User talk:Forestjohnson/sandbox

Aspartame production

I want to add that it is partly manufactured from a chemical by-product of the e.coli bacteria.

source: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP0036258.html http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:16466681 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talk • contribs) 18:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is original research. A patent on one technique to produce a compound that can be synthesized by numerous techniques is meaningless, especially if there is no evidence that the specific technique is in use in the commercial market.Novangelis (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you are mistaken according to this http://www.independent.co.uk/news/worlds-top-sweetener-is-made-with-gm-bacteria-1101176.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That news article does not mention E. Coli. One reference currently in the article (Ref 40) describes two methods of aspartame production, neither of which use E. Coli or the methods reported in the other references you cite. The article could probably benefit from at least some elaboration on the current manufacturing methods, particularly if there is notable concern about fermentation methods that use microorganisms that are genetically modified for more efficient production of the phenylalanine portion of aspartame. ChemNerd (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is sufficient evidence for describing this method of production. There is no single method of production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources that describe the potential E Coli methods do not claim that they are currently used in production. The source that does describe current methods of production does not include the E Coli methods among them. How can you possibly conclude from this that there is sufficient evidence that the E Coli methods are used? It defies basic logic. It is possible that E Coli methods are used in production, but the fact remains that there is zero evidence presented here that supports this conclusion, and Wikipedia content needs to be based on verifiable information, not our own speculations. ChemNerd (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Independent article is from 1999 and does not mention e coli. TFD (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

American Centric

Once again controversy uses the American FDA as it's evidence. Do you not realise that most countries have their own regulatory bodies (the MHRA in the UK) - we dont approve things based on what the FDA says, so to claim a conflict of interest with the FDA and corporations who synthesize this, and use this as evidence that Aspartame is somehow bad (when no evidence exists by the way) then its just nonsense, and should be removed. If I removed it, no doubt it will just reappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark gg daniels (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

(not taking sides concerning article subject) FDA is a reliable source. If you have something from one of the other organizations that contradicts this then bring it forward so the opposing view may be represented. What conflict of interest? Is that addressed to a specific editor here?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is covered in more detail at Aspartame controversy. One of the major claims by conspiracy theorists is that there were flaws in the FDA approval process. There were; it was approved, flaws were identified, and approval was revoked until they were investigated. This claim is in the hoaxes that circulate beyond US borders, so it is not the article that is being US-centric. There should be a way to write so that the fallacy that flaws and alleged conflicts of interest in the FDA affected regulatory bodies around the world is not implied (or provide a sourced refutation). For example, as memory serves, aspartame was approved in France in the period between revocation of approval and final approval, but I don't have the details at my fingertips. The section does need a rewrite for this point and a few other weaknesses. Simple deletions of material would not be helpful, but any suggestions for improvement would be welcome. When I can sit down with references at hand, I'll see what I can do.Novangelis (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done. So my trial balloon is floated. Fire away.Novangelis (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"aspartame is safe for consumption at current levels"

I'm only half way through the article and yet i've seen that wording three times. Does anyone know what the current level of consumption is? It reads like a Disclaimer as it is. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's scientific jargon. It could be that consuming five pounds of aspartame each day would present health problems, but consuming several times the maximum that anyone would reasonably consume does not. TFD (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly that - no substance, natural or artificial, is safe at every concentration.
If you're looking for a number, the source (Magnuson et al. says: "Using the most current food consumption data available for the U.S. population, the average intake of aspartame among individuals consuming aspartame was determined to be 4.9 mg/kg bw/day (95th percentile 13.3 mg/kg bw/day in the United States)." --Six words (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Claims that aspartame contributes to weight gain and obesity are not supported by the medical literature."

Or so claims this article. However, a study by Fowler et al. concluded that "AS [artificial sweetener] use might be fueling—rather than fighting—our escalating obesity epidemic." The study can be found here. I would like to know if you guys think this study should be mentioned in the article. I also suggest you examine this recent review which concluded, "...frequent consumers of these sugar substitutes may also be at increased risk of excessive weight gain." Jinkinson (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

the first study you cite (from Obesity) is a primary study which we do not use to overthrow the consensus. the author of that report writes: "Results from interventional studies have varied significantly. Several studies have described increased appetite (4,5), hunger (6), and food consumption (7,8,9,10) following AS exposure. The majority, however, as reviewed by Rolls (11) and Malik (12), have reported either no increases, or actual decreases, in hunger, consumption, and/or weight following AS exposure. De la Hunty, summarizing a meta analysis of weight-change data from nine randomized clinical trials (13), reported significantly greater weight loss among aspartame users vs. nonusers (P = 0.04 for the most conservative comparison, which excluded follow-up periods and studies with weight gains among enforced-intake comparison groups), and concluded a beneficial role for aspartame use in weight control." the second piece is "opinion" and is not WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"There have been few studies directly addressing the effect of aspartame on appetite"

However, this mini-review published in Yale's Journal of Biology and Medicine addresses it exactly: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/

This review compares outcomes of different aspartame trials, based on the information and choices which were available to the participants.

	Controlled Diet	Uncontrolled Diet
Knowingly Consumed Aspartame	Average person got skinnier	Average person got fatter
Un-knowingly Consumed Aspartame	Average person got skinnier	No Change

The author reaches the conclusion that Aspartame consumption by the general public (knowing consumption with an uncontrolled diet) causes weight gain, with the following rationales:

• sweet taste probably conditions the brain to seek out more sugar and carbohydrates.
• the uncontrolled correlation between artificial sweetener usage and obesity fails to refute this theory.

I would like to cite this article in the Weight change and hunger section. Forestjohnson (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)