![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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)
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 Jenova 20 ( email) 09:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The current article states "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 presents a counterexample: 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) may indirectly cause weight gain through a reverse placebo effect with the following rationales:
I would like to cite this article in the Weight change and hunger section.
Please see my sandbox page for my suggested edit.
Forestjohnson ( talk) 18:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
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)
I chose to edit this page as an assignment in a college class. I've been going through lots of journals looking for articles about aspartame, and I was surprised to find that there are lots of recent and peer reviewed theories and early research papers (Opinions) about artificial sweeteners that investigate aspartame correlations with metabolic problems in humans, rodent studies showing metabolic changes in aspartame-fed members of a cohort, changes in appetite signaling, etc, but most consensus reviews and regulating boards unanimously conclude that aspartame is safe for use.
Because wikipedia's citation standards prefer established consensus over bleeding edge research, If I read this article to learn about aspartame, I'd never know that skepticism about aspartame's safety lives on among scientists in 2013. I'm wondering if that should be mentioned in the article, something like: "Aspartame is one of the most-researched food additives ever, and scientists continue to study it critically, even after decades of food-safe approval." It would need some proper citations, but I'm sure I could use some of the reviews already cited, because I remember reading something like that in a review I found via this wiki page. Forestjohnson ( talk) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
"Despite this" seems like OR and "some consumer advocacy groups like" also seems to be WP:OR. [1] I have noticed all over Wikipedia there is mass OR on almost every single article. Wikipedia does not enforce its own rules. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the EFSA risk evaluation is now released. Will have to carefully read through this to see if there is anything useful to add to this article. Yobol ( talk) 19:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This article reads as if it were written by a party disposed to presenting aspartame in a positive light. The tone that permeates the article is set towards refuting any negative health effect claims on it. It totes the neutrality line carefully, not violating obviously, but nevertheless perhaps presenting a biased viewpoint. Thoughts, anyone? Arjun G. Menon ( talk · mail) 19:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a complaint, I read that hundreds of studies had shown health effects of Aspartame, this article reads like an advert to me. I came to this page hoping for impartiality and do not think I got that at all. The Aspartame controversy page is not something I came across until I researched Aspartame away from Wikipedia - that page should be part of the Aspartame page for the purpose of balance and impartiality. - kie000 at gmail ? com
To state that countries have declared Aspartame safe without mentioning that others voted on banning the sweetener shows considerable bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.119.197 ( talk) 14:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
This article discusses CNS toxicity related to the consumption of aspartam [1] -- Mikeschaerer ( talk) 10:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
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)
Some material that might want to be incorporated: UI study finds diet drinks associated with heart trouble for older women Has only been reported at a conference, not sure if it has been published yet. -- Dr DBW ( talk) 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Though with further reading it doesn't actually state that there is a direct risk with diet drinks, bit of a junk science study by the looks of it.-- Dr DBW ( talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I've posted an article related to CNS toxicity but it has been archived without discussion. Here is the link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23553132 Any comments? Mikeschaerer ( talk) 19:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Every paragraph has at least a sentence reassuring us that Aspartame is safe. It reads in a very biased way. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.236.157 ( talk) 06:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the history. Every time someone linked to a unflattering study it was immediately rolled back with notes like "That study has been disproved". Seems I'd be wasting my time against someone with a much greater interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.236.157 ( talk) 03:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Here's an example of the tone throughout the article: "The consumer advocacy group the Center for Science in the Public Interest continues to promote the position that aspartame is not safe.[37]". An unbiased phrasing would be "According to the consumer advocacy group... aspartame is not safe". The original phrasing presents the fact at the same time it diminishes it. Let's just say that you don't see that kind of wording in an article on ibuprofen. To an experienced reader, it screams viewpoint disguised as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.236.157 ( talk) 03:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, neutrality? so then why are so many studies that are not independent, and are filled with "scientists" bought and paid for buy large companies "reliable sources"... Also why is there no link or talk about Aspartame addiction? ... this article is complete BS, and it's why nobody trusts Wikipedia anymore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.160.235.216 ( talk) 03:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
A recent edit adds back information about a primary study on aspartame. [2] Please note that it is against the policy of neutrality to provide this type of weight to a single study and also violates the medical reliable sources guideline. Please do not continue to add this. TFD ( talk) 23:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
IP is edit warring the following into the article:
In a recent study published in the prestigious Nature journal found that artificial sweeteners, including Aspartame, negatively impact the gut bacteria in both humans and in mice. The team from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, fed mice various sweeteners — saccharin, sucralose and aspartame — and found that after 11 weeks, the animals displayed glucose intolerance, a marker of propensity for metabolic disorders such as obesity and diabetes. In a follow-up small follow-up study to the mice study, the team recruited seven lean and healthy volunteers, who did not normally use artificial sweeteners, for a small prospective study. The recruits consumed the maximum acceptable daily dose of artificial sweeteners for a week. Four became glucose intolerant, and their gut microbiomes shifted towards a balance already known to be associated with susceptibility to metabolic diseases, including obesity and diabetes. Although the human study was small it does raise questions about the impact of artificial sweeteners on gut bacteria. [2]
References
- ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23553132
- ^ Suez, Jotham (2014). "Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota". Nature. 514: 181–186. doi: 10.1038/nature13793.
This has been deleted by multiple editors. i deleted it b/c source is PRIMARY and doesn't comply with WP:MEDRS - this is UNDUE for work this preliminary; the "prestigious Nature journal" is puffery that adds to the UNDUE-ness. Jytdog ( talk) 02:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This article says that "On the basis of the evidence of the potential carcinogenic effects of APM herein reported, a re-evaluation of the current position of international regulatory agencies must be considered an urgent matter of public health." It seems like it might be a review article. On the other hand it is also described as a "commentary" in the abstract. Do other editors think it meets MEDRS? Everymorning talk 01:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Content in the metabolism section was sourced to commentary, letters to editor, and discredited studies from the usual cast of characters that currently make their living off of turning aspartame into the greatest evil known to food. The article needs to be monitored for that kind of source creep. 209.6.66.13 ( talk) 02:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Aspartame. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —
cyberbot II
Talk to my owner:Online
09:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The article matter of factly states that aspartame has been heavily studied that there are no safety concerns. Yet, the University of Liverpool found a problematic interaction between aspartame and synthetic colorants. A person stripped the information out of the article saying single studies aren't good enough to qualify as evidence.
That's ridiculous. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective source of facts not pushing an agenda. The University of Liverpool study is definitely worth inclusion in the article. Moreover, The Guardian is a respected media source.
This happens too often on Wikipedia. Content that is unhelpful for corporate agendas is reverted with the flimsiest of excuses. Now, even scientific studies aren't good enough!
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Aspartame. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aspartame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Aspartame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The reference dose of methanol is given there as 2 mg/kg/day. Hydrolyzing one aspartame molecule (mol wt 294) yields one methanol molecule (mol wt 32), or 32/294 = 0.11 mg methanol/mg aspartame. The 180 mg aspartame in one can of diet soda, cited here, will then produce about 180 x 0.11 = 20 mg of methanol. So dividing a person's weight in kg by 20/2 = 10 gives the number of cans the person can drink per day before hitting the reference dose -- 7.5 cans per day for the 75-kg person, but the person can consume that many only if the person is not getting any aspartame from any other source, which is not likely. So either the risk is more significant or the reference dose for methanol is set too low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hieronymus Illinensis ( talk • contribs) 12:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
"Current use levels of aspartame, even by high users in special subgroups, remains well below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority established acceptable daily intake levels of 50 and 40 mg/kg bw/day, respectively."and
"Acute, subacute and chronic toxicity studies with aspartame, and its decomposition products, conducted in mice, rats, hamsters and dogs have consistently found no adverse effect of aspartame with doses up to at least 4000 mg/kg bw/day."If you can find something that meets WP:MEDRS fine, but WP:NOR. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The Wiki article on Aspartame gives an impression of being paid for by vested interests. In probably every section, it mentions that there is no evidence that aspartame is bad for human health. Big pharma and the food processing industry have a lot of clout. Since Wikipedia is an open platform, it may not interfere unless users raise a flag. Let the pro-aspartame lobby ask themselves a question: "Would I allow my family to consume aspartame containing products on a regular basis?" I am pretty confident the answer will be "No." Let other Wiki users who are not pro-aspartame, read the article and add a talk section or edit the article if need be. Needless to say, if they edit, they must have reliable sources for their arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.76.23.62 ( talk) 05:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Aspartame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The section on the neurological effects seems to me rather one-sided. I suggests that the neurological concerns are voiced only by laymen and not supported by evidence.
But there is evidence that aspartame makes depression patients more depressed and that aspartame may affect mood and depression scales, and cognitive tests for working memory and spatial orientation. I think it would be great of the current state of the medical evidence would be accurately reflected in the neurological section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.194.83.184 ( talk) 10:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
An excellent review which references the article by Walton et al. explains the current state of medical evidence. I hope this is a useful resource to help you in your research.
This comparison makes no sense. There is no clarification of what 'the amount of methanol in aspartame' means exactly. In its current state, the sentence is provably false: the amount of methanol that is released from 100g of pure aspartame is much higher than that of 100g of fruit juices.
I'm reverting the reversion of the addition of a tag asking for clarification. Please don't undo this revision again unless you can clarify this statement.
Ragnagord ( talk) 12:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aspartame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned that a paper in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology is cited a dozen times in this article, given that it has been accused of being "little more than an industry mouthpiece" [3] and has been called a "captured" industry-controlled journal whose editors are carefully chosen for their pro-industry views. [4] Therefore, I think the RTP paper being cited should be removed. Everymorning (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
A 2017 systematic review was added, but it is looking at non-nutritive sweeteners in general rather than aspartame specifically. Granted, two of the seven RCTs they looked at specifically used aspartame ( here and here), but none of the observational studies did so explicitly. I'm not sure we should report "observational data suggest that routine consumption of nonnutritive sweeteners may be associated with a long-term increase in BMI and elevated risk of cardiometabolic disease; however, these associations have not been confirmed in experimental studies and may be influenced by publication bias" as "with some data supporting weight gain and heart disease risks" for aspartame specifically, especially in the lede. [1] -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
References
I updated the info when it comes to the section relating to hunger and weight gain with numerous citations from journals. However, I would appreciate if someone corrects the manner in which the citations were placed. Thanks.
I think both sides should be represented. One of your citations even says that aspartame is still recommended to help reduce energy intake. Jnordwick ( talk) 05:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
As the article stands it misrepresents the weight issue in multiple places. It seems someone with an agenda came through. Jnordwick ( talk) 20:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
We need to use review articles not primary sources
The changes to the summary of the Magnuson review did not accurately reflect the overall conclusions. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
An IP insists on playing with the references, thus creating different formats. User:Doc James and myself disagree with the IP. This isn't a content issue (where BRD would be more appropriate), but a formatting issue, and policy states that it's good to use a consistent format in one article, and the original formatting should be followed. Doc James has resolved some inconsistency so we have uniform formatting throughout the article, and the IP should respect that format. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 03:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be an explanation how aspartame is made. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:A983:F192:A06B:1725 ( talk) 20:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of the sources in this article are old. You really need to add a section on the interaction between sweeteners and the microbiome. For example. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=aspartame+microbiome&t=hb&ia=web Claustro123 ( talk) 14:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
"For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used.". -- tronvillain ( talk) 19:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't suppose thais will help. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13793/metrics Claustro123 ( talk) 22:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
"For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used.", as per the guideline WP:MEDRS. The essay WP:Why MEDRS is simply attempting to explain to you why we have a guidelines like MEDRS. -- tronvillain ( talk) 14:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
From
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy
In the section titled "Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy"
I find the text
"While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them".
Again is your strict adherence to your so called "rules" more important than people's health? Are you really willing to trash the journal Nature to protect your WP's? You really need to think deeply on what you are doing. Claustro123 ( talk) 02:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The sentence in MEDRS that says "primary sources should generally not be used" is a guidance statement, not a prohibition, else it wouldn't use the term "generally". MEDRS itself is one of Wikipedia's guidelines (which describe our best practices) rather than a policy (which describe the rules we work under). Avoiding primary sources on Wikipedia is a best practice, particularly with biomedical subjects. At the same time, there is zero prohibition on citing primary medical sources. They can be used to a limited extent, such as to provide a context for current research. If primary sources are used, the Wikipedia text should absolutely describe the study with correct terminology, such as "an isolated study", in vivo, in vitro, "based on rats", etc. to make it clear that the findings simply exist but aren't conclusive or applicable to humans. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources."-- tronvillain ( talk) 20:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"As saccharin exerted the most pronounced effect, we further studied its role as a prototypical artificial sweetener."Aspartame is literally in one paragraph at the beginning. -- tronvillain ( talk) 17:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
"Many many people regard aspartame as a poison"versus a pretty clear application of MEDRS does not a valid consensus make. Even if it did, Jytdog already agreed with me, which would make it "no consensus." -- tronvillain ( talk) 15:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Just did a pubmed search (sorry about the link - the software here doesn't handle long/complex URLs like this well)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=(("aspartame"%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D%20OR%20"aspartame"%5BAll%20Fields%5D)%20AND%20("microbiota"%5BMeSH%20Terms%5D%20OR%20"microbiota"%5BAll%20Fields%5D))%20AND%20Review%5Bptyp%5D&cmd=DetailsSearch
and there are some reviews. It will take me some time to read them to figure out how to summarize what 'accepted knowledge" is in the field, at this time. I will propose something here. I suggest others do the same. I can send refs to anybody who doesn't have access. Jytdog ( talk) 16:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
"Accumulating evidence suggests that low calorie sweetener consumption perturbs the gut microbiota and disrupts metabolic health in susceptible individuals", and
"Nevertheless, there is no defined gut microbiota signature since the results from each study differ in terms of the microbes that are affected by low calorie sweetener consumption. This lack of consensus may be a result of individual variability, unique chemical composition and metabolism of each sweetener and the dose that is consumed. Therefore, studies investigating the role of each sweetener type and dose and its metabolic impacts are needed."In their "Low Calorie Sweeteners and the Gut Microbiota" section they cover a 1980 rat saccharin study, a rat sucralose study, the above Nature study which was almost entirely on saccharin, an aspartame rat study, and a cross sectional human study (with 7 "consumers" and 24 "non-consumers" of mostly aspartame and acessulfame-potassium based on a four day food intake journal) which found a small difference in microbial diversity. -- tronvillain ( talk) 18:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
"Non-nutritive sweeteners (including aspartame) may influence gut metabolism by changing the host metabolic phenotype, ultimately affecting the gut microbiota."-- tronvillain ( talk) 22:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
"The role of the gut microflora in human health is currently an area of extensive research for many different health endpoints and dietary components. This research has recently included LCNSs."and mentions Palmnas:
"Notably, rats given aspartame-containing water consumed 17% to 25% fewer calories from consumption of their diets, resulting in significantly less fat, protein, fiber, and other nutrients, which are well known to alter gut microflora.", and Suez (the Nature study):
"Nonetheless, up to a 50% reduction in food intake in mice given drinking water containing LNCSs, including aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin, is evident in graphs provided in the supplemental data."They seem to conclude that
...as such dramatic reductions in food intake do not occur in humans consuming LNCSs, the significance of such studies to human health is limited."-- tronvillain ( talk) 23:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I did a pubmed search on the terms microbiome and aspartame. One of the results was "Revisiting the safety of aspartame". Here is the abstract.
Aspartame is a synthetic dipeptide artificial sweetener, frequently used in foods, medications, and beverages, notably carbonated and powdered soft drinks. Since 1981, when aspartame was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, researchers have debated both its recommended safe dosage (40 mg/kg/d) and its general safety to organ systems. This review examines papers published between 2000 and 2016 on both the safe dosage and higher-than-recommended dosages and presents a concise synthesis of current trends. Data on the safe aspartame dosage are controversial, and the literature suggests there are potential side effects associated with aspartame consumption. Since aspartame consumption is on the rise, the safety of this sweetener should be revisited. Most of the literature available on the safety of aspartame is included in this review. Safety studies are based primarily on animal models, as data from human studies are limited. The existing animal studies and the limited human studies suggest that aspartame and its metabolites, whether consumed in quantities significantly higher than the recommended safe dosage or within recommended safe levels, may disrupt the oxidant/antioxidant balance, induce oxidative stress, and damage cell membrane integrity, potentially affecting a variety of cells and tissues and causing a deregulation of cellular function, ultimately leading to systemic inflammation.
I hope this helps. Claustro123 ( talk) 16:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, Could you please add my link too. It is here and meets your standards, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28938797
Thank you Claustro123 ( talk) 09:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok sorry Claustro123 ( talk) 01:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't all jump on me at once, I don't have a link and I can't easily get one because this popped up on Apple News from UK tabloid.
A study published in the Open Access journal, Molecules (IF >2 if I'm getting this right) by Professor Ariel Kushmaro and colleagues has determined that aspartame/neotame and several other unrelated sweeteners are "toxic" to gut bacteria even at fairly low concentrations. Given the watering down necessary for a tabloid there are no links and there's no way for me to get access to the study. However, it sounds like it was done in vivo - and didn't observe the effects (if any) on gut bacteria actually living in a human being. This sort thing should be beneath good science so it might be something more experienced editors would chose to include (or not).
This has all the stench of poor science to me, but I'm not sufficiently qualified to make that determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
If the structure of beta-aspartame is shown in the article, shouldn't there be some discussion of beta-aspartame in the text of the article? Why is beta-aspartame of interest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8200:79A1:7474:4E96:4A94:E5EC ( talk) 01:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I ain't no chemistry smarty-pants, but it seems to me that there's a missing word in the chemistry section, particularly:
"..., and the amino group is protected with as the formamide, ..."
Protected with what? 2600:1700:9850:3BE0:F98B:AC03:4359:6345 ( talk) 14:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Done Three words: "a formyl group". Good eye.
BiologicalMe (
talk)
16:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Why is this article so biased towards pro-aspartame views?
This page contains over 40 credible sources and cites real studies that were done that link Aspartame to several health risks. Why is none of this mentioned, and just blatantly waved off? I for one take a fact-based approach to writing, while the editors of this page clearly show where their loyalties lie. Christiaanp ( talk) 13:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I have reviewed other sources, along with some of the sources from the link you listed, and there is credible scientific proof that goes against the claims made in this article (most notably "Reviews have found no association between aspartame and cancer", which isn't true). I think this should be included in the article and the lead section should be revised. This makes me think of Atrazine. Brytonsf ( talk) 22:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The article seems unprofessionally inclined towards pro-Aspartame pov. Refer to "Bias" Please do not remove tag before this discussion is settled. SepehrAln ( talk) 22:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The general rule is that aspatartame is tasted by Catarrhini. [8] I do not know how many species have been examined, so it may not be a blanket rule. The notable outlier is the red panda which has an aspartame receptor. [9] I have not seen a review article that sums up the extent of research. Any statements about species that taste aspartame should be appropriate to the limited extent of variation. For example a study might say which animals appear to have receptors, but taste-preference studies may not have been performed. BiologicalMe ( talk) 15:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
It should lead to the page on saccharine, instead it leads to the page of carbohydrates (which saccharine is not...)
This article reads like it is rigorously edited by Coca Cola/Pepsi Co. to emphatically declare that their diet soda is safe. It is not being written from an unbiased point of view. Any potentially concerning health side effect, which is supported by scientific studies/analyses, are always followed up by the boilerplate “aspartame is one of the most rigorously tested chemicals and has been deemed safe,” creating the illusion of objectivity, but the reality is that the SCIENTIFIC consensus on this issue is much less unified than this article suggests.
I quote,
“ Aspartame, an artificial sweetening agent belongs to dipeptide chemical category with a very strong sweetening potential. Although research findings in humans and non-human primates have demonstrated numerous negative effects of aspartame (biochemical, histological, neurological, behavioral, genetic etc)., the status of aspartame is still debatable.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30187722/
This article makes it seem like the issue is NOT debatable.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.219.144.27 ( talk) 16:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The recent additions don't seem to pass WP:MEDRS or the weight of previous discussion. THis has been discussed extensively before and the consensus seems well established. Unbh ( talk) 05:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
As of this edit at 13:34, December 16, 2021, and the rejection of all of Narcissus14's edits, we're back to the consensus version, so don't add anymore Soffritti/Ramazzinni junk science again. We have rejected it many times because RS which pass muster as MEDRS do so.
We've dealt with this subject for years, and this is not the article for such content. We deal with it at Aspartame controversy#Ramazzini studies. Don't try to add more of this junk there either.
Narcissus14, if you edit war like that again, we'll have to seek to keep you from disrupting it. -- Valjean ( talk) 17:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
The original version from 2008 showed a zwitterion, but was correct. The current version shows a negatively charged incorrect version of aspartame which is missing one of its hydrogens. Since I cannot undo a file being replaced by an incorrect one, I have temporarily removed the incorrect ball-and-stick model from the article page. -- 46.114.3.22 ( talk) 16:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Reference link number four seems to be outdated, it now goes to a 404 page. Tysm! 174.112.253.102 ( talk) 16:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@ 149.97.134.93 The sentence which you are removing, "aspartame contains a small amount of phenylalanine", is relevant to the topic. Nythar ( talk) 10:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)