Talk:Aspartame/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Gulf War Syndrome

Why has the section on the alleged link between aspartame consumption and Gulf War Syndrome been deleted from this page and from GWS's own page? -Unknown

Wish I knew who wrote this :p So... any takers on this guy's question? How are they linked? Isn't Gulf War Syndrome some kind of shellshock? I can't see how these would be linked in the slightest... Tyciol 05:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Gulf War Syndrome is not shell shock, mah friend. It's caused by a mixture of Anthrax vaccine and other drugs which were administered to the troops. The troops refused to take these when the information got out. Throwing the stocks away. Could aspartame have some relation, well that is not impossible as there could be a metabolic reaction at cause, it's worth looking into.

Suggest revision of "Health Effects"

While researching the chemical for a school project, I came across many articles about Aspartame.There were biased testimonials, large amounts of NutraSweet propaganda, falsified reports, andextremist rantings. Of the sources I collected, these stood out as the ones with the best scientific evidence and purity:

• aspartametruth.com/arizona.html An abstract made from the studies of Woodrow C. Monte, Ph.D., R.D. at the University of Arizona. He proves that Aspartame is toxic because of its biproduct methanol, a known toxin.
• holisticmed.com/aspartame/100.html Statistical evidence questioning the validity of experimental tests done on the safety of Aspartame.
• dorway.com/wurtman1.html Study with experimental evidence by Timothy J. Maher from the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Richard J. Wurtman from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• health.centreforce.com/health/aspartame.html "The Nancy Markle Letter";The creed of all anti-Aspartame activists around the globe. Although serverly against Aspartame in every aspect it is worth the read for the plausible evidence the writer gives.Philologus8 16:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's funny that you post only websites that are anti-aspartame. Haha. Couppawn 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Supposedly, if you support it, you must be biased :p These new-age health guys have agendas of their own, make no mistake, and natural isn't as great as everyone makes it seem. Tyciol 05:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Activist role of Betty Martini (Markle)

New here. Why isn't the significant role of Betty Martini dealt with here, or has it been done already? She is the single most significant character of the whole debate (the one who has pretty much single handedly started it), since all web sources against Aspartame lead back to ONE single source - Betty Martini, and that's a pretty significant matter! To ignore her role would be a rather significant piece of revisionism (or whitewashing.....)

Ignoring her would be like discussing Christianity without mentioning Jesus or the Apostle Paul, or like discussing chiropractic without mentioning DD Palmer or BJ Palmer. Absurd!

One cannot deal properly with an activist based movement without mentioning the activists. -- Fyslee 21 Dec. 2005

My concern would be that the article (if one is not careful) could become more about personalities and less about the scientific research, clinical findings, case histories, history, chemistry, etc. Once personalities are brought into it, there is a danger of attaching overly-glowing or overly-negative labels to their work. In addition, I would be very concerned if mention of any groups/persons (pro or con) was in some way linked to scientific findings (unless they actually conducted the research). Finally, there are other groups and persons on each side of the issue that would probably be mentioned and who have been involved far longer than Betty Martini, abeit not as active (e.g., Robert H. Moser, MD; Mary Nash Stoddard; James Turner; Richard Wurtman). Many of the best web sites lead to sources such as scientific literature citations, articles by scientists or physicians, or organizations. There are many sites that list her and her organization probably because she is very, very active on this issue. Perhaps a non-judgemental list of personalities on both sides of the issue could be put in a category below the Recently Published Research. What do you think? Twoggle 22:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I like your idea about a list. A knowledge of the personalities involved is important when studying any matter that can be categorized as a scare story (and this one certainly counts!), regardless of the scientific evidence for or against the story. History will then judge them as wise or foolish. They must not be forgotten, otherwise we may be doomed to repeat their folly, or, on the positive side, we may learn from their wisdom. -- Fyslee 22 Dec. 2005

1-10-06 Betty Martini who uses a Dr. in front of her name is not an actual Doctor. She got a Honorable Humantities degree from a diploma mill. She mis-leads people using this phony Dr. in front of her name, giving people the impression she is a Doctor, when she is not.

The most concise well written and researched article on the ill health effects of aspartame is written by columnist, David Lawrence Dewey. http://www.dldewey.com/aspar.htm. Furthermore, contrary to belief, it was not Ms. Martini who first alerted consumers to the deadly health effects of aspartame. It was Mary Stoddard and Attorney Jim Turner in Washington and columnist David Lawrence Dewey.

Add POV check template

I've added the POV check template since User:DamnDirtyApe has some POV issues with the following paragraph: A large body of scientific evidence suggests that aspartame, even in amounts many times greater than typical consumption, is safe and not associated with adverse health effects. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has investigated claims of ill effects since 1982 and maintains that there is no reasonable evidence of possible public health harm and no consistent or unique patterns of symptoms reported with respect to aspartame that can be causally linked to its use. [1]. User:DamnDirtyApe wants to remove this content but I don't see any need for removal. --Viriditas | Talk 00:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It is necessary for us to note that hundreds of studies have failed to link aspartame with health problems in humans. Since this paragraph is copied from an activist web site it should be rewritten, but the sentiment is correct. Rhobite 20:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Chestnut regarding "biowarfare"

I have an issue regarding this sentence: "The Pentagon once listed aspartame in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submitted to Congress." Can anyone present a source on this? I doubt it, because it is absurd on its face. Can you imagine this conversation? "General, we've found the perfect weapon... you just spray it on the enemy, wait 20 years, and they might die of brain tumors." I'm going to remove it until someone can come up with a source on it. The Hokkaido Crow 20:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

What Century do you live in? Just write 'aspartame Pentagon' into Google and find it yourself, there are thousands of results; I'm not going to present them here, just do it and find yourself... For the second part of your assertion, I can't believe you are being serious on that.

Yes, there are lots of web sites with the same claim, often in the very same words. But what is the basis for the claim? Who brought this fact, if it is a fact, to light, and what were their sources? In particular, is it verifiable? How can we tell the difference between truth and urban legend? Shimmin 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"What Century do you live in? Just write 'aspartame Pentagon' into Google and find it yourself, there are thousands of results; I'm not going to present them here, just do it and find yourself..."

No go. The burden of proof is on the claimant. That's the rules of the game, whether it's logic, debate, or science. You are making an unusual claim and you must present the evidence for this conspiracy theory. Until then no one is obligated to give it the time of day, much less use it as any kind of "evidence":

Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof Fyslee 11:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Background of FDA approval issues

Re: the "NPOV"ing of this article, I find it now highly-biased in a whitewashing direction. The two linked studies say nothing about cancer; one has no results, and the other is about secondary, behavioral symptoms.

Also, i'm dissatisfied with the revisions made based on the FDA's talking points. The "concerns" voiced were a little stronger than that: all three board members voted to reject aspartame until more convincing data on brain tumors was presented and reviewed, because the existing evidence presented, rather than demonstrating safety, tended to show the opposite.

Then, a review board of five was appointed to go over the PBOI's findings. Three of them also expressed serious concerns; the review board was then expanded to include a sixth member, but the deadlock was unresolved.

It was at this point that Arthur Hull Hayes stepped in and approved the drug, in direct contravention to the recommendations of the public board AND half the review board. There was never any scientific approval of aspartame, AND some of the reviewers later stated they would have demanded much more stringent standards if they had known that aspartame was intended for soft drinks.

So, I think this history belongs in this article, because it really, really, really sucks when the FDA pushes through a dangerous substance, and I can't see why we should leave it out. As to the study Hayes references, i haven't seen it, but I'd sure like to - where is it? I'm sure the review boards would have liked to see it, as well - why circumvent the process and ignore the scientists? Graft 21:03, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Shall we have separate headings for arguments for and against?

Perhaps it would be best to have a separate headings for arguments for and against. There is some good information here: www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/fraud.htm Also at www.aspartame.ca I may make some minor changes with proper documentation eventually.Carltonh 23:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the RICO lawsuit

RICO complaint filed 2004 Sep 15 in US District Court Northern CA by member of National Justice League. Defendants NutraSweet Co, Robert H. Moser, American Diabetes Association, Monsanto, and 50 "Does" PR · the complaint May be interesting to watch. 142.177.18.183 14:34, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I changed the page to say a RICO lawsuit was filed. "RICO charges were filed" makes it sound like the government took action, which is not the case here. It's a private lawsuit, so saying a "lawsuit was filed" is more accurate. -Drew

Diane Fleming story

At some point Diane Fleming's plight should get on WP.[2][3] (Supposedly she poisoned her aspartame-guzzling husband with window-washing fluid ... but the only window-washing-fluid chemical found was methanol.) 142.177.24.144 20:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1-10-06: There is an error in the comment under Diane Fleming story. The methanol found in the Gatorade was NEVER proven to come from the windshield wiper. For a a current update on Diane's Fleming's case, read this article on columnist, David Lawrence Dewey website. http://www.dldewey.com/fleming.htm

1-10-06: Also, there is additional more accurate information regarding the deadly sweetener Aspartame on Mr. Dewey's website at: http://www.dldewey.com/aspar.htm

Mercola link

I'm sorry but it is hard to call the Mercola.com link junk science. That site is made by a team of licensed doctors and is the #1 ranked natural health website, and always in the top 10 of all health websites per Alexa. I'm adding the link back, though NPOVing the description. Please stop wiki vandalism. We can list opinions and links pro and con separately, but don't assume to eliminate the highly rated professional opinions Carltonh 18:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree that the Mercola website is pretty junky. It tends to write pretty uncritically about anything that attacks what it wants to attack. Credentials are pretty meaningless as well - M.D.s are easy to come by, don't let authority fool you. Especially when it's there to peddle wares rather than to be purely informative. Graft 20:44, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First off, please don't accuse me of vandalism. Second- Mercola is junk science. This is on his aspartame "references" page, a page that is supposed to link to controlled studies. Instead it contains paragraphs such as this www.mercola.com/article/aspartame/references.htm : "Nutra-Sweet + MSG = Brain damage in children = Behavior disorders = crime= perceived control necessity = totalitarian surveillance and control. Mind control is a reptilian paradigm." I did hesitate to remove the link, because it is still an example of anti-aspartame reasoning, and I think people should be allowed to come to their own conclusions. However it should not be presented as legitimate research - it's pure conjecture, by someone who by the way, is a practitioner of osteopathic medicine, not an MD.

A note, I moved this discussion into its own header on this talk page. Rhobite 00:54, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Jennifer Cohen Study

I located an interesting article Aspartame Nutrasweet Study done by an 11 year old girl as grade six school science project. She found that the aspartame in soda-pop degraded into diketopiperazine over time (time was greatly reduced as the storage temperature was increased). Google searches on diketopiperazine return numerous studies and references to articles concerning this brain tumor causing agent.

Anti-aspartame personal anecdote

Aspartame UNSAFE: I drank diet coke for 20 years and suffered from extreme obesity, depression, memory loss, carbohydrate cravings, severe anxiety. I had terrible allergies every summer, and a terrible cough every winter. My doctor knew I drank diet coke but said nothing, instead suggesting I get my sinuses busted open by surgery to aid in sinus draining!

All the problems stopped when I finally swore off diet coke, and all aspartame products.

Aspartame, Acesulfide-K, and Neotame are TERRIBLY dangerous, and I recommend that everyone cut it from their diets immediately. (unsigned)

Note: obviously this writer confuses acesulfame-k and aspartame. They are completely unrelated chemical compounds.

Note: Eating large sums of food and not working out causes obesity. Calorie intake - calories used = net weight gain/loss. Fatty. Couppawn 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aspartame UNSAFE REBUTTAL: Correlation does not necessarily mean causation and the plural of ancedote is not data.

To put it another way, anecdotal evidence is not science. -WCFrancis 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the depression, carbohydrate cravings, and severe anxiety were the result of the severe obesity, which you attempted to fix with the diet coke.

Of course, that would be a good theory if the GP did indeed lose weight when the symptoms stopped. Otherwise it is just speculation, and nor more valid that the original post. njh 03:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Quantify Sweetness

I've heard the "sweeter than" quote before, but how is sweetness quantified? Are there sources to back up that claim? On an unrelated note, I think a few of the posters should check out Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, espeically before posting for the first time. Kanadier 05:24 UTC 9 Mar 2005

Out of my area of knowledge, but does this help you?: Basic_taste#Sweetness --bodnotbod 07:42, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks it did help, although I still have a few questions, anyone a food chemist? --Kanadier 14:35 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a food chemist, but I may be able to help. What questions do you have?

Darrien 21:34, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I think the methodology is similar to the Scoville scale for measuring hotness of peppers, but I'm not a food chemist. Zwilson 00:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The claims of sweetness on the artificial sweetener aticles do not line up.

yes that is true mwahahah

And it will always be true since the relative sweetness of two substances depends on concentration. You might prepare solutions a solution of A, and a solution of B that is ten times more concentrated, and find them equally sweet, and say that A is ten times sweeter than B. But if you diluted both solutions by an equal amount, they might no longer be equally sweet. The response of the tongue to different sweeteners is nonlinear in different ways. Shimmin 13:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

artificial sweetener articles

I just read all of the articles in wikipedia on artificial sweeteners, and I think it's crap that these articles stand as 'facts'. It's like big industry hired Goebbels to write in wikipedia for them.

Well, if you have proof, edit the articles yourself. Just remember the rules on spoonfeeding and NPOV. --Joe Sewell 30 June 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Health effects

I am concerned that the section "Purported health effects" especially the last bit is very POV. FIrst off the heading should probbly be "Health Effects" as the word "Purported" means commonly put forth or accepted as true on inconclusive grounds[4] which is making a bit of a conclusion about an issue that is contentious. The rest of the section contenus in the same vein and the last two paragraphs are taken almost verbatem from the link it refrences at the end (as number 7). The link in question goes to a site called www.aspartamearchives.org which can reasonably be concidered POV. The section implies by its tone and heading that such thigns as allergic reactions or other minor or major reactions to aspartame are myths. I would actually like to see specific studies refrenced in this section as possible. I don't think that it causes cancer or anythign like that but as someone who consistently gets sever headaches after consuming aspartame as well as cramps and diarrhea if I consume larger quanties, I would like to see the article take a more balanced view of the possibilities. Dalf | Talk 8 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)

Well, there is a possibility that Aspartame will make the sun explode. But like the other "possibilities", no studies have conclusively and repeatably backed them up. That's why they are purported, not confirmed. Our only responsibility is to make sure that the various facts appear in a balanced form, not that we have equal parts of fact and crazy talk. I'm sorry for your medical conditions, but consider that you may have been consuming other things than aspartame, like caffeine or the wrong sorts of food for your body. The Hokkaido Crow 21:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Paraphrase with quotes?

In 2005, researchers with the Cancer Research Centre in Italy reported that "aspartame caused a dose-related statistically significant increase in lymphomas and leukaemias in female rats at dose levels near those of human exposure, however no statistically significant increase in malignant brain tumors was observed".

This text was paraphrased from the article, "Aspartame induces lymphomas and leukaemias in rats" in Eur. J. Oncol. [5] I'm not sure it requires quotes as the original text reads: "...In this report we present the first results showing that aspartame, in our experimental conditions, causes a statistically significant, dose-related increase in lymphomas and leukaemias in females. No statistically significant increase in malignant brain tumours was observed among animals from the treated groups as compared to controls...In our experimental conditions, it has been demonstrated, for the first time, that APM causes a dose-related statistically significant increase in lymphomas and leukaemias in females at dose levels very near those to which humans can be exposed...". I'll try and fix it. --Viriditas | Talk 11:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

External links

How do people feel about removing overtly biased sites and keeping the most neutral links? --Viriditas | Talk 12:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Taste

User:GRAHAMUK writes: There is substantial anecdotal evidence that some find the taste of Aspartame very unpleasant. It is thought that this taste response could be genetic in nature, but so far no studies have been done. While this effect has been noted, there is no suggestion of a link between finding the taste unpleasant and any other health effects.

I don't think this is worded correctly. I'm sure you're aware of the policy against original research. Some related studies, like Chem Senses. 1998 Feb;23(1):59-66 and J Am Diet Assoc. 1984 Sep;84(9):1020-2 have been done. Although I could be wrong, the phenomenon appears to be related to the sensation of sweetness, not to Aspartame itself. --Viriditas | Talk 04:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Aspartame Crusade

It seems there are many people on an artificial sweetener crusade. I find the articles on artificial sweeteners here to be informative and nothing else. The people that are claiming this article is biased are in fact themselves biased. Doing a search on the internet, I found endless pages on aspartame filled with no usefull information other than they hated aspartmae. Wikipedia was the only place with any usefull information. I read of all the suffering people who stopped taking aspartmae and are instantly cured of all their problems. That of course would not happen if aspartame is so dangerous. The effects would linger for years. If you think it's bad, don't use it. Any article that states don't use it is biased. I don't want to read about an FDA conspiracy, or and FAA cover-up when reading about a sweetnener. Sugar causes far more illnesses than any artificial sweetener. Anything replacing it should just be an impovement. Thanku4playing

Couldn't have said it better myself. As a sidenote, classifying methanol as a "poison" is somewhat of a misnomer, as it may cause people to associate it with commonly known poisons such as cyanide or strychnine (i.e. causing death with a small fraction of a gram). Such a comparison is very misleading. Yes, methanol is considered "poisonous", but mainly because of its association with adulterated alcoholic beverages. Drinking a beverage adulterated with methanol, thinking it is ethanol, could prove dangerous or fatal. However, tens or hundreds of grams of methanol are being consumed in such a situation. The fraction-of-a-gram quantity of methanol produced through aspartame metabolism is much too low to show even threshold effects. Poisons such as cyanides or strychnine can kill with doses of less than a gram, but methanol requires substantially higher doses to even show toxicity.

Also, people are so concerned with the toxic potential of food products or additives should note that coffee contains several chemicals that are known carcinogens. Why isn't there a similar "coffee crusade?". Is the popularity of coffee yet another FDA conspiracy meant to harm the American public? 68.34.8.206

When someone has health problems, there is a natural tendency to place blame. The anti-corporate lobby has capitalized on this, and succeeded in exaggerating (or fabricating) the dangers of many things: Aspartame, proximity to power lines, proximity to nuclear power plants, milk and other animal products, dental fillings, thimerosal, GMO, etc. The list continues to grow, perpetuated by junk science. While Wikipedia should report that many people believe aspartame is the devil incarnate, the fact remains that it has never been correlated with an increased risk of cancer or other health problems in humans. Rhobite 06:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

People are too quick to dismiss dangers as "junk science." Many of the claims against GMO's, chemtrails, DU, rBGH, etc are quite valid. And if anything is "junk science" it is corporate-sponsored studies that are designed (or fudged) to provide positive results. Look at rBGH! FOX's Jean Akre and Steve Wilson uncovered studies linking it to illnesses. Monsanto got FOX to offer the reporters a bribe to drop the story, bribed to alter the story to report the opposite results; when they refused they were fired. They sued the network and won! Obviously the rBGH reports were true. And then FOX appeals and the judges don't even hear the case; they dismiss it and claim that FOX News has the right to lie! (see: http://www.foxbghsuit.com/bgh5.htm or the movie "The Corporation."

"Paranoid junk science" is clearly outweighed on these matters by corporate propaganda. And these corporate ties--Donald Rumsfeld with Searle, for example--between the business and political elites give the companies a very good motive for releasing dangerous products: make money selling the problem, then make money selling the antidote (weight loss products, pharmaceuticals, etc).

I found this page because I know about aspartame already an I accidentally purchased a bottle of something with Acesulfame Potassium and Sucralose in it, and after poking around the web for awhile, I'm not going to take any chances. This drink also contains something called "chromium nicotinate." Fat chance! User:Adam

Dude, chromium nicotinate is a source of chromium, which is an important nutrient. That drink was mineral-fortified. ~~ N (t/c) 20:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Acesulfame-K and Sucralose are completely different chemicals than aspartame. You might as well be saying "I know all about X because I purchased a can of something with Y and Z!"

Methanol as natural endogenous substance

is there a source for this "methanol as a natural metabolic product" claim? I've been googling for one but keep running into methanol as metabolic product of aspartame only.

And there's another aspect to the methanol claims. Proaspartamers say you get comparable servings of methanol from, say, oranges or tomato juice. Antiaaspartamers point out that those sources always have ethanol too, in far greater quantities, and the ethanol occupies the metabolic pathways that make methanol into nastier stuff (formic acid, formaldehyde) long enough for the methanol to be expelled (via lungs and kidneys). But there's no ethanol associated with aspartame.[6] So, unless you always mix your diet sodas...

• Take a look at this: Methanol--Slicky 20:44, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

• • You mean the ethanol therapy? interesting =) 142.177.24.144 20:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Both these sites were unavailable, Aug 2005. Significant, or not?

links to reputable scientific orgs removed

I propose we compare orgs that support/oppose aspartame. This way the reader can choose who he chooses to believe.
(Unsigned edit by User:69.143.16.37)

• Please see WP:MoS regarding external links and WP:NPOV as to how simple volume of arguments is important.
• Please don't add large lists of red-links, it encourages the creation of sub-stubs.

brenneman^(t)(c) 01:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If your only dispute is with the number of links, I will choose five and reinsert them. As for style, this is already the end of the article so the list does not interfere with the flow of the article. Deal?

Btw - what's wrong with red links? My understanding is that they encourage the growth of wikipedia by encouraging users to create new articles.

Quoting from WP:NPOV "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not"

The issue with aspartame is that it is an argument of "prominent" adherents vs opponents with little to no credibility. Naming these promiment adherents shines some light on the quality of the people arguing for a certain side. I acknowledge that being new to wikipedia I am not familiar with the wikipedia "style". However I believe that these links are too important to be hidden in the final "external links" section. So instead of removing them please relocated them to a place you see as more appropriate.

Nir - 02:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Please use tildas ~~~~ to sign and date your edits, thanks.
• And thanks for your prompt response. If we look at the links that already exist with the link guidelines in mind, there are already several that should be removed. Additionally, The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has investigated... implies a quote with it's use of italics, and if a source for that quote cannot be produced it should be removed.

• As to red-links, a quick browse of new pages will show people need no encouragement! ^_^

brenneman^(t)(c) 01:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the paragraph begins with "A large body of scientific evidence suggests..." it doesn't make sense to only leave that one FDA study example. Four supporting arguments by well known non-contraversial household names can only incrase the quality of this article and add some much needed perspective to the issue at hand.

The truth is that i've been back and forth on aspartame and these links caused me to side with the "pro-aspartame". Therefore I think that an article without these links is failing to properly inform its readers. These organizations are credible precisely because they don't build their entire existence around aspartame and have no reason to fradualently back it. Why would these organizations sacrifice decades of credibility for such a trivial issue? It is like suggesting that "Mom and Pop's plan was to move into the neighborhood...establish trust...for 48 years. And then, run off with Jerry's sneakers." (You should get that reference :)

Nir - 02:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove POV check template

I believe we can remove the POV check template. After several weeks, it appears that some of the POV contention has disappeared (or at least the contenders). Of course we cannot settle the Aspartame dispute here, but we can at least represent it accurately. IMO the most notable thing about this product is the fear and suspicion many people have about it (founded or unfounded). I have done some rewriting in a way that I think neutrally separates what is known vs. what is believed about this product, along with the reasons. The Hokkaido Crow 14:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV & Accuracy Discussion

I believe that the article, perhaps well-meaning, is inadvertently written almost competely from the point of view of the manufacturer of aspartame as opposed to a NPOV. The trick is to consult people who are intimately familiar with the research (as opposed to reading a few summaries) and who are not and have not been funded by sources that would raise of conflict of interest. Because this tact was apparently not taken, there are quite a few provably inaccurate and irrelevent statements in the article as well as a reliance on sources with anywhere from zero to little scientific expertise in the area. I will provide a few examples of inaccuracies and non-NPOV:

1) "It has been suggested that aspartame might be a neurotoxin [5] since one of its labile chemical components is methanol. This, however, is impossible due to the small concentration of aspartame in products. Methanol is naturally found in fresh fruits and vegetables in quantities several orders of magnitude higher than those found in a soft drink, and occurs endogenously as a part of normal human metabolism."

This argument was raised by the manufacturer in the early 1980's, but was addressed by independent research in 1984 (over 20 years ago) by showing that these traditionally-ingested substances contain protective factors preventing the conversion of methanol into formaldehyde to any significant extent. Since then, European research has shown that small ingestions of aspartame lead to the accumulation of formaldehyde bound to protein and DNA in the brain, liver, kidneys and other parts of the body -- something that does not happen with fruits and vegetables. In addition, one way researchers worsen the effects of formaldehyde in animal experiments is to give a free-form excitotoxic amino acid (40% of aspartame). None of this research is referenced, discussed and there are no comments from independent scientists about these studies. Therefore, the "impossible" neurotoxicity is both inaccurate and non-NPOV as it only presents the manufacturer's argument from the early 1980's.

2) "Questions about aspartame frequently revolve around concerns of health conditions that are allegedly caused by the sweetener, including headaches, seizures, allergic reactions, changes in mood or behavior, and symptoms similar to multiple sclerosis. Indeed, an e-mail has been circulating since 1998, claiming to be from a lecturer at an international conference on aspartame risks, listing various symptoms supposedly caused by the chemical. This email has generally been dismissed as inaccurate, and there is no evidence that such a conference or other events recounted in the email actually occurred, according to Snopes, a site which debunks urban legends. [7]"

There are numerous studies -- independent and industry studies related to aspartame and headaches/migraines, seizures, FMS, depression, allergic-like reactions, etc. None of these are discussed and mentioned except for one 20-day manufacturer-sponsored study. Snopes is the worst place to go for scientific information since the authors (computer programmer and housewife) have no scientific expertise and no knowledge of research related to aspartame. In fact, they did not even take the time to investigate the conference they said didn't occur since the letter of invetation and conference brochure have long since been scanned and posted to the Internet. So, there is no discussion of research (independent and otherwise) related to health effects of aspartame, including independent studies related to headaches/migraines, fibromyalgia, memory loss, seizures, depression-related symptoms, etc. and all that is presented is some claim from an urban legend site written by someone without any scientific experience or knowledge of aspartame research.

3) "External Links: Aspartame.org ... Aspartame Archives ... Update on the Safety of Aspartame 2002 by the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) (pdf). ... A summary of the previous report by GreenFacts."

Exceptionally biased set of links since aspartame.org is the manufacturer's PR organization. Aspartame archives is written by a manufacturer-funded author. The report to the EC Scientific Committee on Food was authored by manufacturer consultants. That committee is now defunct because of bad publicity related to refusal of members to list their conflict of interest. GreenFacts is one of those greenwashing organizations started by a chemical company and is simply a summary of the paper authored by manufacturer consultants. No links to organizations providing detailed and up-to-date independent scientific information. One statement from an FDA scientist on the FDA site, but nothing in the external links to statements from other FDA scientists with different perspectives.

4) "Citing data from a Japanese study that had not been available to the members of the PBOI, Hayes approved aspartame for use in dry goods."

Inaccurate...mostly. Hayes was not allowed to rely on the Japanese study for the approval of aspartame, although he did mention it. He went into a very long and complicated argument related to aspartame and brain tumors. After the PBOI voted against approval, Hayes' own team of scientists was against approval, 3-2. No mention of the FDA urging fraud indictments of the manufacturer before Hayes headed the FDA. No quotes from FDA scientists (e.g., "They [G.D. Searle] lied and they didn't submit the real nature of their observations because had they done that it is more than likely that a greatnumber of these studies would have been rejected simply for adequacy. What Searle did, they took great pains to camouflage these shortcomings of the study. As I say filter and just present to the FDA what they wished the FDA to know and they did other terrible things for instance animals would develop tumors while they were under study. Well they would remove these tumors from the animals.")

5) "The amount of aspartame in an average can of diet cola is about 0.06%. At 104° F, the amount of aspartame reduces to 0.02%. The missing 0.04% turns into 0.01% diketopiperazine and 76.2 parts per billion of formaldehyde."

Not accurate. Time plays the biggest factor in the formation of aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine (DKP). Yes, temperature and acidity plays a significant role, but DKP formation is very small at first and increases significantly in aspartame-containing sodas as time goes by.

6) Funding: Several organizations are listed without any information about whether they were being funded by a company that would create a conflict of interest. This type of information is available in almost any scientific article and allows readers to differentiate from knowledgable independent and knowledgable non-independent sources.

7) "A large body of scientific evidence suggests that aspartame, even in amounts many times greater than typical consumption, is safe and not associated with adverse health effects."

NPOV. A blanket statement that is not really backed up by the research since a large number of independent studies have found opposite results. Even if one disagrees with these independent studies, that sentence sound more like something the manufacturer would write.

I think a NPOV article could be written. But if one wanted to accurately present both sides of the issue, then it would be important to consult with persons who are intimately familiar with the history and scientific studies related to aspartame.

Twoggle 01:52, 04 September 2005

Additional Issues Related to Accuracy and NPOV:

A) "A few studies have also recommended further investigation into possible connections between aspartame and diseases such as brain tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma, but no large-scale studies have been conducted. These relatively unexplored possibilities, combined with notable conflicts of interest in the approval process, have engendered vocal activism regarding the legitimate risks of aspartame as well as some less credible theories."

This statement misrepresents much of the concern expressed by independent scientists, physicians and laypersons who have spoken about aspartame toxicity issues. The concerns related to brain tumors and brain lesions were raised during the pre-approval process and these issues are still a concern as no research has disputed Olney's review showing a increase in specific types of brain tumors in specific, vulnerable population groups nor the small Scandanavian study linking ingestion of diet sodas with large brain tumors in specific population groups (similar to what Olney et al. found). However, the real issue with the above statement is that it was not primarily issues related to brain tumors, brain lesions or lymphoma that caused people to become vocal about aspartame issues. It was the combination of a very large number of case reports of serious adverse effects, independent research linking aspartame to various health problems, and research related to aspartame breakdown products and metabolites (particularly formaldehyde and the excitotoxic amino acid). A US Congressional hearing was held in 1987 specifically because of these issues -- although they did touch on the brain cancer issue. Several independent organizations started up to collect case histories. This can easily be confirmed be speaking with the heads of organizations speaking out about aspartame.

B) "The amount of aspartame in an average can of diet cola is about 0.06%. At 104° F, the amount of aspartame reduces to 0.02%. The missing 0.04% turns into 0.01% diketopiperazine and 76.2 parts per billion of formaldehyde."

Here is a chart on aspartame breakdown in soft drinks:

                                   Date of   6 Months    36 Months
                                   Bottling    After        After
                                              Bottling    Bottling
         Aspartame                550.0 mg    155.34 mg    19.70 mg
         L-phenylalanine methyl
         ester                      0.0 mg     28.62 mg    13.01 mg
         DKP                        0.0 mg    135.66 mg   173.28 mg
         L-aspartylphenylalanine    0.0 mg    158.31 mg   189.05 mg
         L-phenylalanine            0.0 mg     42.22 mg   101.27 mg

         Tsang, Wing-Sum, et al., 1985. "Determination of Aspartame
         and Its Breakdown Products in Soft Drinks by Reverse-
         Phase Chromatography with UV Detection," Journal
         Agriculture and Food Chemistry, Vol. 33, No. 4, page 734-
         738.

This chart does not list all of the breakdown products. The point is that one cannot estimate the levels of DKP without knowing how long the aspartame-containing substance was stored. The formaldehyde content is irrelevent as the formaldehyde is formed in the body from the methyl ester component.

C) "Citing data from a Japanese study that had not been available to the members of the PBOI, Hayes approved aspartame for use in dry goods. [1]"

The Japanese study was submitted by Ajinomoto (the main producer of aspartame internationally). Referring to the study in the Federal Register Arthur Hull Hayes stated: "I note that none of these additional materials have served as a central basis for my decision, but rather only confirm the large body of evidence presented at the hearing." The discussion on brain tumors was 7 pages long (3 columns, very small type) with only a very short aside mentioning the Japanese study.

D) "Some believe that the approval of aspartame was influenced by conflict of interest. .... Hayes left the FDA in 1983 under fire for accepting corporate gifts and joined Searle's public-relations firm as senior medical advisor."

Hayes became a consultant for their public relations firm. There was a GAO report that investigated some of the conflict of interest: "Six Former HHS Employees' Involvement in Aspartame's Approval," United States General Accounting Office, GAO/HRD-86-109BR, July 1986.

E) "Scientists at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology believe that even daily large doses of the high-intensity sweetener aspartame, also known as NutraSweet, had no adverse effect on study subjects' health and well-being[11]"

Statement worded in a way as to make readers believe that the research results represents the opinion of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) or more than the just the two (2) MIT scientists on this 20-day study designed/conducted with the funding and assistance of the aspartame manufacturer.

F) "# Criticism of CDC report findings

1. aspartamekills.com, an anti-aspartame website."

One of the easy ways to pick out extreme bias is to see how links to independent sites are buried at the bottom of a link list and when they are used at all, usually it's subpages that are difficult to read and the links are labeled in a negative way or mis-labeled. While sites authored by persons and organizations with proven conflict-of-interest are listed prominently and without any comment about that conflict-of-interest. For example, "Criticism of CDC report findings" is a exceptionally long text sub-page relating to an old 1980's CDC report. "aspartamekills.com" is listed as "an anti-aspartame website," but sites three sites authored by persons with conflict of interest of listed comment-free as if they're somehow independent. Finally, some of the best independent sites that provide up-to-date scientific information have been deleted.

An easy solution is to alternate external links and have experts pick out quality links from each side of the issue.

G) Finally, if one is going to list organizations that actually claim "no evidence" or problems with aspartame, one should also list organizations that claim the opposite and the analysis by an independent researcher (Dr. Ralph Walton) examining the results of aspartame research and correlating it with funding sources. Twoggle 21:42, 04 September 2005

---

If you believe there are issues, you are free to edit the article (as we all are). Just remember these guidelines:

• Wikipedia does not re-enact debates. It describes them.
• Spoon-feeding is discouraged. Information should be presented in a way that shows how conclusions are reached but does not try to guide the reader to a conclusion.
• NPOV (do not write to the POV of your audience, do not write in a way that reveals your own POV).
• Cite your sources. You've said some interesting things and mentioned some potentially interesting studies here, but I see no links to the original material.

There has been a problem on this page with people spamming this page with links to sites filled with unsubstantiated fear-mongering. I trust that your interest in neutrality will prevent this from occurring. Finally, as most people seem to have problems with the FDA approval process, please do not remove text indicating that the FDA now believes aspartame to be safe long after Hayes' departure. The Hokkaido Crow 17:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree with the asterisked items you listed. However, the following statement: "spamming this page with links to sites filled with unsubstantiated fear-mongering" is charged with non-NPOV. A case can be made and has been made that the current link list is "spammed" with little but unsubstantiated corporate PR. Of course, some people consider almost anything negative as "fear-mongering" even if it is proven. I think it is important to have links to quality sites on both sides of the issue without bad-mouthing the sites in the link name and without burying sites at the bottom (perhaps alternating quality sites). I can guarantee that some will think those sites are "unsubstantiated fear-mongering" and some will think sites on the other side are "unsubstantiated corporate PR." But by listing quality sites on both sides of the issue, the reader will have access to research, news, statements from organizations, scientists, etc.

As far as the FDA goes, I agree that the official opinion of this government agency is that aspartame is safe and a citation link is appropriate. If one would have discussed Vioxx 12 months ago, for example, a balanced approach would have been to provide information on the official position of the FDA as well as statements from the FDA scientist, Dr. David Graham about that issue. It turns out that Dr. Graham was correct. Similarly, I believe that if there are scientists within the FDA, particularly those who have worked on the aspartame issue and who disagree with the FDA officials, that should at least be noted somewhere (and a citation/link should be available as evidence of this fact). Twoggle 13:50, 07 September 2005

---

I think I need to point out here a good example of fear-mongering. Presently, we have a link to [7]. The URL tells us what we're probably going to find there, but let's take a look anyway at some of the quotes:

• Beneath a photo of Dr. Friedman: "Dr. Michael Freidman, former acting head of the FDA who just accepted a position with Monsanto. I wonder how many new toxins he can get approved in his new position? Nice Uniform....
• Beneath a photo of Adolf Hitler: "Adolph Hitler's Third Reich killed my grandmother and aunt at Riga and Stuthoff and millions of innocent people throughout Europe -webmaster"
• Beneath a photo of Robert Shapiro defaced with tiny animated Hiter-style mustache" "Robert Shapiro's NutraSweet® killed my mother and has killed and/or wounded millions of innocent people in the US and abroad."

That, friend, is indisputably unsubstantiated fear-mongering. And there is nothing biased about pointing it out as such... the invocation of the Holocaust in this matter is clearly out of line. Will you be removing it from the page, or shall I? Unfortunately, people can't seem to tell the difference between the above and a technical paper, which is why these links seem to keep cropping up here. The Hokkaido Crow 20:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Hokkaido Crew, Thanks for your post. I partially disagree with your characterization. I do not only look at 1/20 of a web page to make a characterization of the whole thing. There are positive aspects about that page as well such as 1) One of the few places to get the longer Fox News audio about aspartame with key interview on both sides; 2) Articles by various physicians and scientists: Dr. Blaylock (and several interviews), Dr. Schwartz, Dr. Lydon, Jim Turner (involved in hearing about aspartame since the early 1970s), Dr. Cabot, Dr. H.J. Roberts, Dr. Weil; 3) Case reports; 4) Links to various useful resources. Then there is that small, but prominently displayed section with inappropriate Hitler references -- although the author is obviously somewhat emotional about the issue since he/she believes her mother died from aspartame toxicity.

I may or may not agree with the articles and interviews of the physicians and scientists or the Fox News report or the reference to Hitler, but I can at least see that there are some resources written by independent scientists and physicians available on this page that are not available on other pages. Still, aspartamekills.com would not be amongst the tops sites I would list on the anti- side because 1) that small, but prominent reference to Hitler, 2) it is not being kept up-to-date, and 3) it is not well-organized.

But I feel it is easy to pick out sections of any page and find a reason to remove it. Far better quality aspartame pages have already been removed. That is how one can go from a somewhat balanced list to a list primarily of corporate PR sites. Simply removing aspartamekills.com will make the list pretty much completely corporate PR in my opinion.

The idea of "unsubstantiated" BS cuts both ways equally in my opinion. Is it more dangerous or non-NPOV to link to a site that has part of the page going over-the-top as to potential adverse effects or a link to a site (or sites) that may be more organized, but is simply very professional-looking corporate public relations (not unlike linking to tobacco PR sites, for example). Should we eliminate links to site of organizations with obvious conflicts-of-interest? That would eliminate aspartame.org and Aspartame Archives and would certainly theaten The European Commission SCF report since the listed authors have conflicts of interest (although it was researched and drafted by *a single* individual).

In the interest of NPOV, I am more than happy to be as fair as possible with quality links including links of sites funded by the manufacturer or their trade groups. But what I too often see is a link list that starts out fair and then, link by link, quality independent sites are removed until one is left with a non-NPOV set of links. One can easily see by posts to various groups that there is a significant and very active interest by the aspartame.org people to skew what is seen online (such as link lists). See, for example, posts starting on June 21, 2005 at: http://www.psiphi.org/cgi/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=408 .

How about I propose a set of links and an initial order and you tell me what you think? I will go out of my way to list the sites on both sides with scientific discussions, statements from physicians, and the most prominent and reasonably up-to-date content. Twoggle 00:53, 09 September 2005

---

I'm not an approving authority... like I said before, you can add anything you like at any time you like, and anyone else can edit it. I just wanted to point out some of the problems we've had with people who take the anti-corporate stance. As far as bias goes, it is a reality that there isn't much to be found on the internet that is neutral or free of conflict of interest. Respectfully, I think you yourself do have a strong opinion, and it prevents you from seeing bias that you agree with. And that is fine... everyone has bias. I only ask that we link to information that is presented in a factual way. If we are asserting facts, then we have a basis for discussion. If we are talking about hysterical emotional appeals or references to the holocaust, there's no rational way to discuss that. There is a pro side and an anti side, let's present the rational aspects of both. The Hokkaido Crow 15:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your ideas! Okay, here is my proposed web site list. I think it is appropriate to allow comments before making wholesale changes. I understand, of course, that anyone can make changes.

The first version below is one possible order. The second version is the same list in an order putting pro-aspartame sites first and then alternating. These sites are some of the most popular and informative sites on the Internet on both sides of the issue. After looking at both potential sort orders below, I think it is difficult to see any POV in this list.

[sort order option #1]

- Aspartame Toxicity Information Center [8]

+ Aspartame Information Center [9]

- Aspartame -- Dorway to Discovery [10]

+ Aspartame Information Service [11]

- Aspartame -- Mission Possible News/Articles [12]

+ Aspartame Archives [13]

- Aspartame Victims Support Group [14]

+ Aspartame -- American Dietetic Association [15]

- Aspartame Truth Information Site [16]

+ Snopes -- Aspartame Web Page [17]

- Aspartame Consumer Safety Network [18]

+ Aspartame -- American Council on Science and Health [19]

- SweetPoison.com [20]

+ Nutrasweet Web Site [21]

[sort order option #2]

+ Aspartame Information Center [22]

- Aspartame Toxicity Information Center [23]

+ Aspartame Information Service [24]

- Aspartame -- Dorway to Discovery [25]

+ Aspartame Archives [26]

- Aspartame -- Mission Possible News/Articles [27]

+ Aspartame -- American Dietetic Association [28]

- Aspartame Victims Support Group [29]

+ Snopes -- Aspartame Web Page [30]

- Aspartame Truth Information Site [31]

+ Aspartame -- American Council on Science and Health [32]

- Aspartame Consumer Safety Network [33]

+ Nutrasweet Web Site [34]

- SweetPoison.com [35]

Below are additional possible web pages that are paired. For example, the statement by an FDA official is paired with a statement by a former FDA Investigator. The EC SCF report is paired with the response that was passed around to EU members and agencies. An Editorial in a scientific journal is paired with both positive and negative responses in a scientific journal.

Possible Additional Pairings:

FDA

+ Sugar Substitutes (U.S. FDA web page) [36]

- Former U.S. FDA Investigator [37]

EU SCF

+ Update on Aspartame Safety; EC Scientific Committee on Food [38]

- Update on Aspartame Safety; Response to EC Scientific Committee on Food [39]

British Medical Journal Debate:

+ Aspartame and Its Effects on Health [40]

or

+ Aspartame and the Internet [41]

- Responses to Aspartame and Its Effects on Health [42]

Twoggle 18:45, 09 September 2005

---

Things I find POV are sites that rely on anecdotal or individual evidence, or presuppose to have the only correct POV. Thus, if you are asking my personal opinion, I find problems with the following:

• www.sweetpoison.com is nothing more than pop science, and is obviously being used to sell a book. In particular, the statement "phenylalanine is a neurotoxin" is somewhat silly, since we know that phenylalanine is a naturally occurring amino acid.
• www.aspartametruth.com seems explicitly POV to me, just from the implication of the domain name that it possesses "the truth". We can't take it seriously while it includes links like "Aspartame makers and ties to the Nazis".
• Aspartame victims support group - definitely POV. Assuming the mantle of "victims" presupposes some scientific legitimacy or diagnosis of aspartame poisoning.

It's kind of a shame that people can't seem to talk about the scientific evidence without including some sort of scare tactic in the same breath. The Hokkaido Crow 12:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

In the UK, there are warnings about phenylalanine on the back of drinks containing aspartame (because aspartame usually contains a source of phenylalanine)... if it isn't dangerous, why these warnings? 146.87.95.167

I'm guessing that the warning is for people with phenylketonuria (PKU). --Viriditas | Talk 21:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Hokkaido, I posted 7 sites on each side and you had negative opinions of three (3) anti-aspartame sites.

There is not one site listed that is non-POV. That is why I suggested alternating.

For example, www.sweetpoison.com is marketing a product. However, I paired it with www.nutrasweet.com which is also marketing a product. If I thought that marketing was a basis to exclude a site, I would certainly exclude both sites. The mention of phenylalanine as a neurotoxin is accurate. Much of the research over the years has related to plasma phenylalanine spikes from aspartame (which does not occur from normal foods) and its effects on brain neurotransmitters, including neurotoxicity (especially for fetuses). I think it is clear that the formaldehyde and excitotoxin aspect of aspartame is much more of a concern than the phenylalanine, so I disagree with the www.sweetpoison.com site on that issue. But simply because some disagree does not mean it should avoid being listed, IMO. Much of what is on the www.nutrasweet.com site is not accurate in my opinion. But these are two moderately popular sites on the issue, each with important information.

I paired www.aspartametruth.com with the snopes site. The snopes site claims that the issue is a hoax (prominently displaying "FALSE") based upon reading a bunch of other sites and not reading the research. The www.aspartametruth.com site claims to have the truth on its side. Both sites are equally POV, yet both sites have important resources not easily available on other pages.

The Aspartame Victims Support Group is no more POV than the one that it is paired with, the American Dietetic Association (ADA) fact sheet. The ADA was paid $75,000 and worked with the manufacturer to write their first fact sheet. Now, their fact sheet comes from the manufacturer's PR group (Calorie Control Council). Both organizations think they present scientifically legitimate arguments and both organizations are trying to support the general public on this issue. The most popular support group on the issue deserves to be listed along with one of the most popular dietetic groups.

My understanding of the Wikipedia policy is that the overall piece should be NPOV, but that individual statements and links can be POV. In order to keep the overall piece NPOV, I suggested alternating some of the most important links on each side of the issue.

You objected to three of the pairs I listed. That is fine. So, I'll start by changing the external links to the pairs not objected to. It will be interesting to see if someone objects to alternating links, starting with links that provide the most scientific information and discussion. My goal is the same as one or your stated goals -- to make the overall article written in a way that doesn't reveal POV.

By the way, here is testiomony of Dr. Louis Elsas, Division of Medical Genetics, Emory Univ. School of Medicine : "First of all, in the developing fetus -- a situation not considered previously -- the mother is supplying that fetus with nutrients. And if she were dieting, let's say, and increasing her blood phenylalanine uniquely by taking Crystal Lite or Kool Aid, or any of the various diet foods now, to maintain her weight, and increased her blood phenylalanine from its normal 50 to 150 umoles/liter by chronic ingestion at 35 milligrames of aspartame per kilo per day -- which everyone agrees could be reached -- the placenta will concentrate her blood phenylalanine two-fold. So the fetal blood circulation to her baby in utero, is now 300 umole per liter of phenylalanine. The fetal brain then, as Dr. Pardridge will tell you, will increase further that concentration into the brain cells of that baby two- to four-fold. Those are neurotoxic levels in tissue culture and in many other circumstances." (Note: This was part of Dr. Elsas' testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, November 3, 1987 regarding "NutraSweet Health and Safety Concerns." (Document # Y 4.L 11/4:S.HR6.100., pages 360-367) More information about aspartame and phenylalanine can be found in Dr. Pardridge's testimony [43] in that same document or a paper published by Dr. Pardrige: "Potential Effects of the Dipeptide Sweetener Aspartame on the Brain," Nutrition and the Brain, Volume 7, pages 199-241, 1986, Eds: Wurtman & Wurtman. [44]) or many studies related to aspartame in the 1980s.

Whether one agrees with it or not, there have been quite a number of scientists concerned with neurotoxicity of free-form phenylalanine from aspartame. In fact, in 1987, a scientific conference was convened on the issues related to phenylalanine and aspartame where 47 papers were presented [45].

Twoggle 20:38, 10 September 2005

---

Here are my initial thoughts related to the Health Effects Controversy section. The following paragraph (starting with): "It has been suggested that aspartame might be a neurotoxin [5] since one of its labile chemical components is methanol. ...." There have been significant health effects controversies from four (4) major breakdown products from aspartame: methanol, aspartic acid, phenylalanine, aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine (DKP). There has been a huge amount of debate and literally thousands of studies related to these breakdown products. As one example, a meeting of the Society for Neuroscience produced a split on the issues related to gradual neurotoxic effects and free-form excitotoxic amino acids found in some additives such as aspartame [46] Two other issues have been raised: beta-aspartame [47] and racemization of aspartame's amino acids [48]. Finally, issues have been raised on the effects of the combination of formaldehyde (from the methanol) and aspartic acid as well as free-form phenylalanine combined with carbohydrates.

My idea is to briefly mention each of the four breakdown product issues and the arguments of both sides, trying to be as clear and concise as possible. In the defense of most of the aspartame industry-funded scientists, they haven't gotten bogged down in arguments related to 'more aspartic acid / phenylalanine in foods' since their own studies show the biochemical changes are tremendously different from aspartame as compared to foods with these amino acids (e.g., [49] and [50]). These scientists have other, more well thought out arguments, in my opinion.

Twoggle 20:12, 11 September 2005

---

Here are my ideas for the Health Effects Controversy section, particularly the sub-section on the potential effects of the breakdown products and metabolites of aspartame.

One thing to note is that I alternate which argument to present first and second.

Any thoughts?:

There are four chemical components of aspartame that scientists and physicians have debated as to whether the are causing or can cause adverse health effects:

1. Methanol. Scientists agree that approximately 11% of aspartame (by weight) is broken down into methanol in the small intestine. Most of the methanol is absorbed and quickly converted into formaldehyde. Some scientists believe that the methanol cannot be a problem because: a) there is not enough methanol absorbed to cause toxicity, b) that methanol and formaldehyde are already a by-product of human metabolism, and c) that there is more methanol in some alcoholic beverages and fruit juices than is derived from aspartame ingestion. [51] [52] Other scientists believe a) fruit juices and alcoholic beverages always contain protective chemicals such as ethanol that block conversion of methanol into formaldehyde, but aspartame contains no protective factors; b) that the levels of methanol and particularly formaldehyde have been proven cause chronic toxicity in humans, and c) that the low levels of methanol and formaldehyde in human metabolism are tightly-controlled such that significant increases from aspartame ingestion are not safe. [53], [54]

In 1998, a team of scientists in Spain conducted an experiment on rodents to indirectly measure the levels of formaldehyde adducts in the organs after ingestion of aspartame. They did this by [radiolabeling ] the methanol portion of aspartame. The scientists concluded that formaldehyde bound to protein and DNA accumulated in the brain, liver, kidneys and other tissues after ingestion of either 10 mg/kg or 200 mg/kg of aspartame. [55] However, it has been argued by Tephly that these scientists were not directly measuring formaldehyde, but simply measuring levels of some by-product of the methanol from aspartame.[56] Tephly believes that the by-product was not formaldehyde. The researchers have stated that the data in the experiment has proven it was formaldehyde. [57]

2. Phenylalanine. Scientists agree that phenylalanine is an amino acid commonly found in foods. Approximately 50% of aspartame (by weight) is broken down into phenylalanine. Because aspartame is broken down and absorbed very quickly (unlike phenylalanine-containing proteins in foods), it is known that aspartame could spike blood plasma levels of phenylalanine. [58], [59] The debate centers on whether a significant spike in blood plasma phenylalanine occurs at typical aspartame ingestion levels, whether a sudden influx of phenylalanine into the bloodstream adversely effects uptake of other amino acids into the brain and the production of neurotransmitters (since phenylalanine competes with other Large Neutral Amino Acids (LNAAs) for entry into the brain at the blood brain barrier), and whether a significant rise in phenylalanine levels would be concentrated in the brain of fetuses and be potentially neurotoxic.

Some scientists believe, based on case histories from aspartame users, measuring levels of neurotransmitters in the brains of animals and measuring the potential of aspartame to cause seizures in animals that aspartame may effect neurotransmitter production. [60], [61], [62] They believe that even a moderate spike in blood plasma phenylalanine levels from typical ingestion may have adverse consequences in long-term use. They are especially concerned that the phenylalanine can be concentrated in fetal brains to a potentially neurotoxic level. [63], [64] Other scientists believe that rise in blood plasma phenylalanine is negligable in typical use of aspartame [65] and their studies show no significant effects on neurotransmitter levels in the brain or changes in seizure threshholds. [66], [67], [68] In addition, they say that proven adverse effects of phenylalanine on fetuses has only been seen when blood phenylalanine levels stay at high levels as opposed to ocassionally being spiked to high levels. [69]

3. Aspartic acid. Scientists agree that aspartic acid is an amino acid commonly found in foods. Approximately 40% of aspartame (by weight) is broken down into aspartic acid. Because aspartame is broken down and absorbed very quickly (unlike aspartic acid-containing proteins in foods), it is known that aspartame could spike blood plasma levels of aspartate. [70], [71] Aspartic acid is in a class of chemicals known as excitotoxins. Abnormally high levels of excitotoxins have been shown in hundreds of animals studies to cause damage to areas of the brain unprotected by the blood brain barrier and a variety of chronic diseases arising out of this neurotoxicity. [72], [73] The debate amongst scientists has been raging since the early 1970's, when Dr. John Olney found that high levels of aspartic acid caused damage to the brains of infant mice [74]. Dr. Olney and consumer attorney, James Turner filed a protest with the FDA to block the approval of aspartame. The debate is complex and has focused on several areas: a) whether the increase in plasma aspartate levels from typical ingestion levels of aspartame is enough to cause neurotoxicity in one dose or over time; b) whether humans are susceptible to the neurotoxicity from aspartic acid seen in some animal experiments; c) whether aspartic acid increases the toxicity of formaldehyde; d) whether neurotoxicity from excitotoxins should consider the combined effect aspartic acid and other excitotoxins such as glutamic acid from monosodium glutamate. The Neuroscientists at meeting of the Society for Neuroscience had a split of opinion on the issues related to neurotoxic effects from excitotoxic amino acids found in some additives such as aspartame. [75]

Some scientists believe that humans and other primates are not as susceptible to excitotoxins as rodents and therefore there is little concern with aspartic acid from aspartame. [76], [77] While they agree that the combined effects of all food-based excitotoxins should be considered [78], their measurements of the blood plasma levels of aspartic acid after ingestion of aspartame and monosodium glutamate demonstrate that there is not a cause for concern. [79], [80] Other scientists feel that primates are susceptible to excitotoxic damage [81] and that humans concentrate excitotoxins in the blood more than other animal. [82] Based on these findings, they feel that humans are approximately 5-6 times more susceptible to the effects of excitotoxins as are rodents. [83] While they agree that typical use of aspartame does not spike aspartic acid to extremely high levels in adults, they are particularly concerned with potential effects in infants and young children [84], the potential long-term neurodegenerative effects of small-to-moderate spikes on plasma excitotoxin levels [85], and the potential dangers of combining formaldehyde exposure with given that chronic methanol exposure increases excitoxin levels in susceptible areas of the brain [86], [87] and that excitotoxins may potentiate formaldehyde damage. [88]

4. Aspartylphenylalanine Diketopiperazine. This type of diketopiperazine (DKP) is created in products as aspartame breaks down over time. For example, researchers found that 6 months after aspartame was put into carbonated beverages, 25% of the aspartame had been converted to DKP. [89] Concern amongst some scientists have been expressed that this form of DKP would undergo a nitrosation process in the stomach producing a type of chemical that could cause brain tumors. [90], [91] Other scientists feel that the nitrosation of aspartame or the DKP in the stomach would not produce a chemical that would cause brain tumors. Additionally, only a miniscule amount of the nitrosated chemical would be produced. [92] There are very few human studies on the effects of this form of DKP. However, a one day exposure study showed that the DKP was tolerated without adverse effects. [93]

Twoggle 23:24, 18 September 2005

---

Criteria for above text:

A. Wikipedia:NPOV. Each section above provides an overview of each side of the debate. Sometimes, articles or news shows can consitently present one side of the debate first and then end consistently with the opposite viewpoint. Often times, these articles/shows are skewed to the side of the debate that has its argument presented last. Therefore, the positions are alternated such that in some sections is starts with anti-aspartame and some with pro-aspartame.

B. No original research. No original research is presented above. Sources are cited. What was provided was an overview of the issues related to aspartame breakdown products. The text was kept as short as possible, and for that reason some issues on both sides were left out.

C. Wikipedia:Verifiability. The types of sources used are supposed to be geared towards the potential editors of the text. However, it makes sense that persons editing issues related to potential health effects of a substance should be somewhat familiar with the scientific literature or at least have access to it. On the other hand, that may not always be the case. Much of the citations above are from scientific literature. However, due to copyright restrictions, only a link to the abstract was provided. But the abstract will not always provide the evidence or verifiability of the reason the source was used. Therefore, this space will be used to provide Wikipedia:Fair use images (excerpts of a sentence or two) to verify the references.

Ref. 1 & 2: "Some scientists believe that the methanol cannot be a problem because: a) there is not enough methanol absorbed to cause toxicity, b) that methanol and formaldehyde are already a by-product of human metabolism, and c) that there is more methanol in some alcoholic beverages and fruit juices than is derived from aspartame ingestion." [94] [95] Verify at: [Chapter by Thomas Tephly in Butchko review] and [Image from Lajtha review].

Ref. 3 & 4: "Other scientists believe a) fruit juices and alcoholic beverages always contain protective chemicals such as ethanol that block conversion of methanol into formaldehyde, but aspartame contains no protective factors; b) that the levels of methanol and particularly formaldehyde have been proven cause chronic toxicity in humans, and c) that the low levels of methanol and formaldehyde in human metabolism are tightly-controlled such that significant increases from aspartame ingestion are not safe." [96], [97] Verify at: Reviews available in references [#1] and #2].

Ref. 5: "They did this by [radiolabeling ] the methanol portion of aspartame. The scientists concluded that formaldehyde bound to protein and DNA accumulated in the brain, liver, kidneys and other tissues after ingestion of either 10 mg/kg or 200 mg/kg of aspartame." [98] Verify at: Reference [#1].

Ref. 6: "However, it has been argued by Tephly that these scientists were not directly measuring formaldehyde, but simply measuring levels of some by-product of the methanol from aspartame."[99] Verify at: [Chapter by Thomas Tephly]

Ref. 7: "The researchers have stated that the data in the experiment has proven it was formaldehyde." [[100]] Verify at: In [referenced letter] from lead scientist on the study.

Ref. 8 & 9: "it is known that aspartame could spike blood plasma levels of phenylalanine. [101], [102] Verify at: In referenced abstracts [1] and [2].

Ref. 10, 11, 12: "Some scientists believe, based on case histories from aspartame users, measuring levels of neurotransmitters in the brains of animals and measuring the potential of aspartame to cause seizures in animals that aspartame may effect neurotransmitter production." [103], [104], [105] Verify at: In referenced abstracts [1], [2], [3].

Ref. 13 & 14: "They are especially concerned that the phenylalanine can be concentrated in fetal brains to a potentially neurotoxic level." [106], [107] Verify at: In referenced excerpts [#1] and[#2] from scientists' testimony.

Ref. 15: "Other scientists believe that rise in blood plasma phenylalanine is negligable in typical use of aspartame. [108] Verify at: In [reference] provided.

Ref. 16, 17, 18: "their studies show no significant effects on neurotransmitter levels in the brain or changes in seizure threshholds." [109], [110], [111] Verify at: In references [#1], [#2], [#3 provided.

Ref. 19: "proven adverse effects of phenylalanine on fetuses has only been seen when blood phenylalanine levels stay at high levels as opposed to ocassionally being spiked to high levels." [112] Verify at: [Image from London review]

Ref. 20 & 21: "Because aspartame is broken down and absorbed very quickly (unlike aspartic acid-containing proteins in foods), it is known that aspartame could spike blood plasma levels of aspartate." [113], [114] Verify at: In references [#1] and [#2 provided.

Ref. 22 & 23: "Abnormally high levels of excitotoxins have been shown in hundreds of animals studies to cause damage to areas of the brain unprotected by the blood brain barrier and a variety of chronic diseases arising out of this neurotoxicity." [115], [116] Verify at: [Image from Nemeroff review] and permitted use of reference [#2].

Ref. 24: "The debate amongst scientists has been raging since the early 1970's, when Dr. John Olney found that high levels of aspartic acid caused damage to the brains of infant mice." [117] Verify at: [Image from Olney & Ho study].

Ref. 25: "The Neuroscientists at meeting of the Society for Neuroscience had a split of opinion on the issues related to neurotoxic effects from excitotoxic amino acids found in some additives such as aspartame." [118] Verify at: [Excerpt from news article].

Ref 26 & 27: "Some scientists believe that humans and other primates are not as susceptible to excitotoxins as rodents and therefore there is little concern with aspartic acid from aspartame." [119], [120] Verify at: [Image from Abraham study] and reference [#2].

Ref 28: "While they agree that the combined effects of all food-based excitotoxins should be considered...." [121] Verify at: [Image] from Stegink review on page 356.

Ref 29 & 30: "their measurements of the blood plasma levels of aspartic acid after ingestion of aspartame and monosodium glutamate demonstrate that there is not a cause for concern." [122], [123] Verify at: References [#1] and [#2].

Ref 31: "Other scientists feel that primates are susceptible to excitotoxic damage" [124] Verify at: [Image from Olney study].

Ref 32: "humans concentrate excitotoxins in the blood more than other animal." [125] Verify at: [Image] from page 90 of [Book]: "Glutamic Acid: Advances in Biochemistry & Physiology." Further information available at [126].

Ref 33: "Based on these findings, they feel that humans are approximately 5-6 times more susceptible to the effects of excitotoxins as are rodents." Verify at: Reference [#1].

Ref 34: "they are particularly concerned with potential effects in infants and young children." Verify at: Reference [#1].

Ref 35: "the potential long-term neurodegenerative effects of small-to-moderate spikes on plasma excitotoxin levels." Verify at: reference [#1].

Ref 36 & 37: "chronic methanol exposure increases excitoxin levels in susceptible areas of the brain." [127], [128] Verify at: Reference [#1 and [#2].

Ref 38: "excitotoxins may potentiate formaldehyde damage. [129] Verify at: Abstracts and quotes in reference [#1].

Ref 39: "researchers found that 6 months after aspartame was put into carbonated beverages, 25% of the aspartame had been converted to DKP." [130] Verify at: [Image from Tsang study].

Ref 40 & 41: "Concern amongst some scientists have been expressed that this form of DKP would undergo a nitrosation process in the stomach producing a type of chemical that could cause brain tumors." [131], [132] Verify at: [Image] from Olney, et al. study and reference [#2].

Ref 42: "Other scientists feel that the nitrosation of aspartame or the DKP in the stomach would not produce a chemical that would cause brain tumors. Additionally, only a miniscule amount of the nitrosated chemical would be produced." [133] Verify at: [Image] from Flamm letter.

Ref 43: "a one day exposure study showed that the DKP was tolerated without adverse effects." [134] Verify at: Reference [#1].

Twoggle 04:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

More NPOV ideas. From the article:

"Questions about aspartame frequently revolve around concerns of health conditions that are allegedly caused by the sweetener, including headaches, seizures, allergic reactions, changes in mood or behavior, and symptoms similar to multiple sclerosis. Indeed, an e-mail has been circulating since 1998, claiming to be from a lecturer at an international conference on aspartame risks, listing various symptoms supposedly caused by the chemical. This email has generally been dismissed as inaccurate, and there is no evidence that such a conference or other events recounted in the email actually occurred, according to Snopes, a site which debunks urban legends."

I suggest that there is some discussion of research and clinical findings on each side related to the symptoms. I also suggest that the "Nancy Markle" discussion be ditched. If we do include it, I suggest we reference it and present both sides of the argument. If we need to include Snopes, we probably should add a response to Snopes' viewpoint.

"A large body of scientific evidence suggests that aspartame, even in amounts many times greater than typical consumption, is safe and not associated with adverse health effects."

This is obviously not NPOV since a large body of scientific evidence suggests that aspartame in amounts ingested in typical consumption is not safe. There are studies on both sides of the issue, some of which are categorized in [Dr. Walton's preliminary review. I will propose some suggested edits.

An interesting note: there has been a big push in the last month to ban the sale of aspartame in New Mexico, with hearings, articles in papers, radio shows, and especially a large number of submittals from persons (and scientists) on both sides of the issue. They are supposed to decide on Oct. 4. It seems to be coming down to whether the state has authority to ban it.

Twoggle 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Here is a first pass at the section mentioned above to make it more NPOV and get rid of the "Nancy Markle" nonsense. In addition, I listed the most commonly reported symptoms and most hotly debated health conditions:

-

Questions about aspartame frequently revolve around symptoms and health conditions that are allegedly caused by the sweetener. Some of the more common symptoms that have been reported include: headaches, change in mood or behavior, seizures, GI Tract symptoms, memory loss, loss of vision, depression, joint pain and fatigue. Some of the more common health conditions that have been reported include: fibromyalgia, arthritis, and multiple sclerosis-like symptoms. Questions have been raised about brain cancer, lymphoma, and genotoxic effects such as DNA-protein crosslinks, but these quesitons are primarily not based on reported case histories.

The sources for reported symtpoms and health conditions that have raised questions include:

1. Reports and analysis of case histories in scientific journals and at medical conferences.

2. Symptoms reported to the FDA and other governmental agencies.

3. Symptoms reported to non-governmental organizations, researchers, and physicians.

4. Reports of symptoms and health conditions in the media.

5. Self-reported cases on the Internet.

There is a significant debate in the scientific and medical community as to whether these symptoms are or are not caused by short-term or long-term exposure to aspartame. Some human and animal studies have found adverse effects and some have found no adverse effects. [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140] It is not only the results of the research that have been questioned, but the design of the reseach that led to specific outcomes. For example, in human research of aspartame, the aspartame is usually provided in slow-dissolving capsules. But the biochemical changes from ingesting aspartame in slow-dissolving capsules is many times smaller than ingesting aspartame dissolved in liquids (such as carbonated beverages). [141] Therefore, the amount of aspartame used in most human studies is equivalent to a much smaller "real-world" amount. Other questions that have been raised about aspartame research involve the length of the studies, the number of test subjects; conflict of interest issues, improper testing procedures, etc.

-

What do you think?

Twoggle 16:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

---

For the above suggested text:

A. NPOV. The use of the term "allegedly" can sometimes be a put-down of people making reports of effects -- especially if it's used over and over. In this case, however, it seems pretty NPOV. The symptoms listed are essentially the most common symptoms reported to the FDA and to H.J. Roberts, MD (who compiled and published in a scientific journal the largest analysis of reported cases). Other health conditions mentioned are ones that have raised concerns in the scientific community or media.

No references are listed next to the sources for reported cases since that would provide links to case reports in medical journals, media, Intenet, etc. on one side of the issue but not the other. Probably doesn't matter much, though. But I'll add some sources to the verifiability section below.

Three studies on each side of the issue were chosen in the last paragraph. The concerns raised about apply to both studies supported by the manufacturer and those that are supported by other sources.

B. No_original_research. No original research is presented above. Sources are cited. What was provided was a very overview of some of the symptoms and health conditions concerns. Anyone knowledgable on the issue could expand this section considerably.

C. Verifiability.

Reported syptoms listing

1. [1995 listing from the FDA], but does not include reports from the early 1980's. Notice how seizures is split into multiple categories. 2. [Chart] from Roberts, H.J., "Reactions Attributed to Aspartame-Containing Products: 551 Cases," Journal of Applied Nutrition, Volume 40, page 85-94, 1988.

Health conditions listing

1. Fibromyalgia concerns raised in the following study: [142] 2. Arthritis raised in [chapter] from book by physician and with opposite finding from a study by a patent holder of aspartame: [143] 3. Multiple Sclerosis an obvious choice from the original ["Nancy Markle email]."

Other conditions mentioned

1. Brain cancer issue has been raised for years. No need to verify reason to list it. 2. Lymphoma issue was raised recently: [144]. 3. DNA Protein Crosslinks is an issue that is raised almost any time long-term exposure to formaldehyde is discussed. [145] [146] The issue of DNA protein crosslinks was originally raised (in relation to aspartame) in the following [article]. One [study] looked at short-term, in vitro effects of aspartame metabolites, but there have yet to be any looks a long-term human exposure where such effects are seen in the industrial formaldehyde exposure experiments cited above.

Sources for Reported Symptoms (sample references):

1. Reports and analysis of case histories in scientific journals and at medical conferences.

[147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154]

2. Symptoms reported to the FDA and other governmental agencies.

[155] [156]

3. Symptoms reported to non-governmental organizations, researchers, and physicians.

[157] [158] [159] [160] [161]

4. Reports of symptoms and health conditions in the media.

[162] [163] [164] [165]

5. Self-reported cases on the Internet.

[166] [167]

Last paragraph:

"Some human and animal studies have found adverse effects and some have found no adverse effects." [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173]

Verify at: References [#1], [#2], [#4], and [#5] above have abstracts that describe the results. Images from references [#3] and [#6] describe the results.

"But the biochemical changes from ingesting aspartame in slow-dissolving capsules is many times smaller than ingesting aspartame dissolved in liquids (such as carbonated beverages)." [174] Verify at: Abstract in Reference [#1].

Twoggle 01:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Suggesting for NPOVing the following:

"A large body of scientific evidence suggests that aspartame, even in amounts many times greater than typical consumption, is safe and not associated with adverse health effects. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has investigated claims of ill effects since 1982 and maintains that there is no reasonable evidence of possible public health harm and no consistent or unique patterns of symptoms reported with respect to aspartame that can be causally linked to its use. [55] The American Cancer Society argues that since aspartame is broken down into these components before it is absorbed into the blood stream, aspartame in its initial form does not have the opportunity to travel to target organs, including the brain, to cause cancer [56]. The American Heart Association concludes that extensive investigation so far hasn't shown any serious side effects from aspartame. [57] Scientists at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology believe that even daily large doses of the high-intensity sweetener aspartame, also known as NutraSweet, had no adverse effect on study subjects' health and well-being[58] The National Cancer Institute argues there is no evidence that the regulated artificial sweeteners on the market in the United States are related to cancer risk in humans.[59]"

Nix the first sentence since there are many studies on both sides of the issue and this was addressed at the start of the Health Controversy section. There are organizations on both sides of the issue, so if organizations are mentioned or quoted, then I suggest alternating. Massachusetts Institute of Technology does not take a position on aspartame, nor does its researchers (in general). But there were two MIT researchers on that study and that study is already being cited in the Health Controversies section. Finally, there are many hundreds of aspartame studies (probably over 600 studies) and thousands of studies related to the components of aspartame. Therefore, I think some general statement should be made that the person(s) at these organizations responsible for their opinion on aspartame may not have actually read the bulk of the research.

Twoggle 01:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Here is a very rough idea for the Responses section near the bottom of the article. Some of the organizations listed below have industry funding and some do not. Some are less well-known than others in certain parts of the world. I don't know about the last paragraph, but I was hoping to include something like what it says. After a change like detailed below, I don't think there will be any aspartame article on the web or anywhere else that contains so concise, yet with scientific detail (in layman's terms) and is so NPOV.

The American Cancer Society argues that since aspartame is broken down into these components before it is absorbed into the blood stream, aspartame in its initial form does not have the opportunity to travel to target organs, including the brain, to cause cancer. [175] The Feingold Association has stated that aspartame is reported to cause a variety of neurological effects from headache to seizures and brain tumors. [176] The American Heart Association concludes that extensive investigation so far hasn't shown any serious side effects from aspartame. [177] The UK Campaign for Truth in Medicine says that Aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods. [178] The National Cancer Institute argues there is no evidence that the regulated artificial sweeteners on the market in the United States are related to cancer risk in humans.[179] The National Health Federation calls aspartame a neurotoxic artificial sweetener. [180] The FDA says the more than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population. [181] The Association for Consumers Action on Safety and Health (India) published a review in a scientific journal and issued a nationwide warning on the dangers of ingesting aspartame. [182]

There have been more than 600 studies on aspartame and thousands of studies on aspartame breakdown products and metabolites. It is not known whether person(s) writing the opinion for the above-mentioned organizations have read the bulk of the published research on aspartame or whether they are relying on summaries provided to them.

Twoggle 21:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Links and false precision

The list of External Links is still a bit long (not referring to references here, use as many of those as you need).

The amount of aspartame in an average can of diet cola is about 0.06%. At 104° F, the amount of aspartame reduces to 0.02%.

This sounds like false precision. For how long? What brand? Cite? --RainR 19:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

What's a good guideline for number of external links? I looked up a variety of controversal topics on Wikipedia and read the external links article, but didn't find any guidelines. I agree, though, it would be good to shorten it. I think that the following are useful links, but could be deleted (2 on each side of the issue):

1. Aspartame Consumer Safety Network
2. Aspartame -- American Council on Science and Health
3. Aspartame and the Internet
4. Responses to Aspartame and Its Effects on Health

Twoggle 23:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The official External Link policy doesn't give a specific number, but guidelines to what kind of links are appropriate. WP:EL

--RainR 09:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The first rule in the link policy is link to the official site for the topic. I believe that the official aspartame information site should be included and first on the list. I hope that we can find some sites that take a balanced look and not just _pro_ and _anti_ sites.

--RainR 20:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I assume you are refering to: "Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site." With that criteria there is no *one single* official site. There are manufacturer sites, organization (governmental and non-governmental) sites, PR sites, etc. Not one site listed is any more official than other sites (even if they claim to be). I agree that the sites that meet the criteria of "any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site" should be listed towards the top. I assume that's what you mean.(?) Please let me know. Here's another controversial issue with no official sites, but various links: [[183]]. Do you have any thoughts of sites that provide significant useful info and take a balanced look (i.e., "5. High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.")? Twoggle 21:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

---

"Under strongly acidic or alkaline conditions, aspartame first splits off methanol by hydrolysis. Under more severe conditions, the peptide bonds are also hydrolyzed, resulting in the free amino acids. The amount of aspartame in an average can of diet cola is about 0.06%. At 104° F, the amount of aspartame reduces to 0.02%. The missing 0.04% turns into 0.01% diketopiperazine and 76.2 parts per billion of formaldehyde."

I agree that the numbers are not precise the way they're presented. Good catch. I suggest rewording it. It's difficult to summarize since there are so many possibilities: low-medium-high moisture products; low-medium-high pH products; low-medium-high temperature and all of the permiatations. Maybe a section of aspartame breakdown as part of the chemistry section and perhaps typical amounts in milligrams for certain types of products. Twoggle 04:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

---

What exactly is intended for the "Chemistry" and "Properties and use" sections. I cannot tell which of those sections is more appropriate to have chemical breakdown information in real-world products. Also, I don't know the intended difference between chemistry and properties. Twoggle 01:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Fix the chemical structure!!

So the picture in the chemical structure shows two nonexistent stereocenters! Can someone fix these? Until then I will remove the picture, and put the old one here:

Great Links ... Removed? What?

Aspartame is something that has affected myself and many people I know with negative effects. There were recently some good links that were removed from the "external links" list on the main page, probably because some of which are commercial links, but the sources they link to are the sources that helped me and my frineds to understand the dangers of aspartame better and change our diets to have better health, and I'm sure there could be many others who might benefit from these links as well. Wikipedia has some great articles and links, it's too bad that just anyone can delete links that might be helping people. I wish I knew what the other links were too and I would list them below, but these are some that are dear to me. One of the hardest challeneges we came across was finding information to change diets and know how to spot aspartame containing products. I want to list the links again as there is a lot of free information in the links as well.

• www.aspartamesecrets.com/newsletter.html/ Aspartame Newsletter
• aspartame.jshull.hop.clickbank.net/ Aspartame Detoxification
• www.aspartamesecrets.com/ Dangers of Aspartame Links Page
• www.dorway.com/ Dorway to Discovery (Dangers of Aspartame)
• www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/ Aspartame Toxicity Information

---

Links on both sides were removed. Most of them were for non-governmental organizations -- which are allowed for external links or else the WP:EL rules would require only external links to organizations run by governmental bodies. A long discussion led to splitting the pro- and anti-aspartame links into two somewhat equal sections on this controversial topic. Deleting all links on one side of the issue or deleting some of the more scientific links from organizations on one side of the issue tends to create extreme bias (unintentionally). A balance of the best sites was a comprimise we came to long ago. Provable inaccuracies can be pointed out on virtually all sites that were deleted and not deleted. I strongly prefer having a balanced set of links and sticking with the most sites that discuss the science, but having no links is better than simply creating a biased set of links IMO.

Wikipedia guidelines: "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other." This is definately an issue with multiple points of view and when the two sections were created (pro & anti), prominent sites on each side of the issue were chosen.

Finally, the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources section refers to choosing reliable sources for the actual Wikipedia articles. It is impossible to guarantee the reliability of all external links. As one Editor stated about reliable sources and external links: "In other words, we cannot guarantee the reliablity of ANY linked-to sites, so if guaranteed reliabilty is the standard, all external links must go. As a reader of Wikipedia. I think the benefits of linking to rich sources of specific information about a topic far outweigh the dangers of being misled by the occasional bogus, hacked or irresponsible site. And, again, I'm not for being indiscriminate... if there is a legitimate reason to suspect that a site is fishy, that's enough to disinclude it, and I would expect much stricter vetting to emerge in subject areas that actually have a problem with unreliable convenince links." There are provable, blatent errors or deceptions in *some* of the information on ALL of the external links and I'd be happy to point out a selection of those errors or deceptions. And even if a site was perfectly accurate at some point in time, Wikipedia Editors cannot keep monitoring all external links to guarantee perfect accuracy in the future. I agree with the above-quoted Editor that carefully chosen external links can supplement a reliably-sourced Wikipedia article by providing excellent resources for followup -- in the case of aspartame, a balanced set of resources on both sides of the issue. Twoggle 03:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I agree with the above two comments. It seems that since the removal of the pro and anti links from this article, we have lost a great resource. If the above comment is correct about the process of finally deciding on a pro and anti list for the external links on this article in the past, it seems only right to place that back on the article page. I think that user has made a very good point that seems to go along with the guidelines.Jellybean333 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Jellybean333 16:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the links that are about the subjects pro- and anti-aspartame to aspartame controversy. I would suggest this page to be about the chemical compound. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

You are right, those links would be better in the aspartame controversy article. This other article should probably be both mentioned within the aspartame article as well as under the see also links.Jellybean333 23:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Effects

"The 92 FDA recognised effects are: abdominal pain, anxiety attacks ..."

Are these really FDA recognised effects or are they only various effects that have been reported to the FDA? There's no cite. --RainR 19:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I fixed it. There are a number of studies showing some of those effects, but that list is a list of symptoms reported to the FDA by physicians or patients. It is from a government document obtained using the Freedom of Information Act. Twoggle 20:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a cite for this? --RainR 20:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I have a hard copy, but I've never seen a copy available online.

A subset of the symptoms can be seen in this HHS document: http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/Facts/92_Symptoms/92_symptoms.gif

Typically, that same document comes with the full list of symptoms attached as a database query, but it wasn't scanned in on that web page for some reason.

One copy I have comprises four pages as a memorandum and attachment:

Memorandum: "Adverse Reactions Associated with Aspartame Conumption," From: Chief, Epidemiology Branch, HFS-728, Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS), Date: April 1. 1993. [Note: FDA is part of DHHS and the symptoms were reported to the FDA.]

Twoggle 02:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added this reference to the article. --RainR 02:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rhys McFadyen Whoop!--89.240.194.248 19:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

External CDC report Link

The link labelled "Full investigation by the Center for Disease Control, all 146 pages on dorway.com (see 1:07:55)" combines two links within one line. The first is to a CDC summary report, which in its conclusions find aspartame complaints to be a non-issue.

However, in that same file, the report is prefaced by remarks that reflect the conspiratorial view championed by the file's host, dorway.com.

The second link on the same line "(see 1:07:55)" is to the Google Video posting of the anti-aspartame propganda film "Sweet Misery - A Poisoned World (Aspartame)."

The important reference material here is the CDC document, which (rightly or wrongly) concludes that aspartame risk seems minimal, but here it is bookended by anti-aspartame 'cruft.'

I've taken the CDC report, removed the commentary, and mirrored it; it is linked as "Center For Disease Control Summary of its Report on Aspartame Complaints."

The Dorway link either needs to be moved to the "anti-aspartame" links, or be corrected to properly reflect its content. The Google video link needs to be a separate link under "anti-aspartame."

Since I'm hosting the mirrored CDC doc, I am reluctant to make such changes myself. Do others agree that this link needs fixing? Bustter 17:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the Full CDC report should (ideally) be a *text* file on a neutral web page, without commentary and without the summary written by Frederick Trowbridge (who was not part of the investigation and worked for the FDA, not the CDC). This will give readers 100% CDC Investigation from 1984, *** nothing more and nothing less ***. Any biased summary from an FDA official and/or from dorway.com should be avoided in my opinion. Twoggle 19:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Trowbridge is now out of the mirrored file. I'm not sure what you mean by "neutral web page." The domain space in which the text file resides is "neutral" in that there's no content relating to these issues. If you have a better suggestion for a neutral host, though, let me know. Bustter 21:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But the preface adds bias since it makes it appear that an "anti-aspartame" site disagreed with the CDC report -- thereby implying that the CDC report is "pro-aspartame." Dorway only disagreed with the non-CDC-written summary. Why put a preface in at all. Also, the page has Dorway text at the bottom that I'm sure you would have deleted had someone noticed it. Didn't know what to do with the link since I think it starts out so biased with the preface, but wasn't sure how often you read this page. Commented it out for the moment until we can discuss. Please let me know what you think. Twoggle 22:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Another option is I can set up a free web site and put the CDC report sans commentary if you prefer not to host it. Let me know. Thanks! Twoggle 02:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I had removed the end-cruft, but uploaded the wrong version. Corrected now, only left credit to the party who obtained the doc through foia. Bustter 05:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Skeptic time

I know you guys are trying to be fair, and I think that's good. As to this controversy about apsartame thing, I have to ask you: is it a real controversy or not? To put things in perspective, if this were a page on evolution, I would not expect to see creationism offered up as a valid alternative to evolution. I realize there probably are some scientists that think aspartame might be dangerous, but at any given time there are always some opponents to whatever (some of the creationists in the Dover trial might be scientists, but it doesn't mean they're correct). Unfortunately, I, as a layperson, cannot tell the difference between a situation where there is a real, actual controversy amonst scientitsts and a merely manufactured, false one.

Here's what I do know though: aspartame has been around for quite a long time now. A very large number of people consume some aspartame now and then. If it is so terribly, terrible, don't you think it would have become more obvious by now?

---

Hi! Well, there are many scientists on both sides of the issues who have written articles many of which can be found using the links at the end of the aspartame piece. With the recent studies from Europe related to purported formaldehyde accumulation, lymphoma, leukemia and other forms of cancer coupled with the reported case histories, the controversy seems to be heating up. Next Summer, there are scheduled public hearings in one U.S. state on banning it. So whether one thinks its perfectly safe or terribly unsafe, I think it's good to be as balanced as possible in hopes that some people reading it will followup by reading the scientific literature or speaking with scientists.

My own philosophy is when I cannot read the scientific literature on a subject, I try to contact as many independent scientists as possible, particularly those who have demonstrated familiarity with the scientific literature. A history of independence and scientific knowledge is what I look for. 24.62.155.161

---

There is a possibility that the manufacturers have pressured FDA and so on to not release information they may have until a decision is reached, something which might sway the FDA. CMIIW 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

WTF? Parkinsons link? True or Myth?

I read here about it http://www.jcrows.com/aspartame.html I'm pretty doubtful. Can anyone tell me if this page is true about aspartame or a lie? DyslexicEditor 22:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No legitimate scientific study has ever linked aspartame consumption with Parkinson's disease. I think the tone of that site should be a tip-off that it is biased against aspartame. James Bowen, M.D., who has probably never examined or met Michael J. Fox, is acting extremely irresponsibly by stating that aspartame caused his Parkinson's disease. It's troubling that a supposed MD could make such a logically incoherent conclusion: Michael J. Fox was a spokesperson for Diet Pepsi, Michael J. Fox has Parkinson's, therefore Diet Pepsi causes Parkinson's. Rhobite 01:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

DyslexicEditor, there has been no relevent research conducted to see if aspartame ingestion contributes to Parkinson's symptoms. There has been a 1-day study funded by a manufacturer trade group. It showed that ingesting aspartame for *one day* in a non-bioequivalent form produces no adverse symptoms in Parkinson's patients. When I say "non-bioequivalent form," I mean a form of aspartame that has been proven to produce different biochemical changes than aspartame found in sodas (for example). There have yet to be any serious longer-term studies in Parkinson's patients. There have been case histories reported related to worsening Parkinson's symptoms, but no direct research. Twoggle 20:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

daveNOSPAMs29@aol.NOSPAM.com writing now, adding to this conversation. I had a telephone conversation in 2001 or 2002 with the man that discovered Nutrasweet, James Schlatter, who had been retired for many years. He had met my father a few times in the late 1970's and early 1980's, although he didn't remember the connection at the time. I asked him whether he knew of anyone that had been involved with aspartame testing, aspartame synthesis or development in early years that had developed Parkinsons, particularly early onset Parkinsons. He told me that no, he hadn't, nothing at all that he knew of and we had a very nice conversation about those early years. My father had very early exposure to aspartame lab samples (pre-1977) and also developed Parkinson's at a young age. I did a rather exhaustive literature search and metabolite analysis to the best of my ability as a chemist, and could not develop a hypothesis for a connection. I would be very interested to see clinical trials run administering high doses of aspartame or breakdown products thereof, to animals prone to developing Parkinson's. There is no credible medical evidence indicating a connection at this point, and I'm merely bringing up this anecdote for completeness.

Recent edits on conflict of interests issue

The oft repeated myth that Donald Rumsfeld was on the Reagan transition team that appointed Hayes stems from the fact that Rumsfeld was on the Ford transition team, and a man named Rutledge was on the Reagan team. There also were insinuations that the approving FDA commissioner left the FDA and immediately started consulting directly for Searle. Since the data available does not support the original suspicion, the perceived conflict of interest seems to have drifted.

The most recent edits by Twoggle are now suggesting that a body of persons now perceive the conflict of interest to be rewards for miscellaneous persons receiving high paying positions or consulting positions, as eevidenced by sudden appearance of the last portion of this sentence.

"Some believe that the approval of aspartame was influenced by conflict of interest and that persons involved in the aspartame approval process were rewarded with high paying jobs or consulting positions"

It is true that many people at the FDA involved in drug approval leave the FDA for positions at the companies they used to regulate. This problem has been around for years and is not peculiar to aspartame. It's well documented and often referred to as a "revolving door." This clearly is not the case with former FDA commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, who left the FDA for academia to a position he was qualified for and by most accounts served effectively in.

Congressional register testimony from Burson-Marsteller makes clear that Hayes consulted in a very limited fashion for them, 10-15 hours per year, and not on aspartame nor any drug he had approval authority on.

What then, is the perceived reward, then, or conflict of interest? Is the suggestion that Rumsfeld applied pressure to get something approved and that there was a quid pro quo?

If so, to whom, and for what?

If there is solid evidence of a quid pro quo, let's get it documented and fact checked.

Here is my take on the issue. It is easy to create an argument about a certain type of conflict of interest, then show that it doesn't exist, and finally claim that there is either no conflict of interest or no legitimate concern. That's a strawman argument. I'm sure you are trying to clarify that Burson-Marsteller says and Hayes says that he didn't work on the aspartame issue after leaving the FDA.

No one is claiming that Hayes or the many others at HHS/FDA (etc.) involved in the aspartame process left and actively lobbied for aspartame approval. Maybe some did and maybe some didn't, but we don't know that.

What we do know is that numerous HHS/FDA officials involved in aspartame's approval received lucrative positions in related industries/companies. For example, Hayes was reported to receive $1,000 per day from Burson-Marsteller. In addition, a UPI investigative piece reported that NutraSweet Co. paid Burson-Marsteller up to $3 million a year for PR services. One other tidbit from the piece: "But a former Burson-Marsteller employee, who requested anonymity, said Hayes was hired precisely because of his decision on NutraSweet and other issues affecting company clients."

Perhaps what has been said by Burson-Marsteller is inaccurate. Or perhaps what has been reported by investigative reporters is inaccurate. Or perhaps the US GAO report and FDA reports are inaccurate. But what is important is that this example raises concern of conflict of interest simply because the rewards that can be given for helping out a company or industry. The is how the Conflict of Interest section begins -- raising the concerns that are brought up by potential rewards for certain decisions.

The concern was not limited to Hayes. The US GAO looked at Sherwin Gardner (became a VP of the National Soft Drink Assn), Stuart Pape (became lawyer for the National Soft Drink Assn), Howard Roberts (became VP of National Soft Drink Assn), Wayne Pines (went to Burson-Marsteller), Robert Dormer (went to a legal firm retained by Searle). The GAO didn't look into two US Attorneys who were investigating Searle for fraud (at the urging of the FDA) in the aspartame pre-approval studies and other pre-approval studies. They went to work for a Searle law firm. More recently, concern might be raised (for example) from W. Gary Flamm's move from being responsible for evaluation of aspartame at the FDA during the 1990s to consulting on research for their new sweetener, neotame.

"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, a politician, or an executive or director of a corporation, has competing professional and/or personal interests." The competing interests can be some other active position or even a knowledge of reward for taking a particular action -- in this case approval of a product. It is not unusual for people to express significant concern about this type of conflict of interest. Here is a quote from yesterday's Guardian (12/15/05) where a U.K. MP raised issues related to aspartame safety: "The history of aspartame's approval is littered with examples showing that if key decision makers found against aspartame's safety, they were discredited or replaced by industry sympathisers, who were recompensed with lucrative jobs."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Because an argument is being made that Hayes never used his position to influence aspartame decisions (something well known since the GAO report and even earlier), it was necessary to clarify what has always been the concern related to the conflict -- reward system for taking particular actions. I am opposed to saying that such conflicts of interest have been *proven* in the aspartame case. But they are relevent and should at least be raised.

I would be in favor of being more specific as far as the concerns and listing the people that left HHS/FDA, US Attorney's office after working on the aspartame issue and where they went (including possible connection to Searle/NutraSweet), as long as we keep it short and to the point. We can also point out that GAO found that Hayes and others didn't work specifically on the aspartame issue after they left the HHS/FDA.

That is the way I look at the issue. Twoggle 22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This discussion led to changes that were made in December 2005. While I prefer to list all of the persons working at HHS/FDA who received aspartame industry jobs and the jobs they received, it seems we had come to a comprimise. No objections were raised. However, several months later, the text was reverted claiming "vandalism" when no objections were raised at the time. In addition, there was a claim I was involved in slandering Hayes, but ironically, I removed a sentence that might be considered slanderous to Hayes only a couple of days ago. Rather than vandalizing the article, I'm happy to continue the discussion that was started in December 2005. Twoggle 20:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the only changes I made to the last edits by 192.28.2.17 on Dec. 15 involved removing a short Burson-Marsteller "ad" and adding more details about what concerns have been raised (as was discussed in the discussion section). None of the other edits on Dec. 15 were changed by me. I do agree that the changes made by 70.124.31.73 were not something I have any proof for and that is why I removed the potentially slanderous sentence about Hayes. Twoggle 20:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing is that I agree with 192.28.2.17 that the changes made recently (on 3/3/2006) were made without posted references. However, I do not think it is appropriate to revert back to a tremendously old version that excludes both changes I made *and* changes made by 192.28.2.17 on 12/15/2005 and there were discussed in the Discussion section and not objected to. I propose that we go back to a pre-3/3/2006 version before the most recent changes, but open the floor to backup material that 70.124.31.73 might have for his/her proposed changes. Twoggle 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So, here is my proposal that will hopefully allay all objections:

We revert that section back to 3/2/06 edition. This will go back to a version that includes adjustments by both 192.28.2.17 and by myself on 12/15/2005 and has not raised any objections. Then we can discuss the proposed changes by 70.124.31.73. In this way, we do not lose months of changes/work (that did not raise objection). In addition, 192.28.2.17 has requested that "someone else can duke it out" and I suggest we do so on the discussion page. Please let me know what you think. Twoggle 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh! History of changes to Discovery & Approval section related to Hayes that is in contention:

12/15/2005: Changes by both Twoggle and 192.28.2.17. Following these changes there were NO OBJECTIONS by either of us to this section. And there were no changes made by either of us to this section before March 2006.

3/3/2006: Changes to section by 70.124.31.73 to Discovery & Approval section regarding Hayes, Bush, Rumsfeld, etc.

3/4/2006: 192.28.2.17 adds comments to article challenging the changes by 70.124.31.73 but requests that others make the final changes: "Added comments about vandalism too severe to edit simply, someone else can duke it out." So much for that!

3/4/2006: Adjustment to PBOI text using wording lifted directly from PBOI decision by Twoggle. This change did not effect anything related to Hayes or Conflicts of Interest.

3/4/2006: Removal by Twoggle of potentially slanderous text related to Hayes.

3/6/2006: 192.28.2.17 accuses Twoggle of vandalism and adding slander ("Reverse Twoggles long standing vandalism and slander of A.H. Hayes.") even though Twoggle made no relevent changes since 12/2005 that weren't objected to and removed a potentially slanderous statement.

3/6/2006: 192.28.2.17 accuses Twoggle of making changes that were agreeable in January (yet he reverts back to a pre-12/15/2005 version) and obviously confuses me with 70.124.31.73 when anyone reading the history can see otherwise. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

From DaveNOSPAMSNOSPAM29@aolNOSPAMDOTCOM

To Twoggle

I do not follow wikipedia daily. Neutral agreeable text from January had evolved through multiple edits into fictional BS. If none of the BSing was yours, I apologize, but I don't have time to read 40 versions. Clicking on "twoggle" revealed a page stating "the masked vandal." As a peace overture, I cannot tell for certain whether you are constructively helping get this article to a NPOV or whether you are a vandal. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in December, and was shocked to see how 3 months later it had evolved into pure fantasy. Claims that Hayes had no qualifications when he was an MD, that he was Rumsfelds personal friend, that Rumsfeld picked him for the job, that he took bribes, that he was investigated for bribes, etc. The timeline of events is of critical importance to understanding the reality of what happened, and all the timeline dates were removed. Versions claiming that Rumsfeld bribed someone, or that Bush personally intervened - these also require references to establish factuality if they are to be included.

The version that was posted on 12/15 was factual and verifiable. I'd like to see something like that. One person sees a whitewash because they desperately want to see and believe a conspiracy. I seriously doubt there was any such conspiracy until shown solid evidence. Those who doubt there was a conspiracy realize that the approval of ANY substance by the FDA involves scientific debate. There are always conflicts in the data. That is what the scientific process is about - the search for objective, verifiable, repeatable results. No substance is completely unharmful at any and all dosage levels, yet the fact remains that aspartame is the most tested food additive in history. Twenty years of use, and claims that aspartame caused Gulf War Syndrome are still believed? It's nuts. Even if one thinks there was a mass conspiracy 20+ years ago, one has to wonder why NO ONE has ever come forth admitting to wrongdoing, why the preponderence of aspartame fiction and polemic on the internet has never led to any FDA restrictions on its use, why nations with even tougher regulatory hurdles than the US (ie: Japan) similarly have never taken it off the market?

What you view as a massive rewrite is merely an edit of a single paragraph, far less than 2% of the article. The allegations about Rumsfeld somehow being on the Reagan transition team, that Hayes took bribes or was being investigated for gratuities, that George Bush intervened are simply unsupported by references or documentation. They do not belong. It is a fact that Rumsfeld took responsibility for trying to resolve the roadblock, and that Hayes was asked to referee the facts when the PBOI was unable to do so effectively.

See http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/97/01/018.html

Frankly, I thing Hayes was an honorable man unfairly tarred. The rewrite proposed on 3/6/06 is factual and unbiased. I am an ardent Bush critic and dislike D Rumsfeld intensely. My father had met Don R many times and frankly had very little good to say about him. Nevertheless, please be objective. I personally know individuals that were closely involved with congressional testimony at the time, people quoted in fact, in the congressional register. Although some folks would love to grasp at conspiracy theories, and the web is full of bizarre timelines and complicated fables claiming quid pro quos, please separate fantasy from verifiable reality. This is a perfect example of how the entire wikipedia concept is really flawed. You and I can go back and forth and change the text 5x a day for the next year, or you can propose a factual, substantive and neutral version.

All of the proposed changes that I have made from 192.68.* have been fact oriented and unbiased. :More than 90% of what you read about aspartame on the internet is fiction.

Dave

23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)192.28.2.17

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, I understand the shock of seeing those changes after we had pretty much stuck with a version since 12/15/2005. I believe that others may have made minor adjustments since then.

Rather then wipeing out our changes on 12/15/2005 and everyone else's changes since then in one massive revert, I believe it is best to revert to just prior to the changes made on 3/3/2006 (by someone else) that you objected to on 3/4/2006. Then we can go from what we have had for the last several months and discuss any other changes. One other note: You stated, "A factual version was agreeable in early January...." and I agree and am insisting that we go back to such a version and then work forward from there through reasoned discussions. I believe your proposed changes are non-NPOV, but since we all agree upon the factual version from early January, let's start from there and discuss. Twoggle 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

from Dave: Unless I am missing something, there was no massive reversion. I simply removed a couple of sentences that made unsupported allegations. I don't even know how to revert a whole article. Were there changes to the article other than to a single paragraph in a single section? Wasn't my intention, to be sure. Your opinion that my changes are NPOV is really rather silly, since most of the text was directly from an FDA inquiry response letter. In essence that suggests you think the FDA is biased and perhaps suggests preconceived notions about conspiracy theories.

What specifically of any value to a reader that is verifiable was removed in my editing? What do you want to see added? I suggest adding rather than removing, because what was about 4 paragraphs became one over the last 14 weeks.

The rewrite that I proposed on 12/15 was accurate,factual and fair. Was something important left out? I don't think a NPOV requires pandering to those that claim somehow Hayes worked directly on aspartame issues after leaving the FDA in light of sworn congressional testimony to the complete contrary. (Or to those that claim Rumsfeld picked Hayes for the position when there is no refernce provided, or to those who believe what they read on the internet about the PBOI instead of reading, understanding and quoting or paraphrasing from PBOI records.) There are dozens of claims on the internet that Haye's approval of aspartame somehow broke the law, or that somehow the approval process was super controversial, largely because people don't understand that legitimate scientific critique of safety research and robust debate about interpretations are absolutely intrinsic to the approval process of any material. In reality, aspartame was studied extremely thoroughly and with more than typical levels of cautiouness. It is no coincidence that virtually all of the anti-aspartame crowd quote from each other's websites full of fiction, lies and misinformation.

There are many knowledgable people that have reviewed ALL of the available data and conclude that there is no big safety risk. A neutral writeup of the process will allow the reader to draw there own conclusions and should provide highlights from both sides of the debate.

There is no shortage of slanted and bizarre fiction about aspartame on the web. It would be nice if at least ONE of the wikipedia articles presented a rational and documented version.

PThere are other even more bizarre articles about this issue on Wikipedia. There are more kooks on this issue than wonks.

As I suggested, propose a neutral and verifiable expansion of the section and I'll offer comments. As I stated before, when I saw "the masked vandal" attributing certain inflammatory comments to you, I assumed that you were in agreement since they had not been edited out in a version that you authored. (Obviously there are lots of other things in this article that I think are absolutely BS and not scientifically supported. I have limited my edits to this section. That I didn't rewrite the entire thing does not suggest I endorse the rest of it. Frankly, this article would be of much more value to an uneducated reader if it addressed the major myths and complaints with an analysis - debunking or verification, as the case may be.

I don't know all of the facts, and there may be something new lurking out there that I have never seen, but I'm interested in knowing what they are. As someone uninvolved directly with the approval process but with extremely personal knowledge of those that WERE involved, it's a matter of significant personal curiousity.

-Dave

18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)~~

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dave,

On 3/3/2006 you indicated that you would let others make the changes. But then you proceeded to change the text of that section back to pre-12/15/2005 text.

On 3/6/2006 you indicated that a January 2006 version was agreeable, but then proceeded to change the text of that section back to primarily what was there pre-12/15/2005 eliminating some of your edits, my edits and others' edits that weren't objected to.

All I did was make a revisions to fix your concerns (which you said you wouldn't make) by reverting to a version that you said was "agreeable in early January." In doing so, I reverted one of my own edits in order to start with an agreeable version.

The text you wrote is non-NPOV simply because you're not adding boths sides of the issue.

Getting a statement from a government beaurocrat does not qualify as NPOV on controversial issues IMO. Simply because a government beaurocrat (or two) is not telling the whole story does not mean it's a "conspiracy." I don't think anyone here is naive enough to believe that government agencies always tell the truth (or always lie) or always tell the whole story.

As a couple of examples--

1) "Per elipsed reference below, in 1981 after extensive review of the record by FDA scientists, then Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes approved aspartame."

What is not mentioned is that the original group of FDA scientists appointed by Hayes to review the record were against approval. By getting information from a government beaurocrat, we're left with non-NPOV. <sorry, might have accidentally deleted a sentence fragment.>

2) "The PBOI chairman later wrote in a letter to Hayes that the Japanese data would have causd that panel to give aspartame an "unqualified approval."

What is not mentioned is that there was only one person on the panel qualified to review the brain cancer issue -- Peter Lambert -- and it turns out he was assigned to do that as a PBOI member. He was the only Neuropathologist and the President of the American Association of Neuropathologists. He never indicated he'd give approval after that Japanese study which was conducted by the world's main distributor of aspartame (by the way).

I could go on with non-NPOV issues, but my point is that both sides need to be discussed thoroughly IMO if one side is going to be mentioned at all. I feel it cuts both ways in that if someone mentions that Hayes was investigated for gratuities issues, that the other side should be mentioned as well. Twoggle 19:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dave: Almost everything that I'd added was removed. I thought my edits were in early January, they were in December. You are making no point. Again, I did not remove anything substantive other than the unsupported allegations about Rumsfeld and Bush, the fabrication that Hayes worked directly for Searle, and the slanderous comments about bribes.

Dave: I changed my mind. It's allowed.

Dave: It's probably not worth the effort because you don't seem interested in the science underlying the approval, but I decided to try again to see if there was a possibility of getting to a version that would stick. So far little progress.

Dave: I didn't remove some other viewpoint, I added information. That some other viewpoint is not represented is certainly not my fault. What viewpoints do you want added? They should be suppoted by evidence or from reputable sources in my opinion, not from M. Gold or some other aspartame hate site.

Dave: The FDA is the agency entrusted with these decisions. Quoting the official FDA position is hardly 'relying on a bureaucrat.' Perhaps you do not realize that even the term bureaucrat is a biased term. It means roughly "the Desk Rulers." That the regulatory bodies of dozens of other nations concur with the US FDA is not mentioned.

Dave: You are mistaken. It is mentioned. I did not remove *anything* from that section indicating that some scientists had concerns, nor that there was some controversy. What you are missing was that the panel was deadlocked over minutae. The discussions and deliberations of the PBOI resulted in the brain cancer issue identified as the primary concern. The Japanese research that was sponsored by Ajinomoto (which by the way patently did NOT sell aspartame or make aspartame, their primary product was MSG.) I have read the research.

Quoting from the phenomonally biased and inaccurate M/\rk G0ld, I see. There were other medical doctors and oncologists involved in the review. Stating that only one person was qualified is a tremendous simplification. Apparently you did not see my comments about the nature of the scientific process - raising questions and having open discussion and debate are intrinsic. That not everyone agrees on every issue at every point in time is more typical than not. That you don't know what Peter Lambert's opinion is, or that he has never made public statements on the matter does not prove that he does not have an opinion. Again, Ajinomoto had nothing to do with aspartame mfg or distribution at thetime. Their key concern was glutamate metabolism. I know a little bit about that. Actually, I know a lot about that issue.

Dave: this theoretical "other side" is represented ad nauseum in other places in the article. Does every paragraph have to contain speculative comments to be fair? I think not. Again, I removed nothing contrarian, only added.

I don't think that a blow by blow rehash of the PBOI is warranted. Perhaps a list of the PBOI members and a synopsis of their public comments would be interesting to include. The bottom line is that aspartame was approved, the PBOI did object because of concerns about brain cancer data, the PBOI had frequently been deadlocked and in fact a draft "approval" letter had to be debated to get them un-deadlocked, Hayes came in and took a fresh look and put his own neck on the line by approving aspartame, subsequent review over the last 25 years has been exhaustive and aspartame is still being sold.

What aspects of the approval process are even still relevant after 25 years? A brief outline of the key events and a brief look back at the decision in context of what is now known sure seems appropriate to me. That Hayes chose to resign over concerns about less than $100 of reimbursement expenses seems irrelevant. That Hayes consulted for about $1000 for some PR firm that has hundreds of clients is hardly a smoking gun, especially in light of sworn congressional testimony.

That Burston/Marstellar had many clients puts into context that issue. As you will recall, the version in place before I contributed anything stated that he went to work for Searle. (Then it said for Searle's PR firm.) That Burston was retained by practically every pharmaceutical firm because of their expert management of the tylenol crisis puts that into context. It does not prevent anyone from believing that there was a quid pro quo, but remember that congress investigated and found there wasn't. The problem with believing that all of this is a coverup is that so many people were involved, someone always exposes a real coverup. The truth will out.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Quoted Text]"You are mistaken. It is mentioned. I did not remove *anything* from that section indicating that some scientists had concerns, nor that there was some controversy."

I did not say that you removed text, but by making the changes you did, you eliminated edits that were made and *not objected to* since 12/15/2005. And you did so over and over again, slandering me time and time again, claiming that I had vandalised the article and added slanderous comments about Hayes, etc. I removed a potentially slanderous comment about Hayes. All I wanted to do is start from a version that had not been objected to for months and then discuss any changes. Right now, we are at a version of that section that has not raised objections for months. I think everyone would agree that that is a good starting point.

[Quoted Text]"Dave: I didn't remove some other viewpoint, I added information. That some other viewpoint is not represented is certainly not my fault. What viewpoints do you want added? They should be suppoted by evidence or from reputable sources in my opinion, not from M. Gold or some other aspartame hate site."

It may not be your fault that other viewpoints are not represented, but since they aren't, it think it makes it obviously non-NPOV. Even though I don't agree with some people on both sides of the issue, I try to avoid calling one side "aspartame hate sites" or calling the other side "aspartame poison pushing sites." I don't think it promotes a reasoned discussion and it demonstrates an extremely strong bias. I agree that things should be supported by evidence from "reputable sources."

[Quoted Text]"The FDA is the agency entrusted with these decisions. Quoting the official FDA position is hardly 'relying on a bureaucrat.'"

Well, to put it another way, I do not believe that unreferenced statements from government agencies are necessarily true *OR* necessarily false. They are simply another opinion. The FDA does not release opinions of all of the scientists involved in decisions that are made and articles that are written so one does not know anything other than the management involved agrees with the position. But there are many others, organizations, scientists (including government scientists) who hold a differing viewpoint of the events related to the PBOI and approval and were equally involved in those events. Those viewpoints should be represented as well. Otherwise, we can just shut down much of Wikopedia and direct everyone to statements from government agencies.

[Quoted Text]"What you are missing was that the panel was deadlocked over minutae. The discussions and deliberations of the PBOI resulted in the brain cancer issue identified as the primary concern.

You used an aritcle as a reference to exhonerate Hayes. Here's a quote from a national UPI article about what you say was "deadlocked over minutae":

" On May 10 and 13, 1981, a month after Hayes took office, scientists Satya Dubey, Douglas park, and Robert Condon each laid out concerns about the sweetener’s safety in memos to team lawyer Joseph Levitt. Dubey not only expressed reservations about reported incidence of brain tumors in one key Searle rat study, but also said key data in another study appeared to have been altered. Dubey, who still works at FDA, refuses to discuss the matter. Condon, another statistician on the team, and Park, staff science advisor in the agency’s Office of Health Affairs, each said the available evidence failed to prove NutraSweet’s safety or lack of safety.

You may not agree with it. I don't agree with all of what they said, but it's obvious that there is more than one side to the issue. If something controversial is added, it seems professional to have both sides represented. For example, I would not think it fair to include the above quote from the UPI article without the other side of the issue.

[Quoted Text]"The Japanese research that was sponsored by Ajinomoto (which by the way patently did NOT sell aspartame or make aspartame, their primary product was MSG.) I have read the research."

From a 1973 G.D. Searle Annual Report: "commercial quanities of the sweetener will be supplied from the enlarged facility of Ajinomoto." Ajinomoto is the inventor and main producer of the food additive MSG." I agree that in 1980 they didn't sell it yet and it doesn't mean the study was or was not biased, but it is the type of potential funding source conflict that would be mentioned in scientific journals.

[Quoted Text]"Quoting from the phenomonally biased and inaccurate M/\rk G0ld, I see. There were other medical doctors and oncologists involved in the review. Stating that only one person was qualified is a tremendous simplification."

I said that Peter Lampbert was the only member of the 3-person PBOI panel who was qualified in the area of Neuropathology. I mentioned this in response to to a statement that you wanted to include about the PBOI panel and the Japanese study. It is true that the two other members would have given approval based on the Japanese study, but Peter Lampbert never said that he would and in fact his remarks have been characterized as believing that the tumors he saw on the slides may have been caused by a brain tumor agent. So, whether you agree or not, the point is -- there is more than one side to the issue and to simply represent one side is non-NPOV and further relegating statements from legitimate scientists and researchers as "conspiracy theories" would be unprofessional in my opinion.

[Quoted Text]"I don't think that a blow by blow rehash of the PBOI is warranted. Perhaps a list of the PBOI members and a synopsis of their public comments would be interesting to include. The bottom line is that aspartame was approved, the PBOI did object because of concerns about brain cancer data, the PBOI had frequently been deadlocked and in fact a draft "approval" letter had to be debated to get them un-deadlocked, Hayes came in and took a fresh look and put his own neck on the line by approving aspartame, subsequent review over the last 25 years has been exhaustive and aspartame is still being sold."

You're confusing what happened. I have some advantage of having the 51-page PBOI decision, the 30-page analysis of the PBOI decision from the Law and Science Collaboration that has quotes from various members and appointed consultants as well as articles from that period of time. The PBOI was unanimously against approval due to brain cancer conerns that had yet to be addressed. After the PBOI was complete, the FDA Commissioner appointed a 5 member task force (three of those were mentioned above in the UPI article). They were 3-2 against approval of aspartame. The FDA management then had a "approval" letter floated amongst this panel in what they said was an effort to undeadlock the panel. The FDA Commissioner then appointed another member to the task force and it was 3-3 for/against approval. If you say that this is not true, I am happy to scan and post images to Wikopedia to prove otherwise.

[Quoted Text]"What aspects of the approval process are even still relevant after 25 years? A brief outline of the key events and a brief look back at the decision in context of what is now known sure seems appropriate to me. That Hayes chose to resign over concerns about less than $100 of reimbursement expenses seems irrelevant."

I heartily agree! Keep it short. It is nice and short now. Adding one biased source necessitates adding something to balance it. If we are going to outline the events, then one can start all of the way back in the early 1970's and move forward. But I do not advocate just picking event that make one side or the other look like they have all of the facts.

[Quoted Text]"That Burston/Marstellar had many clients puts into context that issue. As you will recall, the version in place before I contributed anything stated that he went to work for Searle. (Then it said for Searle's PR firm.) That Burston was retained by practically every pharmaceutical firm because of their expert management of the tylenol crisis puts that into context."

I addressed that before. If we're going to take up a paragraph defending Hayes taking a position at Searle's PR firm, then it's only NPOV to mention the other side of the issue. Otherwise, the reader is left with the sense that there is only one side to this issue. That works both ways, though. For example, if we're going to take this quote from the UPI aritcle: "But a former Burson-Marsteller employee, who requested anonymity, said Hayes was hired precisely because of his decision on NutraSweet and other issues affecting company clients," then we should defend Hayes and present both sides.

I am all for adding both sides to controversial subjects and avoid attempting to relegate one side to "conspiracy thereorists" or other unprofessional categorization. Twoggle 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum -- Now that the version of that section that caused so much controversy is at a place that raised no objection since 12/15/2006, I think it's fine to consider editing it like any other section in this and any other Wikopeia article. But I'm going to do my best to keep it NPOV by presenting evidence from both sides or removing statements that might be considered slanderous. I don't see anything wrong with that. Twoggle 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that someone editing the "approval" section still persists in fantasizing that Rumsfeld somehow gamed the process of appointing Reagan's FDA commissioner, by making the claim (without any supporting evidence) that Rumsfeld and Hayes were somehow close friends, implying a quid pro quo. I can find no objective evidence of this alleged friendship - people seem to crib fictions and inaccurate statements from various aspartame hate sites, and this is one of them. I propose removing the comment that Rumsfeld and Hayes were friends, or at the very minimum stating that this friendship is simply "alleged without reference"" because there is no documentation provided to support it. This is just ONE of many problems in this article, I can't fix them all, but the overall tone is that there has been a 2-1/2 decade long conspiracy to keep aspartame on the market, ages after the product went generic and long after there were acceptable substitutes - large portions of this article simply are not NPOV, they reflects preconceived bias based on hearsay and unscientific doubletalk.

DaveNOSPAM2NOSPAM9NOSPAM@AOLDOTCOM

I agree that unless there is objective evidence of the friendship that the recently-added statement (only) should be removed. To me, it doesn't matter where the information comes from -- either there's evidence for the statement or not. Twoggle 16:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

---

There is no need to mention the word "theories" it is misleading. In science are always theories, there is no way of asserting that results are 100% complete. After 30 years without challenge it is said that research is considered fact, and even then can be challenged. It's just like microwaves, SAFE SAFE SAFE, until tens of children with relay antenas near their schools turn up with all sorts of cancers and start dying. That's 2 against one, "theory" allegation permenantly removed. Thank you.

I don't like the way some people throw around the word conspiracy and poo-poo the idea that powerful people don't have interests they consciously or unconsciously protect, AND I can't believe that no one is pointing out that Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle at the time aspartame was approved... or are they getting edited out by the many "rational", authoritative, soothing experts who've weighed in here? Some people drink a lot of diet soda, I have one ocassionally, but it's a lot like alcohol, tobacco, and other things I do; I don't feel the need to disclaim the hazardous possible consequences.

News & General Links

I propose that we remove the news links (primarily written by journalists or online bloggers) and include them below the more comprehensive links on both sides of the issue. If the news is about new research, we can include that in the article and cite the research. Twoggle 21:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference missing

I removed this sentence from the article, because the reference (an image in en-wiki) has been deleted.

A consumer alert issued by the Association for Consumers Action on Safety and Health was published in a scientific journal related to the dangers of ingesting aspartame. [184]

If some one has a current reference and would like to add the above sentence, I think they should also tell whether the alert was issued as a scientific (that is peer-reviewed) article or as something else and what was the name of the scientific journal. -EnSamulili 22:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

EnSamulili,

I re-added the reference. While the Consumer Alert was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal accompanying a somewhat long peer-reviewed article on the subject, the Consumer Alert itself was not peer reviewed. Therefore, when adding back that sentence, I removed reference to a scientific journal. Probably better to do that then to go into a long explaination as I did above. Twoggle 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

'Spikes' of Phenlylaline and Aspartic Acid?

Why are these mentioned? Regardless of how quickly these byproducts are metabolized, wouldn't it be largely irrelevant because of the extremely low quantities of aspartame in products, since much less is needed than sugar to produce the taste? It seems to me like someone saying that sugar spikes insulin, when talking about only a teaspoon which would still probably result in less of an insulin spike than a thick slice of whole grain bread :p Tyciol 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Spikes in excitotoxic amino acids and effects on nervous system cells spawned a line of research starting in the late 1960's related to nervous system disorders. Whether one agrees or not with the effects of aspartame, the potential for excitotoxic amino acid spikes from aspartame ingestion is far greater than that of food. At least some of the debate around aspartame issues involves potential effects of free-form excitotoxic amino acids.

Another long-debated issue is whether the sudden influx of one particular Large Neutral Amino Acid (LNAA), in this case phenylalanine, effects uptake of amino acids across the blood brain barrier (BBB) since LNAA's compete for receptors. Scientists on both sides of the issue have debated whether, over time, brain chemistry could be adversely effected.

While these certainly aren't the only issues raised by scientists about aspartame, they are two issues that have been hotly debated over the years and therefore I think they are relevent. Twoggle 03:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What consists of a 'spike' is largely relative to the amount of aspartame ingested at once though. If it's in amounts that match the amino acid digestion of various proteins, then it's nothing remarkable, which should be considered since aspartame is used in small amounts. Even if in excess of most normal meats, I think fast-digesting protein powders used by bodybuilders should be taken into consideration. Many of these wheys digest VERY rapidly. Tyciol 04:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It takes only a tiny amount of these amino acids to cause a spike in plasma levels while it takes a much larger amount in traditionally-eaten food because of the slow breakdown of proteins. With traditionally-eaten foods, the liver is able to moderate the flow of amino acids into the blood stream. That is not the case with aspartame as been seen in research. Researchers on both sides of the issue have long known that comparing the amounts of amino acids in aspartame to that in foods is meaningless. What has been debated is 1) what the amino acid spike is in typical ingestion of aspartame and perhaps a higher-than-typical ingestion for some people; (For example, if a child has a diet "big gulp" or "super big gulp" what is the potential spike in the excitotoxin and LNAA); 2) whether the spikes have any short-term or long-term health consequences; and 3) whether one can measure potential effects (or lack of effects) by looking at the Area Under the Curve (AUC) as opposed to the high points of the spike.

Some foods like tomatos have free-form amino acids, but these foods have also *not* shown the ability to spike plasma amino acids levels similar to aspartame. It is true that some protein powders contain free form amino acids that would be rapidly digested and probably would spike plasma amino acids levels (although one would have to test these powders to be certain), these powders contain a variety of amino acids including a variety of LNAAs and there would not be the concern of effecting amino acid transport across the blood brain barrier by flooding the system with only one LNAA as happens with aspartame ingestion. In addition, there has been no debate of formaldehyde adduct exposure/accumulation with these protein powders as there has been with aspartame. I have met a few people who do not think some of these protein powders healthy, but other than a potential spike in plasma excitotoxic amino acid levels, these have not raised similar concerns as aspartame.

Neuroscientists at the Society for Neuroscience meeting have a split opinion of the potential effects of exposure to excitotoxic amino acids added to foods (in the form of aspartame or MSG for example). In addition, a conference was held with 47 scientific papers presented solely on the issue of potential effects over time of spiking one particular LNAA from aspartame ingestion. There is definately debate on these issues in the scientific community.24.62.155.161 18:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

How long does a "spike" last? Seconds, minutes, hours, days? For if one takes an average human ingesting a range of proteins and amino acids, and then drinks a diet soda and gets a phenylalanine spike (thus possibly preventing those other proteins and amino acids from getting absorbed), the duration of the spike is relavent. A short spike may temporarily interupt the absobtion of other LNAAs-- big woop. If it's longer, or if the individual is constantly ingesting aspartame (as many young people do with a constant diet of Mountain Dew etc), then it gets more interesting. So, my question is, how long is a "spike" in these studies, and are there any graphs published to show these? (I realise that if this is blood plasma, there may have been infrequent blood draws and the end of a spike is not known... but then this also should be included). Actually,Dave might know? Gaviidae 11:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The study that compared ingesting aspartame in liquid to aspartame in slow dissolving capsules showed a spike that last on average of about 1.5 hours. In other words, it took approximately 1.5 hours for the plasma PHE to return to the highest plasma PHE levels seen in person ingesting encapsulated aspartame. There is a graph in an paper published by an industry consultant: "Plasma Amino Acid Concentrations in Normal Adults Administered Aspartame in Capsules or Solution: Lack of Bioequivalence," Metabolism, Volume 36, No. 5, page 507-512. The idea is not about one ingestion of aspartame, however, but repeated ingestions over months or years gradually leading to adverse changes in brain chemistry. There are some animal experiments showing these effects and some that do not show these effects. The book, "Dietary Phenyalalnine and Brain Function Proceedings of the First International Meetings on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function, Washington, DC" (available on amazon.com) contains over 40 studies about this issue (and some of the studies used aspartame). My personal belief is that phenylalanine spikes are less of a concern than the other breakdown products, but many prominant scientists have published papers laying out concerns, so it's still being debated. Twoggle 01:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

DANGERS OF ASPARTAME

Britain's best selling sweetener was condemned as dangerous and potentially toxic in a report compiled by some of the world\\\'s biggest soft drinks manufacturers - who now buy tons of it to add to diet drinks. Coca Cola, Pepsi and other manufacturers produced the report in the early l980s before the sweetener aspartame, had been approved for use in America. It warns that it can affect the workings of the brain, changes behavior and even encourages users to eat extra carbohydrate, so destroying the point of using diet drinks.

The documents were unearthed last week under freedom of information legislation. It follows a decision by researchers at King's College in London to study suspected links between aspartame intake and brain tumors.

Britons drink more than 9 billion cans or bottles of pop a year, of which about half contain artificial sweeteners. Aspartame, made by Monsanto and also marketed under the name NutraSweet, is 200 times sweeter than normal sugar and is used in many popular low caloric foods and drinks. It has been declared safe in a number of studies and has been approved for use in both America and Europe.

There has, however, always been concern at the tendency to break down, producing methanol, which is both toxic in its own right and which breaks down further to produce formic acid and formaldehyde, phenylalanine, another breakdown product of aspartame, is also dangerous to people with phenyketonuria, a common enzyme deficiency.

The 30 page aspartame report was drawn up under the auspices of America's National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) whose governing body at the time included senior Coca Cola and Pepsi executives. It says: "We object to the approval of aspartame for unrestricted use in soft drinks." It then lists ways in which aspartame was believed directly to affect brain chemistry, including the synthesis of vital neurotransmitters such as serotonin.

Other papers obtained with the NSDA documents show the Food and Drug Administration also had misgivings. Despite this it approved aspartame.

Dick Adamson, of the NSDA, said that in l983, he evaluated the data on aspartame and posed a number of questions. Once they were answered, it no longer had concerns about the safety of aspartame in carbonated drinks. Ben Deutsch, a spokesman for Coca Cola, referred questions to the NSDA.Olmert 20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

QUOTE: There has, however, always been concern at the tendency to break down, producing methanol, which is both toxic in its own right and which breaks down further to produce formic acid and formaldehyde, phenylalanine, another breakdown product of aspartame, is also dangerous to people with phenyketonuria, a common enzyme deficiency.

The "tendency" is towards the extremes of pH levels. Softdrinks are around a level of 4.3 which keeps aspartame fairly stable, really. It'll break down quicker in water (7).

I wouldn't call phenylketonuria a "common" deficiency. According to the Wiki article Phenylketonuria "The incidence of occurrence of PKU is about 1 in 15,000 births, but the incidence varies widely in different human populations from 1 in 4,500 births among the Irish to fewer than one in 100,000 births among the population of Finland." Gaviidae 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Done

I just want to echo Supposed in regard to the quality of this article. The number of citiations is very good compared to similar articles and NPOV is maintained throughout. I'm going to have to read the published articles to find out more Sterichinderance 20:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In contrast, while I appreciate the effort made to represent the aspartame issues fairly, it comes off to me as written by a highly partisan anti-aspartame person, who depsite their their best efforts to write in the npov, has ended up writing with what WP:NPOV calls "undue weight."

The presentation consciously gives equal time to pro- and anti-aspartame arguments, yet given that all major national and international food safety governing bodies have affirmed, and in many cases re-affirmed the viewpoint that aspartame is safe, the anti-aspartame viewpoint is a minority viewpoint, a significant minority viewpoint to be sure, but nonetheless a minority viewpoint. The current version, in my opinion, is misleading as to the present state of the debate.

Secondly, the lengthy presentation of the health issues results in what WP:NPOV calls another kind of undue weight: by its size the public health issues dominate the article, and give the impression that there is little notable about aspartame other than its controversial nature, whereas in fact, if aspartame were otherwise unnotable, there would be little reason to invest effort in the controversy. I feel this article could correct this by adopting summary style for this section, and spin it off as Health effects of aspartame or something under a similar title. Shimmin 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the pro- and anti-aspartame groups are pretty evenly split as it relates to the WP:NPOV "undue weight" issue. Wikipedia looks at undue weight in relation to "experts on the subject" or "concerned parties." I think everyone would agree that the experts on the subject would be the actual scientists who have read all or the overwhelming majority of the research and possibly even conducted research on aspartame and/or its breakdown products (e.g., methanol/formaldehyde, aspartic acid, diketopiperazine, phenylalanine).

For the aspartic acid issue, the article cites a pretty even split in scientific opinion of the appropriate specialists (Neuroscientists): "The neuroscientists at a 1990 meeting of the Society for Neuroscience had a split of opinion on the issues related to neurotoxic effects from excitotoxic amino acids found in some additives such as aspartame." A similar split still exists amongst Neuroscientists and the aspartic acid issue.

The following conference proceedings provides an example of the split of relevent experts on the phenylalanine part of aspartame: "Dietary Phenyalalnine and Brian Function Proceedings of the First International Meetings on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function, Washington, DC" (contains over 40 studies about this issue and some of the studies used aspartame).

In 1998, researchers in Spain published research showing (or claiming) aspartame ingestion leading to formaldehyde adduct accumulation in various organs and tissues from the methanol part of aspartame. The Ramazzini group cited that research and a number of experts on both sides of the issue have referred to that issue that relates to the methanol part of aspartame.

"Concerned parties" could mean government agencies or non-government agencies or persons or physicians who have reported adverse effects or industry representatives. I do not think that government agencies (including their committees with hand-selected scientists) is an appropriate way to look at the "undue weight" issue. I believe that "experts on the subject" refer to the scientists involved and the "concerned parties" might best be described as "all other stakeholders" (industry, governmental and non-governmental groups, concerned citizens, etc.).

Since the request for approval of aspartame, it has been mired in controversy -- wrongly or rightly. There were three major U.S. Congressional hearings conducted in the mid-1970's about aspartame's pre-approval research. Approval was held up for ~9 years due to controversy about potential health effects. Subsequent to approval, there were several U.S. Congressional hearings on potential health effects, articles, national TV shows, etc. Even over the last few years, there have been health effects controversies. So, I believe it is part of the aspartame issue. However, I like the fact that someone organized it with the summary, Chemistry, Properties & Use, and Discovery & Approval sections first. The Health effects controversy section is almost as short as possible, yet still presenting relevent information. I do think there is a danger of the Recently-published research section getting out of hand eventually. I would be concerned about burying this part of the article on another page. Twoggle 02:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would like to congratulate those who've worked on this article - it's very objective, presents all sides of the debate, backing up the claims with details and excellent references. Mugaliens 14:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Journal article cites

I have removed several cites of journal articles. The cites in question follow this: "There is debate in the scientific and medical community as to whether these symptoms are or are not caused by short-term or long-term exposure to aspartame. Some human and animal studies have found adverse effects and some have found no adverse effects."

Of the half dozen or so listed, 3 or so linked to a sumary page that gave the name of the article, authors and publication data, but no indication whatsoever of any findings (or lack thereof). As a result, the cites I removed added nothing to the article, other than showing that there were published studies (no indication of short- or long-term exposure, human or animal or whether or not adverse effects were noted. Mdbrownmsw 14:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the journal cites for the following reasons -

1) Images of the relevent text had already been posted to the discussion section when these references were discussed. I would be glad to add these public domain images as part of the references. So, there is absolutely no reason to remove the references, just let me know if you prefer the images in the article section as well.

2) References without summaries are standard for scientific articles and very helpful for scientists, physicians, nutritionists, journalists and others who want to followup on the references. Summaries often do not contain the text/information being cited. Millions of journal articles and even articles written by laypersons contain references without summaries.

Nevertheless, since I am happy to expand upon these references to keep the integrity of that important statement about scientific debate, just let me know and I'll add images of the relevent text. Twoggle 15:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, references without sumaries are used widely and frequently and this is generally valuable. However, in the present case, the cites are not sources of the information nor do they prove information. The cites follow a statement that there is debate about causation, with some studies falling on each side. To be meaningful, I feel the links need to be clearly yes or clearly no. The links I left lead to abstracts that give a general sense of the findings. Perhaps you could simply move the links to:

"Some human and animal studies have found adverse effects [1][2][3] and some have found no adverse effects [4][5][6]."

Mdbrownmsw 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! I split the text as you suggested. I will work on uploading a public domain image to Wikipedia of the abstract for those cites in that sentence without a Medline-published abstract. Twoggle 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sugar by SoaD

"Aspartame is a sugar substitute found in various fizzy drinks which has been found to induce homicidal tendencies " Is this true? That definition fits the song, but I dont see anything on here about it. Lovok 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Toxic to me

I first encountered aspartame when it was put into Pepsi Max and introduced in my country (a LONG time ago). Each day I bought a small bottle and drank it after swimming practice while going home. From day one I started feeling sick afterwards. One day I threw up so my father suggested it might be the new pepsi. I stopped drinking and the symptoms went away. As more and more products used aspartame I naticed I was getting sick only when eating/drinking them so I made the obvious connection. Sugarfree gum makes me slightly uncomfortable but I can tolarate it. Diet drinks make me sick. Prolonged use will worsen my state and induce vomiting. Diet sweets and cakes can make me puke. I can supress the need but if I continue eating them I vomit. I've never had this looked at because doctors said it was probably nothing and I know to avoid "diet" things but I don't think this is common. --Energman 10:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Aspartame may not cause significant problems in the general population, at least not on a large scale. The jury is still out on this.

However, medical studies are generally based on people conforming to both inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, and this may cause some sensitive populations not to be represented in the available documentation. For example, most aspies I know seem to react adversely to aspartame, as do I, including when I'm unaware that I have consumed it. It has occured a few times that I've had an adverse reaction when eating out, and upon asking the people who handled the drink they universally verify that they had given me diet soda.

One significant point here is that it may also depend on whether you are taking any particular medication alongside it. For example, MAO-inhibitors will significantly increase the likelyhood of an adverse reaction, as the phenylalanine may cause a buildup of dopamine and norepinephrine.

84.48.95.100 09:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Another circumstantial unscientific biased report (and I do realize this is not the place, but I feel the need to get this off my chest): I started drinking a 1 1/2 liter bottle of Pepsi Max each day, off and on, for the last couple of months. I've developed tinnitus. When I finally got the idea that there might be a connection I did a Google search for aspartame and tinnitus, and got 24,000 hits, including some fairly scientific explanations of the probable connection. :-( --RenniePet (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

86 F or 86 C

On http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html#symptoms it says:

Free methanol begins to form in liquid aspartame-containing products at temperatures above 86 degrees F.. also within the human body.

On this article it says:

Like many other peptides, aspartame may hydrolyze (break down) into its constituent amino acids under conditions of elevated temperature (in the case of aspartame, 86 °C) or high pH.

Which is right? --80.63.213.182 17:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A quick survey of Google Scholar indicates that 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius) is the temperature at which aspartame starts to break down. 84.48.95.100 09:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Metabolism section

My edit was not "rv vandalism". Without a source, "50 in 15,000" is completely equivalent to "1 in 300". The latter simply uses the least common denominator. Is the 50 in 15,000 a quote from a specific source? Then it needs a citation. If not, what's the purpose of using those numbers? You could as easily write 2,500 in 750,000, or 300 in 90,000.

• • for lack of bias**

If this article is to remain completely unbiased it MUST contain information about the definite break down in to Methanol, this is not hypothetical it is fact. It also breaks down in to Formaldehyde, also FACT. This should be on the main page as at present the article is biased towards the views of the FDA and assumes they are factual despite evidence from INDEPENDENT scientists. The majority of people are unlikely to visit the Aspartame controversy page as they'll assume the main page contains most of the factual information. Just because evidence is controversial or offends certain people, if it is backed up with factual information then that does not give reason to have this removed from the main page. To add to my comment above - the 'Discovery and Approval' section in my opinion makes this article completely biased towards the product. If this article were truly just about the chemical then the approval section should not be in there as it creates a certain bias towards the chemical. Better would be to put in factual information about the chemicals this breaks down in to and the health risks associated with those chemicals. Again this would prevent bias by listing facts.

Formaldehyde

This article seems to tiptoe around the fact that Aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde as well as numerous other toxic substances, and in all cases fails to mention the toxicity of such substances. For these reasons, I must say that I find this article to be horrifically biased.--▫Bad▫harlick♠ 05:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What is it with the editors of this page always removing any reference that this chemical compound breaks down in to Formaldehyde. This is fact backed up by scientific proof.

As before if you don't like something that is backed up by scientific reasoning that is no reason to remove it from the article, unless you are indeed biased towards the chemical compound. You are creating a bias towards Aspartame by not including this in the main article and using the 'aspartame controversy' as a continuous excuse to delete or move facts which could damage the credibility of the product.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.244.138 (talk • contribs).

If there is scientific proof, could you please add the correct references to that, so that people can check the information? Thank you! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Beetstra, please see the following, the top links are the most credible, in light of this I feel it's very important to mention Formaldehyde:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9714421&dopt=Abstract

http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_research.htm

http://home.howstuffworks.com/question536.htm

http://www.health-report.co.uk/aspartame-formaldehyde-poisoning.htm

http://www.dorway.com/badnews.html

http://presidiotex.com/aspartame/Facts/Formaldehyde/formaldehyde.html

http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/aspartame.htm

http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/10002.htm

http://presidiotex.com/aspartame/Soffritti.pdf

http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/formaldehyde_cocktail.htm

http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/toxicol/2005-April/003567.html

http://aspartametruth.com/ramazzini.html

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/embalm.html

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/fm.html

http://www.dorway.com/jcohen.html—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.244.138 (talk • contribs).

Dear 194.75.244.138, you have the references available, so please make the edit, adding the appropriate ones (I would take the scientific/reliable references, using correct formatting). I am sure people who are knowledgeable in the field will keep an eye on it (I must confess, I am not, but when the data is controversial, I'd remove claims when there are no (reliable) references to back them up). I am also sure they will explain when they change your addition. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

controversial section, edited copyvio

I have removed the following section from the main text:

---

Autumn, 1967 - GD Searle approaches eminent biochemist Dr Harry Waisman, direaor of the University of Wisconsin's Joseph P Kennedy Jr Memorial Laboratory of Mental Retardation Research and a respected expert in the toxicity of phenylalanine (which comprises 50 per cent of the aspartame formula), to conduct a study of the effects of aspartame on primates. Of seven monkeys fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mat epileptic seizures. (from "Aspartame," by Pat Thomas, The Ecologist V. 35, No 7, pp36-46)

Spring 1971 - Dr John OIney, professor of neuropathology and psychiatry at Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, whose research into the neurotoxic food additive monosodium glutamate (MSG, a chemical cousin of aspartame) was responsible for having it removed from baby foods, informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid, one of the main constituents of aspartame, causes holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle's researchers, Ann Reynolds, confirms OIney's findings in a similar study (Thomas).

February, 1973 - Searle applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies it claims support aspartame's safety. Neither the dead monkeys nor the mice with holes in their brains are included in the submission (Thomas).

August 1974 - Before aspartame can reach the marketplace, Dr John OIney, James Turner {attorney, consumer advocate and former 'Nader's Raider' who was instrumental in removing the artificial sweetener cyclamate from the US market), and the group Label Inc (Legal Action for Buyers' Education and Labeling) file a formal objection to aspartame's approval with the FDA, citing evidence that it could cause brain damage, particularly in children (Thomas).

Before aspartame can reach the marketplace, Dr John OIney, James Turner {attorney, consumer advocate and former 'Nader's Raider' who was instrumental in removing the artificial sweetener cyclamate from the US market), and the group Label Inc (Legal Action for Buyers' Education and Labeling) file a formal objection to aspartame's approval with the FDA, citing evidence that it could cause brain damage, particularly in children (Thomas).

---

Although it has been rewritten, it is a copy from a page on www.rense.com (still showing striking similarities), while it does not refer to that. Please feel free to use the data available there, to enhance the history section, but do cite your sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

---

It does not break down into formaldehyde or formic acid. That is part of an urban legend from chain e-mail.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/aspartame.asp

Well, actually, it does break down into formic acid, aspartic acid and phenylalanine. However, the amount of formic acid released by the complete metabolism of the aspartame in one 12-ounce can of Diet Coke is less than the amount of formic acid found naturally in a medium orange. The amount of formic acid is negligible. --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 12:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That is the source of everything in the controversy section as well. It is also interesting to note the sugar industry tends to be pretty against it, while the FDA is not. hmmm, impartial agency or big business with large stake in the matter..... who to trust....?

It looks like the American Council on Science and health agrees with the FDA. http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.265/healthissue_detail.asp

And the Cancer institute.... http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/tip-sheet-cancer-myths/print?page=&keyword=

So why is it we believe the sugar industry and some crank that makes chain letters over scientists?

Of course you will never believe me because of this.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Maybe it gave you a headache or something. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Placebo_effect http://www.aspartame.org/aspartame_myths_common.html

I bet the cognitive dissonance is giving you a headache now. Isn't it?

---

Aspartame is now a confirmed carcinogen. It has now been confirmed by an Italian study that aspartame causes cancer, even within currently acceptable limits. I suggest that this should be put on the article page under its own heading.

http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/newsDetail.asp?id=15

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Aspartame/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?] There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. allege might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.” Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)