Talk:Aspartame controversy

re: Neurological and psychiatric symptoms section

From the previous article page- "Numerous allegations have been made on the Internet and in consumer magazines purporting neurotoxic effects of aspartame leading to neurological or psychiatric symptoms such as seizures, headaches, and mood changes.

I do not know about mood changes or seizures, but if i just SIP a diet soda, within a couple minutes a massive migrane behind the eyeball headache hits me. IF I eat something low-cal diet food containing this, i get violently ill and spend the next day ill as well.

A friend thought i was BS'ing and mixed me a drink of diet cola and rum. One sip and I had a massive headache. This is not BS.

I have never heard from or been contacted for any study related to NutraSweet/Aspartame. I have talked to other people who have this same sensitivity or allergy to the neutra sweet. So we read labels to make sure we just AVOID it.

I had to complain to a soft drink manufacturer once because I opened a can of regular soda, took one sip and after a minute the migraine headache started. They confirmed that the diet and regular were bottled on the same line. They sent me a free coupon for a 12 pack, and an apology promising to review their cleaning process between production change over. Since that time I have drank their product and had no further issues.

Why am I writing this? Because the previous article page makes it sound like NOBODY has a problem with this stuff when that is BS. I DO. I welcome anyone to contact me about it. This is not an internet smear campaign. This is a fact of life I have to deal with every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.123.59 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is not a place for discussing your personal opinion about the topic, but how to improve the article using reliable sources. Your personal testimonial does not qualify, and any further off-topic discussion should be removed. Yobol (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean you don't believe in the n=1 research study????? You skeptic you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"I know a guy" is not a source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A number of people do report this type of reaction, but that when they are entered into studies the effects cannot be replicated. They only react if they know or believe they are consuming aspartame. Perhaps the article could explain it better. TFD (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the Food Standards Agency is wrapping up a study based on these types of testimonial results. It might be best to wait for the results before commenting. Yobol (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's like the whole MSG controversy (which, if you just change the names of the chemical, sound very much alike). People complain about effects, yet in a blinded study, the placebo group exhibits the effects at the same rate as the MSG group. People make their decision on anecdote, yet the cause of someone getting headaches or whatever from drinking a soda could result from the carbonation, colorings, sodium content, etc. etc. etc. This is why we should make decisions on what we consume and how we treat our health on solid evidence. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Today was the first time I ever tried diet coke, and I have never heard of aspertame before. Yet, I mysteriously got a headache right after I drank it. (And no, I have never gotten a headache after drinking regular coke.) I guess my sub-conscious peered into the future and saw me reading about possible side-effects of aspertame, starting off a headache as a result, eh? Iateyourgranny (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Add your sarcasm to a diet coke for a delicious cocktail.... As I stated above, 'I know a guy' is not a research study. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This subject is about people/s health and laboratory tests have determined that any who professes to be sick from aspartame is faking. The government knows best what is good for you. Quione (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

edits by RMMP Consulting (talk · contribs)

Subj: RE: Why are my additions to WIKI pages being deleted?

Very long cut & paste - collapsed for readability
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Date: 8/7/2011 To: <email addresses removed> Dear Sirs: I have been trying to post the following: In September 1996, author and columnist, David Lawrence Dewey, grandfather of the hydrogenated oils movement, wrote an extensive article, Aspartame - Sweetness or Death. The article contains research from over 100 studies including documenation that early FDA scientists did not want aspartame approved for human use. Included in the article is the original FDA list of 92 reported side effects from over 10,000 consumers. The article details how aspartame got approved in 1986 when it should never have been approved by the FDA despite objections from early FDA scientists. The article has been continously updated since 1996 with the latest research from researchers all over the world detailing why aspartame should be NOT used by humans. Aspartame - Sweetness or Death - 16 August 1996 _____________________________________________________ To these two pages on WIKI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#Alleged_conflict_of_interest_prior_to_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame#Safety_controversy However, these (2) users on Wiki: User:Deli_nk User:CliffC have sent emails below keep informing me they have deleted my posts. Why is this occurring? And there is no way to contact these (2) people above to ask them why they keep deleting my posts ! Attached in the zip folder are the posts as they appear on the pages, then they get deleted by these people above. In addition, it appears that these people that keep deleting the above additional information to an informative article are being deliberately done, are they working for the manufacturers to remove any content pertaining to any credible article that provides additional information, research studies, etc. It seems whoever has been editing these two pages on aspartame are PRO aspartame, defending it when there is AMPLE evidence to show it should NOT be consumed by humans ! Thank you, Jeffry Nielsen RMMP Consulting Subj: Wikipedia page User talk:RMMP Consulting has been changed by Deli nk Date: 8/7/2011 11:30:17 AM Mountain Daylight Time From: wiki@wikimedia.org Reply-to: reply@not.possible To: <email addresses removed> Sent from the Internet (Details) Dear RMMP Consulting, The Wikipedia page "User talk:RMMP Consulting" has been changed on 7 August 2011 by Deli nk, with the edit summary: last warning See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMMP_Consulting&diff=0&oldid=443536043 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RMMP_Consulting for the current revision. To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deli_nk Subj: Wikipedia page User talk:RMMP Consulting has been changed by CliffC Date: 8/7/2011 11:26:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time From: wiki@wikimedia.org Reply-to: reply@not.possible To: <email addresses removed> Sent from the Internet (Details) Dear RMMP Consulting, The Wikipedia page "User talk:RMMP Consulting" has been changed on 7 August 2011 by CliffC, with the edit summary: Your username See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMMP_Consulting&diff=0&oldid=443534346 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RMMP_Consulting for the current revision. To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CliffC _________________________________________________________________

RMMP Consulting (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral; we should try to avoid skewing them with selective quotes and fringey sources.

It looks like you're referring to your own website. Is there a more reliable source? bobrayner (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your addition was deleted each time it appeared because no disinterested scientific source corroborates it. Many similar additions and changes have been deleted from this and many other Wikipedia articles. It's nothing personal, just a matter of definition. Other sites with different definitions would doubtless respond differently. See WP:Verifiability. Ornithikos (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest w/ two main studies

Two of the studies that are repeatedly relied upon to debunk some of the supposed health risks are footnote 8 ("Aspartame: A Safety Evaluation Based on Current Use Levels, Regulations, and Toxicological and Epidemiological Studies".) and footnote 55 ("Aspartame: Review of Safety".)

If you follow through the links, you'll find that footnote 8's primary funder is the Burdock Group, which is a for-profit company that provides consulting for corporations attempting to navigate the FDA process. See http://www.burdockgroup.com/. Similarly, footnote 55's top four listed funders are variously departments of the Nutrasweet Corporation and Graystone Associates out of Macon, GA, which is headed by one Phil Comer, a former consultant for Nutrasweet. See http://www.linkedin.com/pub/phil-comer/13/809/262.

Which is not to say that the studies are inherently flawed but I think it's important to signpost when there are significant conflicts of interest between the funders/authors and the subject being studied, either in the body of the article or in the footnote itself.

12.198.62.2 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The credibility of academic papers is determined by the publications in which they appear and their acceptance by the academic community. If you can find that these papers have been discredited by the academic community, then we can add that. Otherwise, it is synthesis to mention this. TFD (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Misleading claims of the safety of methanol in aspartame

The page claims that Aspartame contains less methanol than fruit juice, citrus fruits and fermented drinks. However naturally occuring methanol is always (the mentioned ones are) accompanied by ethanol which is an antidote to methanol, as stated on the wiki page. So in my eyes, those claims are wrong and misleading.

Also, even the danger of methanol itself is being downplayed significantly in this article. The wiki article of methanol clearly defines it as highly toxic for humans. Tyronx (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Toxicity is dose dependent - there are trace amounts of arsenic in bottled mineral water, that doesn't mean you'll get arsenic poisoning from drinking it. The article isn't downplaying the danger of methanol poisoning, it is putting things in perspective. That's what we're supposed to do. --Six words (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The first result when googling for "bottled water arsenic" actually redirects to a trustful looking Website that claims 56 million people in the US are consuming water with unsafe levels of arsenic. To include the perspective I can also phrase my argument to something like "The danger of methanol itself, in the concentrations present in most artificially sweetened food products, is being downplayed significantly." - but it doesn't change the fact that there seems to be a clear bias to the safety of aspartame in this article. -Tyronx (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not aspartame really is safe is, policy requires that we present mainstream thinking which is that it is safe. Of course readers are free to follow the links to both scientific and anti-Aspartame sites and decide what they wish to believe. TFD (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Research has shown that in the concentrations that are present in artificially sweetened food products methanol isn't dangerous, which is what I was getting at. So yes, when you're ingesting aspartame, as it is metabolised methanol (and subsequently formaldehyde) is formed, but the concentrations are so low that your body can handle them without any problem. That's not downplaying, that's stating what research tells us. --Six words (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The mere existence of this controversy page is a clear indicator to me that in fact the safety of aspartame is not quite mainstream thinking. If the article already mentions the anti-aspartame sources, shouldn't this controversy also being taken into account for the other parts of the articles? (referring to the paragraph about the safety of methanol in aspartame) - Tyronx (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You have to differentiate between scientific mainstream opinion and public opinion. The existence of this article is due to public opinion. --Six words (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many other articles about non-mainstream thinking, e.g., truthers, birthers, intelligent design, global warming skeptics, etc. While they are legitimate topics, their views do not have parity with mainstream opinion. TFD (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I fail to find any citations on this page claiming that the methanol concentrations are low enough for the body to be handled without problem. In fact, the only justification for the safety of methanol is on the grounds that natural products contain even greater amounts of methanol, which is irrelevant due to the antidote (ethanol) contained as well in these products - as I already mentioned in my first comment. The methanol paragraph should incorporate this. - Tyronx (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ingesting aspartame at the 90th percentile of intake would produce 25 times less methanol than would be considered toxic", cited to (currently) footnote#55. That ref looks like a fairly comprehensive review article (secondary/tertiary reference in a reliable-sounding source). DMacks (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Another review article dealing with aspartame toxicity that has a section on methanol: [2] (the full text can be downloaded as pdf document). --Six words (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the article and taking the time to consider my argumentation. Unfortunately the paper does not cover the long term effects of aspartame intake for humans. Let me quote 2 sentences from this article: "According to the MRCA (36, 37), an aspartame intake of 34 mg/kg body weight represents the 99th percentile of projected daily ingestion." and "When ingesting aspartame at 34 mg/kg body weight, blood methanol concentrations were below the limits of detection (0.4 mg/dL).". Now, according to the blood methanol chart in the article, the peak level of methanol for an adult having administered 100 mg/kg aspartame was at 1.1 mg/dL. Crudely assuming linearty between the administered aspartame and methanol level in the blood we could say that 34 mg/kg results in approximately 0.36 mg/dL. The average human adult body has 5 litres of blood. So at 0.36mg/dL this means the body contains 18 mg methanol. However, the U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY has derived an oral RfD (reference dose) for methanol of 0.5 mg/kg/day, which is 35 mg/day for an average weight adult (70kg) - not far away from the 18mg methanol in human blood we estimated (and the EPA talks about oral intake, so 100% of that would need to go into the blood). However, those average intake estimates are from 1974. Newer sources suggest average aspartame intake may be as high as 200 mg/day, and even the wiki page for Diet Pepsi states that it contains 124 mg aspartame per 350ml drink. Something seems really wrong about this. - Tyronx (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to expect that the relationship is linear - and even if it was linear, an amount that is half the RfD isn't close to the Rfd (which, by the way, is still considered safe) - that's like saying the distance from London to Cardiff is less than half the distance between London and Edinburgh, therefore London is not far away from Cardiff.
200 mg/day means on average, people dring less than two cans of diet pepsi - for a 70 kg adult that would be 2,85 mg/kg/day. I don't see a problem with that, and it's well below the set ADI of 40 mg/kg/day (EU) and 50 mg/kg/day (US).--Six words (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get the number of 2,85 mg/kg/day? -Tyronx (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's basic math: 200mg/day divided by 70kg. Straightforward calculations and conversions are not considered original research.Novangelis (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that to include any medical claims (such as the toxicity of the methanol component of aspartame at the doses used as a sweetener), we would need a reliable source for medical claims such as a peer-reviewed medical review. As far as I know, no such source exists (the only sources that do make the claim about methanol do not meed WP:MEDRS and therefore cannot be included in a discussion about true safety). Yobol (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the EPA oral RfD reliable enough? The article posted by Six words states that approximately 10% of aspartame is converted to methanol. - Tyronx (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Crudely assuming linearity" is original research. Stick to MEDRS.Novangelis (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your link does not mention aspartame and therefore cannot be used. TFD (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see that I lack the evidence to conclude that the methanol levels in APM are unsafe. Thanks for all the provided sources. But so far I still didn't see any evidence that methanol levels in aspartame and the methanol levels in natural products (juice, citrus fruit, fermented products) are compareable. As I mentioned in my first argument, natural products always contain ethanol which is a antidote to methanol. If there is no reliable source proving that these can be compared, I'd like to adjust that paragraph. -Tyronx (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Tyronx, do you have an RS to substancitate your proposed alterations? Shot info (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethanol isn't an "antidote" for methanol itself, it simply reduces the toxic effects of its metabolites. And it doesn't really cure or inhibit or detoxify them either, it merely reduces their concentration by stretching out the time of its metabolism (the total amount of metabolites is about the same, just gives less at a time for longer time). DMacks (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethanol as a "magic bullet" cure for Methanol poisoning factored into an episode of House, but like most single-dose miraculous cures on that show, it was only loosely anchored in medicine. --King Öomie 13:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)