for already. There isn't a complete study by an independent group that was not already on one side of the debate before the study began (even if they claim otherwise.) Unless we can find a NPOV study we won't be able to write an NPOV article.--184.58.97.253 (talk) 06:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't apply to sources or to content, only to editorial behavior and editing style. Otherwise any sources for medical information that pass our WP:MEDRS guideline are worth considering for use here. If there are any that document sensitivities, allergies, headaches, etc., let's see them and possibly use them. That would be reviews, not single studies. If these are real problems actually caused by use of Aspartame, it will be such studies that prove it to be the case. Until then they are either caused by something else (but blamed on Aspartame), or such a rare condition that they aren't properly documented. That leaves the matter in the area of conjecture, anecdote and/or conspiracy theory. We already document in the article that many conditions are attributed to Aspartame, but we lack proof that it's true. If the documentation ever comes forward, the article will be updated to show that to be the case. It's rather telling that the one serious problem that is proven happens to be universally ignored by conspiracy theorists, and that is what's covered in this section: Aspartame_controversy#Phenylalanine. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

safety of aspartame

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed for fringe advocacy and personal attacks with no effort towards article improvement. Novangelis (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This webpage is a disgrace. Many Many people have tried to correct glaring errors. ie: it is impossible to prove the safety of a substance. All you can do is to show it does no harm given certin doses and times of application. This has never been done with regard to long term exposures like 20 years.

A bare minuimal investigation would turn up evedence that many people after using this stuff for extended times years are suffering all sourts of disabilites. 70% of all complaints to the FDA are due to aspartame. Misplaced Pages simpley refuses to even investigate the charges. They are either controlled by the aspartame industry or too busy to care about the quality of their articles which in this case contribute to a major poison in our food supply.

The outright lies and distortions go way beyond what words can express. A jail term would be more approiate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsam123 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yet another violation of WP:NPA by someone quoting, but not citing WP:FRINGE websites. WP:Conspiracy theory accusations are highly inappropriate. This talk page is for discussion of the article, not a soapbox for wild unsubstantiated accusations. Please do not post again unless you can behave civilly and contribute constructively to building a fact-based encyclopedia.Novangelis (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The article reflects the mainstream view of the industry only. There is more and more indepdant research questioning the safety and value of aspartame. Even to the point that it causes weight gain. You ignore it. As you are not able to point to any reseach I will there the study where 6 monkeys were tested for tollarence of aspartame. 5 had seizures and one died. You will not print it. If i looked it up and tried to post it would not be allowed. All this has been re-occuring over and over. Misplaced Pages should join Fox news as organization dedicated to promoting lies.

I have been monitoring this page for a long time. Many others have tried to promote a side that points to people being physicaly damaged due to the effects of aspartame. They all as a group are routienely ignored, caught up in an endless array of WP:BlahBlah I will turn it back to you. What research can you point to that says a 20 year exposure to aspartame is harmless? Do you even see that it is addicitve? Probably not because all you know is the industry sponsored view. Look at the people around you. ( and the research) Misplaced Pages has a responsibelity to investigate this issue given the tremoundous outpouring of disaggrement and yet it refuses. If my previous commints were too strong it is because of the real human suffering that this page has caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsam123 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Two words: "reliable sources". If you have no reliable sources sources to discuss (and you don't), stop posting on this page, and if you are going to persist in unfounded accusations, do not post anywhere on Misplaced Pages at all.Novangelis (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Where is the research you talk about? A pubmed search yields 3 hits on "aspartame addictive", all of them are false positives (one is about caffeine, one about tobacco and the third is about ethanol). To my knowledge there's zero scientific evidence that aspartame is addictive, which means the WP:DUE amount of space dedicated to that viewpoint is about the same - zero. --Six words (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you please answer my question. What research can you point to that says a 20 year exposure to Aspartame is harmless? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsam123 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is not a forum for loaded rhetorical questions; if you want to know, ask the WP:Reference desk as you have been advised. The article is based on high quality reviews published in the medical literature; it is the responsibility of editors to base their edits upon what is stated in high quality sources. If you have nothing to contribute, then you are long past done here.Novangelis (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but this is an encyclopedia, not a venue for general discussion, let alone a venue for promoting individual's theories. --Ronz (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Bigsam123, the article is supposed to reflect mainstream views as expressed in scientific literature. Whether or not the scientists are correct is not something we may second guess. TFD (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This article reflects the mainstream view of the aspartame industry. There is a wealth of reseach finding aspartame is not only unsafe but that it causes weight gain. You consistantely refuse to cite it. You need to join Fox news as publishers of lies. (sorry but that really is the way it is)

I think it's time to close down this discussion as it appears this editor is here only for soapboxing rather than providing sources. Yobol (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 DoneNovangelis (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This article (and the main Aspartame article) must be being manipulated by the aspartame industry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Bullshit is bullshit. It is abundantly clear that this thread is not going to produce any more discussion leading to article improvement. This is not an appropriate venue for conflict of interest accusations (see WP:COIN).Novangelis (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

How can these articles claim that there has been no evidence against aspartame when this is clearly not true?

There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers showing direct correlation between aspartame use and a myriad of health disorders (migraine headaches, nausea, seizures, etc). These cannot all just be dismissed.

If these can all be passed off as some sort of "food allergy", then this is still not a reason to try and sweep it under the rug. Let it be known that a certain percentage of the population may have severe reactions to this chemical, and we should encourage manufactures of products containing it to clearly mark it as such, and also not to frivolously include it in products without good reason.

Why do so many manufacturers include artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and/or sucralose in their products unnecessarily and without clear marking?

Trident gum existed for many years doing perfectly fine using xylitol. There was no need to add aspartame to the mix when the end result is only that some people will have a bad reaction to it. It didn't need to be any sweeter.

• http://jeffreydach.com/files/80618-70584/Direct_indirect_cellular_effects_aspartame_brain_Humphries_European_Journal_Clinical_Nutrition_2008.pdf
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9439090
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474447/
• http://journals.lww.com/jneuropath/Abstract/1996/11000/Increasing_Brain_Tumor_Rates__Is_There_a_Link_to.2.aspx
• http://www.mpwhi.com/92_aspartame_symptoms.pdf

--Thoric (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• http://jeffreydach.com/files/80618-70584/Direct_indirect_cellular_effects_aspartame_brain_Humphries_European_Journal_Clinical_Nutrition_2008.pdf This source is probably fine depending of course on what text it would be supporting
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9439090 Primary source, pretty much worthless. See WP:PRIMARY
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474447/ Another primary source
• http://journals.lww.com/jneuropath/Abstract/1996/11000/Increasing_Brain_Tumor_Rates__Is_There_a_Link_to.2.aspx I'm not sure about this source as I'm not familiar with the journal. Any idea of its impact score?
• http://www.mpwhi.com/92_aspartame_symptoms.pdf Old Martini stuff, not so much

SÆdon 23:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is not the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If you wish to raise the issue there, it is appropriate. Here, it is just an ad hominem attack.

"How can these articles claim that there has been no evidence against aspartame when this is clearly not true?" This is a straw man argument. Nowhere does either claim that there is "no evidence". The issues which have been raised (by both credible scientists and fringe elements) are discussed, based on sources weighted appropriately.

The Olney article is already discussed in the second paragraph of Aspartame controversy#Cancer. There is nothing wrong with linking to the primary source in the discussion. The problem remains that the trend he discussed started before aspartame was approved and had already leveled before it was published. Despite Diet Coke becoming the second most popular soda brand (an indirect measure of aspartame consumption), brain tumor incidence remains level.

While the EJCN review is an appropriate source in that it is a published review, it offers mostly speculative mechanisms, rather than observational studies. The link to the article is inappropriate since the website appears to violate article copyright.Novangelis (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The EJCN review is already cited in the article (I added it when I re-wrote the Neurology section); the others do not appear to be appropriate for inclusion. Yobol (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right on but the Misplaced Pages People have no interest in public health. They are single minded, Most likely they are being lead by a very rich industry, and refuse to consider any other opinions regardless of the source. The fact that they do this by invoking health issues to block sources that question aspartame is shamefull.Quione (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have ANY evidence of this then take it to the proper noticeboard. If not, stop this bullshit now. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I had to sign to write this but 1) the user is correct. 2) try not to swear 3) You should present both sides. thankx threePictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreePictures (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

1)No evidence has been presented that anyone here is being 'lead by the industry' 2) I am quite sick and tired of this bullshit, as I think others are 3) read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be redone

This article seems to be very poorly written, and should probably better reflect a non-biased viewpoint. Phrases such as "n spite of this" and others should be deleted or rewritten so this page doesn't smack of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.3.160 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

We follow sources. NPOV does not mean we give all sides equal weight. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages we try to have a neutral point of view (NPOV). This means we try to represent all significant views that have been published by reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Do you have any reliable sources that should be included but aren't right now? Please read WP:MEDRS, it explains how to identify reliable sources about medicine related topics. Arcandam (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dbrodbeck and Arcandam. TFD (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Very well put. Please read the links that have been provided. If you have reliable sources to use here, please suggest them here and we'll be happy to take a look at them. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Aspartame and Weight gain.

I propose this section be replaced with the following:

Weight Gain and Hunger

Since the caloric contribution of aspartame is negligible, it has been used as a means for weight loss through its role as a sugar substitute. Although there have been claims that aspartame contributes to weight gain and obesity as well as increased hunger, a comprehensive review on this subject concluded there is currently inconclusive data to support the assertion that aspartame contributes to weight gain. The review notes that additional research may be warranted.

Rationale:

1) The title of this section should be weight "gain," not "change." This is a page about aspartame controversy. It is only the notion of weight gain which is controversial.

2) There is a difference between concerns about the safety of aspartame, and claims about its potential effects on satiety and weight gain. As such, references that focus exclusively on the safety of aspartame should not be used to dismiss concerns about weight gain. I believe references 8 and 57 should be removed from this section because their abstracts do not mention satiety or weight gain specifically.

Reference 55 does address satiety and weight gain. It states "The National Experts conclude that there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake. A study focusing on aspartame, such as that performed by Just et al. (2008) which looked at cephalic insulin response in healthy fasting volunteers after taste stimulation, comparing sucrose, starch and saccharin, may warrant further consideration. However at this point in time such considerations do not form the basis for recommending a re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannet3 (talk • contribs)

Disagree, weight change is appropriate (and neutral) since it is used for weight loss, but claims are that it causes weight gain, making that it causes weight loss by implication controversial. Refs 8 and 57 discuss hunger and weight gain in the body of the article, so are appropriate. I have added "or hunger" to text to clarify what part ref 55 is citing. Yobol (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

To say there is "little to no data to support the assertion..." goes further than the EFSA article, which acknowledges some level of uncertainty in this area. There have been several studies published after these reviews were completed. I believe the last two sentences of my edited version above are more accurate than the current text.Leannet3 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The EFSA specifically concludes "there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake" while suggesting possible areas of future research. I see no ambiguity there as to the conclusion. Newer studies have to appear in high quality reviews before they can be incorporated into this article, per WP:MEDRS and WP:WEIGHT. Yobol (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but EFSA also suggests there is a need for further research, a concept not reflected in the wiki page at all. Can you see a way to be transparent to the reader that there is a degree of uncertainty in the conclusions of the review? That is all I am attempting to do here.

There is no uncertainty. They suggested future avenues for research, should someone want to do it. None of the two other reviews cited had uncertainty either, so neither should we. We are very closely paraphrasing the EFSA source here, so I find the suggestion we are misrepresenting the EFSA somewhat puzzling. Yobol (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Any fruitful research will by it's nature state that future research is needed and provide some context for the directions of that research. It's not worth noting unless the direction is substantially different from the published research in question. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

EFSA says "Interpreting the data to answer the specific question regarding whether aspartame has a direct effect on appetite is difficult, as this was not the hypothesis of the identified studies. Whilst it is encouraging that no trend of increasing appetite has been observed, the question is still largely unanswered, but remains an important one." On the wiki page, the notion that this question remains unanswered is absent. We state there have been compresensive reviews on this subject, when that is not the case. Those comprehensive reviews were on the safey of aspartame. We leave the reader with the feeling this issue is closed, when in fact it is under ongoing investigation. I am merely seeking a way to give the reader a more accurate sense of the current status.Leannet3 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What about this "Comprehensive reviews of aspartame safety have also examined research conducted between 2002 and 2009 on the effects of aspartame on hunger and weight gain. Little to know evidence was found, but reviewers acknowledged that the question remains unanswered and additional research may be warranted."Leannet3 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring the two other reviews and focusing on the EFSA, for some unknown reason. I also do not think any more time or effort should be spent on this subject. There does not appear to be any significant evidence to show that it does cause problems with hunger, as noted in the reviews, which is exactly what our article states. We should not try to suggest that there is controversy about that when our reviews do not suggest there is one. Yobol (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to create a false controversy, or give weight to junk science. I am attempting to provide accurate information about the level of uncertainty on this issue, using acceptable sources.Leannet3 (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The accurate information is that, per the conclusion of our source, "there is little or no substantive data suggesting that aspartame affects appetite/hunger, food intake". This is what we state in the article. Claims about hunger need to be substantiated by evidence, and in this case they are not. We are not here to fuel conspiracy theories about the substance that is not supported by evidence. Yobol (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My concern remains that this section does not provide all relevant information. I'll make one more attempt to propose wording we can agree is accurate, based on acceptable sources.

"Since the caloric contribution of aspartame is negligible, it has been used to aid in weight loss through its role as a sugar substitute. Although correlations between the use of non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame and weight gain have been observed, little to no data to support a biological basis for these observations has been published. However, reviewers have stated that ongoing research is warranted.

Additional references would include this review paper from Mattes and Popkin in 2009. It concludes "There are long-standing and recent concerns that inclusion of NNS in the diet promotes energy intake and contributes to obesity. Most of the purported mechanisms by which this occurs are not supported by the available evidence, although some warrant further consideration." This Quin Yang 2010 mini-review in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, and this this 2010 review paper, which reports an association between artificially-sweetened beverage consumption and weight gain in children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leannet3 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You are, once again, ignoring the high quality secondary reviews already in the article (the Butchko and Magnuson reviews). Also, the new reviews you present are more appropriate in the sugar substitute article, as they do not come to any conclusions about aspartame specifically, but about the class as a whole (and as an aside, the last review specifically cautions against using correlation as direct evidence of causation between sugar substitutes and weight gain). You are, once again, ignoring the plain reading of the conclusion of the EFSA review stating there is little to no evidence supporting the claim. At this point, I am finding it hard to assume good faith when you seem to deliberately misreading the conclusions of the sources. Yobol (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Those reviews were published in 2002 and 2007. It seems to me that a legitimate scientific discussion on this issue has advanced since those reviews were published. Although I absolutely respect your dedication to making sure good science is used here, I can't help but feel you are going too far in this case. I also note that Misplaced Pages policies do not absolutely exclude the use of individual research studies,including animal studies, provided they are placed in appropriate context and their relative weight is made clear to the reader. The new sources I suggest are all review papers publishing since 2010. On what basis do you consider them unacceptable? WP:WEIGHT suggests using reviews published in the last 5 years, perhaps the 2002 reference has become a bit dated?Leannet3 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Any objection to a "see also" for sugar substitutes? It seems to me some of the references I suggest could be added to that topic, as you suggest.Leannet3 (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources about health of aspartame need to comply with WP:MEDRS (which specifically cautions against primary studies and animal studies), and need to specifically make conclusions about aspartame. The sources you are trying to use are not appropriate here as they make conclusions about the general class of sugar substitutes, which contains a number of other artificial sweeteners other than aspartame. Artificial sweetener redirects to sugar substitute so there is no need for a see also as it is linked in the first sentence of the article. Yobol (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you perhaps interpreting WP:MEDRS too narrowly? For example, it directs us to "make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers." and "it may be helpful temporarily to cite the primary research report, until there has been time for review articles and other secondary sources to be written and published." By the way, I completely agree that correlation should not be used as direct evidence of causation. My proposed text above does not do this - it simply informs the reader that a correlation exists, which is true. WP:MEDRS also suggests using Pubmed to find reliable sources, which is exactly how I found the references I proposed to add here, by using aspartame specifically as a search criteria.Leannet3 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a narrow reading, but the consensus of the editors who edit medical articles. If you want to add a source, it has to make conclusions about aspartame, not sugar substitutes in general. If it makes conclusions about sugar substitutes in general, it belongs on the sugar substitute page, not here. I don't know how else to say it, and will not address this topic further until you directly address this standard. Yobol (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I have two questions. 1) the EFSA source, which is specific to aspartame, acknowledges that "Interpreting the data to answer the specific question regarding whether aspartame has a direct effect on appetite is difficult, as this was not the hypothesis of the identified studies. Whilst it is encouraging that no trend of increasing appetite has been observed, the question is still largely unanswered, but remains an important one." why cannot wikipedia readers be made aware of the nature of this comment? It would seem to be in accordance with the spirit of WP:MEDRS and 2) could I trouble you to point me to the location in WP:MEDRS which indicates only sources specific to asparatme, and not sources which apply to asparatame as well as other sugar substitutes, may be used? Thanks.Leannet3 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

1) I have updated the article to reflect the above material from the EFSA. 2) That sources belong to the article in which they are most relevant would seem to be a common sense approach to editing. Because the conclusions about sugar substitutes in general are confounded by the presence of other sugar substitutes, we cannot know how much, if any, effects found are due to aspartame (as opposed to the other sugar substitutes also studied), unless the source specifies it. WP:OR would be the overriding policy here; implying that results about sugar substitutes in general necessarily apply to aspartame (as you would be implying by placing said material in this article) is your own conclusion, not the conclusion of the source. Yobol (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you would hold off accusing me of behaviours that I haven't exhibited. Nowhere in my proposed text, placed here in good faith for discussion and review, have I attempted to portray results of research on sugar substitutes as results of research on asparatame specifically. Whether such studies could be mentioned in this article, provided proper context is given, may be worthy of further discussion. However, I would personally be satisfied if we add a "see also" link to sugar substitutes. You had previously argued this was not necessary, because there is already a link in the first line of the article. With respect, I suggest a "see also" link is also warranted, because it indicates to the reader that additional relevant information may be found there. Would you agree to that?Leannet3 (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No, per WP:SEEALSO. "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Yobol (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I plan to update the sugar substitute page with those reviews when I have time. At that point, perhaps we could re-evalute if the simple link in the text is sufficient, or if a see also, with an explanatory note might be most useful to the reader. Leannet3 (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The sugar substitute link is the first link in the article, and the 2nd and 3rd words in the entire article. I don't know how much more prominent you can make it, and I do not think putting a See Also is appropriate given its already significant prominence in this article. At some point, editors should consider actually following the guidelines of the website instead of substituting their own opinions for them. Yobol (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am following the policy, which states "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" (e.g. if research on sugar substitutes is described there, but not mentioned on the asparatame page) and "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Perhaps you should re-read WP:LAWYER.Leannet3 (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Leannet3, what's the common sense reason to include a “see also” link to an article that is already linked in the first sentence of both the 'aspartame' and the 'aspartame controversy' article? The guideline tells us that the “see also” section shouldn't include links that are already in the article or its navbox, so you're not following a policy, you're argueing for an exception. It's possible to make exceptions, but I think there should be good reasons for that, and so far I haven't seen any. --Six words (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Six Words and Yobol are correct it seems to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks to a few new voices for weighing in. Let me explain that I first came to the aspartame article hoping to find a useful summary of the science that would shed some light on the media stories I had heard about aspartame possibly causing weight gain. A researcher I know had also told me that when he needed his lab rats to fatten up quickly, he intentionally added some asparatame to their feed. I was *extremely* skeptical about all of this, and I hoped what I would find on wikipedia was a reasonable summary of the issue and a rebuttal. Instead I found next to nothing. Sources from 2002 and 2007 before this issue really showed up in the media, and no acknowledgement of any of the work (and its limitations) that triggered the media coverage. I imagine I am not the only person coming to this page to find out what is up with these allegations around weight gain. Burying the issue creates an information vacuum and leaves curious people like with the media reports only. The absence of info on wikipedia does nothing to assure me that these claims are false, I just assume that wikipedia hasn't been updated yet. It is for that reason that I think either we should include some of the newer reference articles I mentioned above, and clearly explain what they do and do not say about asparatame and weight gain/hunger, or we should supply a "see also" with a note so that someone seeking this type of info gets a hint that it is located on the sugar substitutes page, not the asparatame page (of course, they haven't been added yet to my knowledge). Usefulness of the page and transparency, gentlemen, is what I am arguing for. Leannet3 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this though is that media reports are routinely sensationalized or blown out of proportion - it's not that information is hidden, it's that media reports have made it out to be more than it is. The fact is that by the editorial guidelines we follow here, including WP:MEDRS and WP:UNDUE, we can't really make more out of the weight gain issue than there is in the reviews. We've got three reviews, two of which says "no link" and one of which says "no link" and includes some standard boilerplate at the end about "more research is needed." Media sources aren't bound by these rules, and so frequently report on much less reliable studies, but this doesn't mean that we need to fall to their level. The question is asked and answered in this page, and I don't think anything further is needed. Kate (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If we were discussing the apartame article itself I would fully agree. Given that we are on the aspartame controversy page, I would have thought that WP:UNDUE allows for more flexibility. Above, I had provided links to three review papers that summarized individual research reports on aspartame as well other artificial sweeteners. I honestly don't understand the resistence to adding some text along the lines of "Epidemiological data have demonstrated an association between artificial sweetener use (aspartame and others) and weight gain. See also - artifical sweeteners." I think my suggestion does the greatest service to wikipedia readers. However, if none of the more experience editors here are convinced, I am satisfied to end the discussion here. My intention is still to update the sugar substitute page with those references when I have time to give it some attention - so please keep an eye out there if you wish. Thank you all for your time. Leannet3 (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia . As long as the prepondrence of litatuare - even if it is published by the industry- says aspartame is safe than it is safe. Our principles are more important than peoples health. Quione (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• B-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists