Talk:Aspartame

Talk:Aspartame/Archive

Discovery and Approval

This reads like a conspiracy theory with names thrown in there for no reason. Who was the FDA head at the time aspertame was not allowed, or the president, or involved in Monsato, etc.

196.27.25.131 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Jgraham

I agree with the basic thrust of this. I find the following problems with this section of article and the article in general:

1. This is primarily a chemistry article. The political article is Aspartame controversy. Political discussion, especially of conspiracies, should be reduced in this article, except where it is directly, significantly and inexorably relevant to the compound itself and its synthesis, effects, etc. For example, why does it matter that Donald Rumsfeld was COO of Searle, or that Reagan was President at the time, when aspartame was approved? This section seems to vaguely imply some kind of conspiracy to foist a dangerous product on the masses - an allegation, however subtle, that should not be made without citations of appropriate supporting evidence.

2. Also, nearly the entire second paragraph is sourced from a quote from an anti-aspartame researcher in footnote 6 - if it is sourced at all. The lone opinions of a single researcher, published without peer review (in a Salon.com article, no less), constitute original research at best and do not seem to be suitable as a source for a scientific article under Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and especially not for discussing the inner machinations of the Reagan administration, unless representative of one side of a debate. Representing the researcher's opinions on the matter as fact is misleading.

3. There are redundant links to Aspartame controversy, and expanding on it in numerous sections seems rather off-topic in each.

To help alleviate these problems, I propose:

1. reducing the number of political references in the article in general or moving them to Aspartame controversy;

2. deleting the second paragraph of this section and/or moving it to Aspartame controversy unless statements are properly sourced, and moving the conspiracy-alleging parts involving Reagan, Rumsfeld, Hayes etc. to Aspartame controversy in any case, or deleting them entirely; and

3. that assertions about aspartame's negative effects, political maneuvering, and so on, should instead be condensed into a single, concise paragraph, with a link to the controversy article as the main article, rather than attempting to make each section a debate.

I will tag statements about the approval process without citations which I feel need them the most, but I will hold off on making any further edits until any interested parties watching this page respond.Jonroybal 10:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be against item #1 suggestion above until there are specific suggestions for specific passages. I don't know what a "political reference" is. Also, one person's "conspiracy" is another person's (or a whole population's) fact. But I'd be very interested in your specific text change ideas -- or at least the sentences you propose changing.

It would be relatively easy to source most of those statements in the 2nd paragraph. But if it is moved, then I would move the whole approval section and edit it appropriately to the "Aspartame Controversy" section (towards the end of that article). I don't think Reagan or Rumsfeld mentioned are negative as many liked Reagan and some like Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was brought in to help push the approval process along, so it is relevent, but I have no huge attachment to his name being mentioned in this article. I think Reagan should be mentioned along with the FDA Commissioner he appointed as that is relevent to the approval process.

I was against spliting the Aspartame article into two parts as not every controversial subject needs to be split. However, I recall that the editors agreed to clearly link to the Aspartame Controversy section at the start of this article as well as in a short Aspartame Controversy summary paragraph (as we currently do). I agree that we should avoid making each section a debate. What parts are you suggesting to do away with?

I look forward to all of us discussing the changes. Thanks! Twoggle 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article

This is a good article, which I think should work toward featured status if anything to raise awareness of the controversy. Supposed 20:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact that this article garners praise as a means to "raise awareness of the controversy," when in fact very little "controversy" exists, is further evidence of the article's non-NPOV. Bustter 20:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that "very little controversy exists". 65.184.221.57 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved out Aspartame controversy

Dear all, seen the sheer size of the 'aspartame controversy' part of this article, in comparison to the total size of the article (which is about a sweetener, a chemical compound), I decided to move out the who aspartame controversy into its own article, name aspartame controversy (that article is now 42 kb long!!!). That article needs quite some attention now, as it does e.g. not have a proper introduction. The article aspartame controversy is also linked from sugar substitute, which also contains a large section about the aspartame controversy, that paragraph may also be incorporated into 'aspartame controversy'. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with splitting the article. But if the consensus is to move out the Health Risks Controversy section, then the main aspartame article must be meticulously NPOV. Of course, there would be no need to include POV text, links, etc. Also, I think it is obvious that the overwhelming amount of discussion about aspartame online and in general is about the controversial aspects of aspartame (possible health effects, approval issues, etc.) and therefore, link to that section should not be buried towards the end of the article.

Also, IMO, if Health Risk Controversy section is moved out, duplicate information and/or bias shouldn't created in the main article (except perhaps a very short introductory paragraph as exists now). In other words, I suggest either put the article back the way it was (my preference) or there should never be any POV in the main Aspartame article (text, links) related to the Health Risk Controversy. Twoggle 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This page is, as I said above, about a chemical compound. It is not about the aspartame controversy. The difference in size between the two parts was just over the top. I can agree with the section being relocated, or even an additional sentence in the intro! I have tried to make the section about the controversy as NPOV as possible, and I will think about it further, but feel free to edit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the order, and I don't see how the section could be moved up (I did not move it in the first place, anyway), the order now is (to me) logic: intro, what is it (chemistry), history/when and how was it discovered, what is it used for, and how is it metabolised. Do I have added a sentence to the intro, which could use some polishing, I think. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your added mention early on is useful. I agree with you on the order of the sections. My main concerns revolved around 1) gradually adding text or links related to the controversy back to the main article instead of the Aspartame_Controversy article (assuming that the sections stay separated), and 2) sometime in the future pushing the Aspartame_Controversy article links way down on the page by adding a significant amount of text of some additional sections near the top. The main things I'm interested in is keeping the sections NPOV (main article without controversy and Aspartame_Controversy article describing the debate and scientific arguments in a balanced way) and making sure the text and resources people are looking for is easily-findable on Wikipedia. By the way, I do not think there is a single place on or off the Internet other than Wikipedia where readers can get a short yet adequately detailed description of boths sides of the scientific debate related to the aspartame issue. Twoggle 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent move! An article of this class should mention the controversy, but should focus on what aspartame is, and what it's used for. It should NOT have 42 kB of controversy attached to it. As the style guide says: "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be excised from the present entry and replaced by a link." Walkerma 03:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This section seems rather biased to me, maybe needs a clean 132.181.7.1 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference to Donald Rumsfield.

I first removed the allegation that Rumsfield received a fat bribe from Searle in April of 2006 because the allegation was undocumented, exceot at anti-aspartamr sites that all seem to have copied one another. Neither this article nor the "controversy" article offers any reliable source indicating that Rumsfield received any such bribe, though it is probable that he owned Searle stock and options whereby he legally profited. Since the aspartamr controversy article does not even mention Rummy, there's no reason for mentioning him here.Bustter (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Not suited for baking?

Not suited for baking? I think so but not because: "However, aspartame is not always suitable for baking because it often breaks down when heated and loses much of its sweetness." Normally you use regular sugar (reducing sugar! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_sugar ) that produces a broad rage of reaction product with amio acids via the Maillard reaction (imin-form and cyclization). Aspartame can't do this since it is not a reducing sugar (or not a sugar at all). The reason given in the wiki is nonsense.

You are mistaken in concept. You are correct in that aspartame, as a non-sugar, cannot participate in the Maillard reaction as a sugar. However, the Maillard reaction ALSO reduces sweetness, in that the sugar is converted to other flavor compounds (Maillard is responsible for caramelization, for instance). Further, aspartame CAN participate in Maillard reactions as an amino acid.

Aspartame is not heat-stable; the compound DOES break down under heat, especially in acid environments, and reverts to individual amino acids which have no sweetness. This is the reason aspartame is not recommended as a sweetener for baking, both according to the manufacturer, and to the principles of chemistry.

Lastly, please sign your posts with ~~~~ --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 12:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that I am mistaken. What is the point? For the Maillard reaction you need the amino group provided by amino acids and a (reducing) sugar. This makes (2) two components. If you substitute the reducing sugar with Aspartame then you have only one component (amino groups) and no reducint sugar. Hence, no Maillard reaction, no building or the aromatic subtances that give the taste in baking/cooking. It might brake down if heated (what? the peptide bond or the ester bond?) and yur product might loose sweetness. But sweetness is not the major point in baking/cooking but the maillard reaction is. Or do you believe you would just get a cake that does not taste sweet? Try it!

signing Sorry, I don't have an Wiki Accound. But if you show me how I can sign with my IP I will happily put it under my postings.

Sign by placing the signature mark - and it'll slap in your IP and date. If you have an account, it'll slap your account.
--KasemO 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

production

Hi. It would be great if the article talks about how Aspartame is produced. --Louiechefei28848888 03:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

a fairly detailed description of the process: http://www.enotes.com/how-products-encyclopedia/aspartame

Using this as a cite, perhaps someone will care to write a simplified description? Bustter (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ensuring readers know about the controversy

Hi. I see the reason why the controversy section was moved, however I feel that the controversy is very real, and has authentic scientific research supporting the fact the Aspartame is potentially dangerous. Given that point, I feel that the controversy section is too played down in the main article and that it would benefit by being made more prominent (which could be done without expanding it again). Thanks. Aminto 22:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

AS "dangerous" as aspartame may be, I'd rather consume that than the 5 gallons of high fructose corn syrup the average American does on a daily basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.12.85 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would not. Aspartame is absurd mass poisoning of people. I have used it, and it fucked me up. IT IS POISON. No doubt about that. And they just lie to you: fruits have more methanol, meat has more phenylalanine? What a load of crap. Fruits and meat are not toxic. Aspartame is. --88.192.67.2 (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking efforts to "ensure readers know about the controversy" isn't the "neutral" thing to do; it's as non-neutral as it would be to ensure that readers learn that the health concerns are bogus. Bustter (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Diketopiperazine

I think the bit about the particular diketopiperazine that is a metabolite of aspartame being a known carcinogen is dubious, so I have removed it. If it is true, finding a primary source in the scientific literature to support this claim should be easy, and it can then be added back in. Deli nk (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Need citation? Go to pubmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.239.63 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you need a citation. If it's so easy to find, then please find it. It is the responsibility of the person adding information to source it. Wikipedia policy is that disputed, unsourced information should be removed from an article. I see that you are insistent on adding it back in spite of this policy, but I won't edit war with you over it. Please simply find a source that supports it. Deli nk (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have searched the chemical and medical literature and found two toxicological studies of the diketopiperazine metabolite of aspartame. Neither study found any evidence of carcinogencity. The first study ("Toxicity of aspartame and its diketopiperazine for Wistar rats by dietary administration for 104 weeks." Ishii, Hiroyuki; Koshimizu, Toshio; Usami, Shuji; Fujimoto, Tsumoru. Toxicology (1981), 21(2), 91-4.), conducted in rats, concluded "these treatments were without toxic effect." The second study ("Chronic feeding studies with aspartame and its diketopiperazine." Ishii, Hiroyuka. Food Science and Technology, (1984), 12, 307-19.), conducted in rats and dogs, reports that these compounds "did not cause any biolically meaningful alterations." Hope this helps. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this seems to be a persistent issue: For what it's worth, the biological activities of diketopiperazines have been reported and reviewed in the scientific literature - Maristela B. Martins and Ivone Carvalho (2007). "Diketopiperazines: biological activity and synthesis". Tetrahedron 63: 9923–9932. There is no mention of carcinogenicity - but it does highlight antitumor properties. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You might as well mention that the study in question was sponsored by Monsanto and/or its aspartame-producing subsidiary. So much for its or any of your, for that matter, credibility. Thanks for the good laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.210.170 (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.15.129 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.221.80 (talk)

I've removed the silly insults again - please act like an adult. The paper mentioned above is a review article, written by chemists at University of Sao Paulo. The review article is not based on research they have done, but is rather a review of the scientific literature published by others. It cites the work of 48 other research groups around the world studying very narrow fields (calcium channels, plasminogen activor inhibitors, antihyperglycaemic agents, sortoninergic 5-HT1A receptors, etc). If you are going to invoke some kind of vast pro-aspartame conspiracy to explain how and why Monsanto (or whoever) would fund all that research, and how they could possibly anticipate that diketopiperazines would be found to be useful in those areas of research, you had better have quite an imagination.-- Ed (Edgar181) 18:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ASPARTAME

THE CLAIM THAT ASPARTAME IS IN OVER 6000 IS THE MOST MISLEADING QUOTE I HAVE FOUND TO DATE ON THE INTERNET...Any and all Web Searches will never find a list of 6000 Products, as a Mater of Fact, It's almost Imposible to find a List of any size, PERIOD. That said, It Screams Volumes to how far reaching the cover up and the involvement to mislead the consumers by the FDA and Corporate Food and Chemical Companies have gone to Kill People and Drive up the cost of there Health Care. _ UBUIBIOK Have a Better Day. UBUIBIOK (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. There is no list of products available. For a short time, there were some people trying to keep up with a list, but it proved too daunting. The estimates for the number of products come from NutraSweet scientists (not that their estimates are necessarily accurate). "At present, it is estimated that aspartame is used in approximately 6000 different products worldwide." Butchko, Harriett, et al., "Aspartame" in "Alternative Sweeteners" Edited by Lynn O'Briend Nabors, Copyright 2001 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. Twoggle (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Government Studies and FOIA Data

Repeated attempts have been made to remove U.S. FDA Government research and data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (obtained by Freedom of Information Act) as a reference to the [aspartame] and [Aspartame Controversy] articles.

Please see the full discussion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aspartame_controversy#Government_Studies_and_FOIA_Data Twoggle (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Presidotex.com is not a reliable source. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussions about edits to the aspartame and aspartame controversy page belong on their respective Talk pages. I started the discussion on the Talk page in an attempt to work out a consensus and so that we can clarify in great detail all of the concerns. Since the published source of the documents are the U.S. Government and they are being made available on a page you apparently do not agree with, we simply need to have a discussion in order to find a solution for listing government references on the aspartame pages. I look forward to your participation in such a discussion. Twoggle (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussions about reliable sources also can appropriately take place on the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't think policy can be changed through discussions on article talk pages. Doug Weller (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, my two points are that: 1) notice should be given to concerned parties. In this case, aspartame references were being discussed, but none of the Editors were informed. I was eventually informed, but not before someone determined that the debate had reached a "consensus." 2) Once changes to the aspartame pages are taking place and the Editors disagree with those changes, then I believe the Talk page is exactly the right page to discuss these issues on. 15:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Health risks"

Schmeltzer's 2004 article in the Tribune says nothing about health risks. The loss of market share is attributed to marketing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pointing to Aspartame Controversy web page.

Part of the agreement / consensus for spliting the aspartame page into the aspartame and aspartame controversy web pages was to include a prominent pointer to the aspartame controversy web page. This makes sense as the overwhelming number of web pages and scientific journal articles and newspaper articles on the subject are not about the chemistry alone, but about the controversies (e.g., health, possible conflicts of interest, etc.).

Referencing another Wikipedia web page is tremendously comment and not against Wikipedia guidelines. For example, the Wikipedia page on self-references http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference starts with a pointer to another prominent web page on a similar subject matter: "For the Wikipedia guideline, please see Wikipedia:Avoid self-references." The Wikiepedia web page on Avoiding self-references starts with the sentence, "For the guideline on autobiographies, see Wikipedia:Autobiography." The Wikipedia article on Citing Sources starts with the sentence, "For information on citing Wikipedia articles, see WP:CITEWIKI." There are countless other examples.

Therefore, I think we would have to remove all of the above pointers in Wikipedia articles if there is a guideline against these pointers. But perhaps there is a style suggestion that the pointer to an article on a similar subject needs to be at the top in italics? 03:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)