Talk:Aspartame/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Gulf War Syndrome

message: 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)
replies: text: That's funny that you post only websites that are anti-aspartame.  Haha.  Couppawn 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggest revision of "Health Effects"

message: 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)
thread_title: Background of FDA approval issues

message: 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)
thread_title: Shall we have separate headings for arguments for and against?

message: 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)
thread_title: Regarding the RICO lawsuit

message: At some point Diane Fleming's plight should get on WP. (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)
thread_title: Diane Fleming story

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anti-aspartame personal anecdote 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Quantify Sweetness

message: 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 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)
thread_title:  Health effects 

message: 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.   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)
thread_title:  Paraphrase with quotes? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Taste 

message: 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. 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)
thread_title: Methanol as natural endogenous substance

message: 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)
thread_title:  links to reputable scientific orgs removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove POV check template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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: []. 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)
thread_title: Links and false precision

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Great Links ... Removed? What?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External CDC report Link

message: 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)
thread_title: Skeptic time

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  WTF?  Parkinsons link?  True or Myth? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  News & General Links 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Sugar by SoaD 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  86 F or 86 C 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  controversial section, edited copyvio 

message: Substituted at 20:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment