Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sunset yellow FCF: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:05, 6 December 2014 editMLPainless (talk | contribs)309 edits →Article reordering: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 05:17, 6 December 2014 edit undoMLPainless (talk | contribs)309 edits →primary sources: ansNext edit →
Line 115: Line 115:
::Thank you for talking finally. You have done '''very badly''' by insisting on your version - per BRD if you are reverted, you do not re-revert, and you talk. I am not following you down that bad road, but you have absolutely edit warred. Turning from behavior to content... we do not source health content to a primary source as you have done. The best thing to do, would be to cite the EU/FSA decisions made later based on the primary study and other studies. '''Not''' the primary study itself, which is '''NOT''' the FSA. It is by the investigators who did the study. Can you agree to cite the FSA or EU? If not, I will take this to the ] to get further input. Let me know. ] (]) 04:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC) ::Thank you for talking finally. You have done '''very badly''' by insisting on your version - per BRD if you are reverted, you do not re-revert, and you talk. I am not following you down that bad road, but you have absolutely edit warred. Turning from behavior to content... we do not source health content to a primary source as you have done. The best thing to do, would be to cite the EU/FSA decisions made later based on the primary study and other studies. '''Not''' the primary study itself, which is '''NOT''' the FSA. It is by the investigators who did the study. Can you agree to cite the FSA or EU? If not, I will take this to the ] to get further input. Let me know. ] (]) 04:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
:::and we do not source health related information to press releases or mainstream media. ] (]) 04:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC) :::and we do not source health related information to press releases or mainstream media. ] (]) 04:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

::::I think the article is better laid out now. This is not an issue of "health related information" (because there are no review studies on the hyperactivity issue and because this is all about what positions various countries have taken, so we're talking sociopolitical. But please, take it to a noticeboard right away of you feel strongly. ] (]) 05:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


== Article reordering == == Article reordering ==

Revision as of 05:17, 6 December 2014

WikiProject iconFood and drink Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Food and Drink task list:
To edit this page, select here

 Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
WikiProject iconChemicals Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Irn-Bru

E110 is extremely common, Irn-Bru seems an irrelevant example. --Bb3cxv 13:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. A discusion of the ban would be interesting. FDA makes some strange rules that prohibit or have prohibited popular products, re: E950, Absinthe, and the warnings on Saccharine. If you're interested in writing the surrounding text, it'd make a good addition. -- Bb3cxv 03:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

They say this is a shrinkage in the girl's upper body part.

Are you guys sure that fd&c yellow #6 is the same thing as sunset yellow fcf? i see yellow 6 in products all the time in the USA, but apparently sunset yellow fcf is banned. someone may want to look into this...

You are right. FDA says it is legit. There seems to be an edit war on the page regarding this. E110 = FD&C Y #6. Full FDA info is at the FD&CY#6 regulation page. Edit war ends here and now. Bb3cxv 16:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes and no, E102/Sunset Yellow FCF while chemically the same as FD&C Yellow #6, is not permitted in the USA. For any artifical food colouring to be permitted in the USA, a sample has to be tested by the FDA in their labs, and a tax paid, the size of which relates to the amount of the product being certified and has the same sample. The dye is typically manufactured in a batch process, of maximum size of around 1000kg, so it is generally the batch it is manufactured from. However as getting it certified as FD&C Yellow #6 is expensive, it is not uncommon for only part of a batch to be certified. There is large amounts of paper work that follow the batches around to prevent part of batch being certified and the whole batch being used as FD&C Yellow #6.

In most of the rest of the world (for example the E.U.) food dyes are self-certified by the manufacturers and no tax is paid. You could describe the situation in the USA as a "stealth tax" that the vast majority of the population is not aware of.

I am going to take the reference that it is banned in Finland of the main page as this is wrong. E110 is a permitted food colourant in the the E.U. and Finland is a member nation. It just simply cannot be legally banned in Finland.

Jabuzzard 00:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

what the heck does FCF stand for?

aren't we supposed to put newer topics at the top of the page? anyway, what the heck does FCF stand for? can't we use one of those HTML mouse-over things to indicate what this acronym stands for? --GrimRC 86.4.53.107 09:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The FCF in a lot of the food colours stands (or so I was told) for "For Colouring Food", I worked for a year for a firm called Pointings who until they where taken over and shutdown where a major manufacturer of artificial food colourings, especially E102, and E110 in their various guises.

Jabuzzard 00:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've found two references in Google Books and one patent that support that statement:

Picture

In the picture, it shows N, Nitrogen in the middle of a double bond, while the Chemical Formula shows no Nitrogen in a molecule of this substance. Why is this? Which is wrong, the Chemical Formula or the picture. Thanks, Tcpekin 01:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Feingold Diet

External link: http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/feingold.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumguy (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Amaranth link

I want to point out that the link to Amaranth in the third paragraph leads to the article on the plant, not the synthetic dye. 140.142.199.42 (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Natural orange color....from...

See my comment at

--222.67.219.51 (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sunset Yellow FCF

The IUPAC name: Disodium 6-hydroxy-5--2-naphthalenesulfononate is slightly incorrect, it should be: Disodium 6-hydroxy-5--2-naphthalenesulfonate

(1) There are no chemical compounds knowns as "sulfononates" (1) I am a Ph.D. chemist and know this (2) You may also check http://www.acdlabs.com/iupac/nomenclature 70.57.188.7 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow...it's tricky. It seems to have another IUPAC name and have a look at the following....

--222.64.218.117 (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Appeal for publishing printed IUPAC name annually, or using CA index name alongside with IUPAC name for food related chemicals.

--222.67.211.13 (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The trivial naming history....

--222.64.218.117 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

--222.64.218.117 (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Chinese translation of the chemical are based on the following...

--124.78.212.16 (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

UK Ban

The article mentions that E110 would be banned in 2009 along with other colourings, I know for a fact that E110 is not banned here (drinking a bottle of irn bru with it in now) so perhaps someone could cite a more up to date source for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.5.10 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Norway ban

E110 was never totally banned, but allowed in certain products like fish roe. In 2007 this was relaxed further, so that E100 is allowed as long as no Sudan Red I can be detected, according to the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geira (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

User The Thing That Should Not Be, please tell the reason why has the following edition been reverted....????

--222.67.211.208 (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wavelength

Anyone here able to provide me/the users with a specific wavelength absorbance for Sunset Yellow FCF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.254.168.248 (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

primary sources

MLPainless about this - We do not source health content to primary sources. What the EU did with that study and others later, yes. Not this. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Several hundred million people fall under the FSA and EFSA, more than the FDA. The FSA commissioned a study and bases its health outlook and advice on that study. This is an historical fact and social reality, and this falls outside the ambit of MEDRS, which looks at medicine-related articles and information. A possible solution is to combine the health effects and regulations sections, since the two are essentially discussing the same thing. Moreover you'll notice that if you remove my edit, the FDA para. does not parse well, and nor does the following section, which starts with "As a result of these potential health issues,...".MLPainless (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
And back to MEDRS, note where it says : This page in a nutshell: Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. The FSA and EFSA are just as much an expert bodies as the FDA. MLPainless (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for talking finally. You have done very badly by insisting on your version - per BRD if you are reverted, you do not re-revert, and you talk. I am not following you down that bad road, but you have absolutely edit warred. Turning from behavior to content... we do not source health content to a primary source as you have done. The best thing to do, would be to cite the EU/FSA decisions made later based on the primary study and other studies. Not the primary study itself, which is NOT the FSA. It is by the investigators who did the study. Can you agree to cite the FSA or EU? If not, I will take this to the WP:MEDRS to get further input. Let me know. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
and we do not source health related information to press releases or mainstream media. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the article is better laid out now. This is not an issue of "health related information" (because there are no review studies on the hyperactivity issue and because this is all about what positions various countries have taken, so we're talking sociopolitical. But please, take it to a noticeboard right away of you feel strongly. MLPainless (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Article reordering

Apart from adding citations to a lot of uncited data, I've tried to impose some order and sense on the page by arranging new subheadings. It reads much more logically and cleanly to me now. The previous version was real hodge-podge. The "health effects" such as they are, are not the subject of many studies and no review studies (other than one on asthma that concludes no fault) and even the FDA position paper discusses the one controversial UK study, so it's best to keep the various Food bodies and their reactions in one place, under a Health & Regulation heading. MLPainless (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Categories: