Talk:Neotame

message: I have removed one of the links on the main page because it's simply horrible from a scientific standpoint, but left the other because it's at least a little more reasonable and I do support a diverse range of viewpoints. 
However, I believe the whole glutamate argument is pretty flimsy against neotame. Yes, some people are glutamate sensitive, but it seems like everybody forgets that free glutamate is found pretty much anywhere there's protein! Neotame is both substantially more potent than aspartame (usage levels are measured in ppm - about 97% lower than aspartame) and substantially more stable. This means the risk for side effects is dramatically reduced.
Comparing neotame to aspartame straight away is not really very fair either. They are similar compounds, but even subtle differences can take a substance from deadly to life giving. 
Citing reports of headaches associated with neotame is another difficult thing. Neotame is so sweet, some people develop a sensory overload from too much sweetness. There's nothing mysterious about being overstimulated and developing a headache.
I have personally worked with a glutamate sensitive individual and experimented with neotame ingestion. There were no side effects. This individual is so hyper-sensitive that she has issues eating meat, cheese, dairy products, etc. Even miso and other fermented products trigger a reaction. I was not able to determine any threshold that she could ingest in food and drink that evoked any reaction. I suppose I could have administered neotame in capsule form, but why? I mean... many vitamins are essential nutrients, but you could easily kill yourself with an overdose of those same vitamins.
And before you ask, no, I do not work for the producers of neotame. I am simply a health-concerned individual who is giving this serious scientific scrutiny. Blueandwhiteg3 23:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took away the other anti-neotame link, because most of it makes no sense, either. Comparing neotame and MSG is really quite stupid, because although they share a structural similarity, neotame is not metabolized to glutamate or glutamic acid, and therefore will interact with the body very differently. Likeitsmyjob 21:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking through the history, I see that this link has been posted twice before. Please, whoever is putting this ridiculous link here, stop. Jesse 04:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you question my conduct you're free contact any of the appropriate noticeboards like the neutral point of view noticeboard, the reliable source noticeboard, Wikiquette assistance or even the admin noticeboard (that would be the appropriate one if you want to get me banned - but you'll need more than "Six words keeps deleting my inappropriately sourced material"). I explained to you why I removed your edit, and if you reinstate it without appropriate sourcing I'll to revert you again. Either find reliable sources for your changes or leave the article alone. If you want to make medical claims, you'll need to provide sources that comply with an even higher standard. It's not my fault the producers seem to be the only ones interested in conducting studies; it would be undue to juxtapose scientific sources with the private opinions of “someone on the internet”.  --Six words (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Considering it's 6,000 times sweeter than sugar, the necessary amount required to make something equivalently sweet is unlikely to result in anything more than 5 kcal/serving unit, which means in the USA it can be labeled as zero-calorie.  (Yes, that's seriously true, check out the Sucralose article) --Puellanivis 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Is neotame a zero-calorie sweetener?  This would be relevant information to the low-carb articles... 63.96.196.190
:Considering it's 6,000 times sweeter than sugar, the necessary amount required to make something equivalently sweet is unlikely to result in anything more than 5 kcal/serving unit, which means in the USA it can be labeled as zero-calorie.  (Yes, that's seriously true, check out the Sucralose article) --Puellanivis 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Caloric content

message: According to WP:NPOV, “neutral” means representing the views of available reliable sources fairly and with due weight. Are there views of reliable sources that aren't in the article now? Links would be nice. --Six words (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the template back to the page. IMO, the introduction of the article is phrased to subtly support one view of the safety of Neotame. For example, "while also benefitting the consumer by providing fewer "empty" sugar calories and a lower impact on blood sugar". The use of references is also questionable. For example, reference 3 focuses only on natural methanol levels in orange juice, which clearly states the concentration range. However, the reference is used to indicate that neotame is metabolized to lower levels of methanol in the body. There is no mention of it in the reference. I could understand if it was used as a reference point to compare to the concentration of methanol produced from methanol in the body, but that is not mentioned in this article. Yet the article states "the amount of methanol derived from neotame is much lower than that found in common foods". The previous reference, ref #2, does not mention the concentration of methanol produced. As another example, the references in ref #2 are all corporate-sponsored. While the ref does not explicitly state whether it is corporate-sponsored, such a list of references would implicate the ref is also a corporate-sponsored study. The introduction should be re-written to balance the bias to present all views on Neotame, or rephrased to only state data from peer-reviewed studies. Finally, beyond the introduction, the entire article seems to only present one side of the debate regarding Neotame's safety. A debate of aspartame is mentioned, but nothing is specific to Neotame. Nitroblu (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference 2 can only cite sources that exist - that doesn't disqualify the source. It is from IPCS so I think we can safely assume it isn't corporate sponsored. I agree that since ref 3 isn't about neotame it should be replaced, but the statement itself is quite trivial and could be sourced using ref 2 or ref 5 (trivial because neotame is 30 to 60 times sweeter than aspartame hence it is used at much lower concentrations; aspartame sweetened beverages provide less methanol than fruit juices - see this source - so basic math tells us that the methanol level neotame provides is even lower). While reference 2 doesn't mention the concentration, it states that “The amounts of [methanol and phenylalanin] contributed by consumption of neotame are insignificant compared to the amounts found normally in food.” - that should be good enough, right? What sources do you think are missing for a balanced article? Please cite them. --Six words (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

text: It's over a week now - are there reliable sources not yet mentioned in the article? If not, it's time to get rid of the template. --Six words (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Four weeks, I'm removing the template. --Six words (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm late to this party (sorry) but the CSPI is hardly a reliable source of information... 82.29.204.131 (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV template 

message: The real question about Neotame is.  Is it listed on the label?  If so I have not been abel to find any food that uses it.  Perhaps because of the low quantities  needed it is not listed.  I would really like to know.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Label Notification 

message: I don’t understand how Neotame is made, distributed and used when I cannot find it listed on any foods.    It has been on the market since 2002 yet it is never mentioned in the news.      Yes I know Walgreens is listed as using it to sweeten a few drinks  drinks but i can never find these drinks on the shelves at Walgreens. or anywhere else.      As it is about 10,000 times sweeter then sugar is it possible that because of the very tiny amounts required no label is necessary?        Who is buying Neotame?     Arydberg (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who uses Neotame