Talk:Sunset yellow FCF

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irn-Bru[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

what the heck does FCF stand for?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've found two references in Google Books and one patent that support that statement:
  • The Politics of Food
  • Academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry
  • MEDICINAL COMPOUNDS, 13 Dec 1933 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |description= (help); Unknown parameter |country-code= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |inventor-first= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |inventor-last= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |issue-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |patent-number= ignored (help)

Picture[edit]

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)[reply]

Feingold Diet[edit]

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

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

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)[reply]

Amaranth link[edit]

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)[reply]

Natural orange color....from...[edit]

See my comment at

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

Sunset Yellow FCF[edit]

The IUPAC name: Disodium 6-hydroxy-5-[(4-sulfophenyl)azo]-2-naphthalenesulfononate is slightly incorrect, it should be: Disodium 6-hydroxy-5-[(4-sulfophenyl)azo]-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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The trivial naming history....[edit]

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

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

The Chinese translation of the chemical are based on the following...[edit]

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

UK Ban[edit]

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)[reply]

Norway ban[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

Wavelength[edit]

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)[reply]

primary sources[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
and we do not source health related information to press releases or mainstream media. Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
you think health information is "sociopolitical"? oy. this is the kind of source that would be acceptable, like this is. I don't think you even understand the problem with the sources you are using. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The countries are taking a stance on a scientific/medical issue regardless. In such cases, the science does need to be considered in assigning due weight. This is especially the case when the science does not support a particular position a country took. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We simply report what is. These are major decisions taken by various national food authorities who do not use Wikipedia's MEDRS in their deliberations. MLPainless (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you want the section just to report regulatory actions. I edited it accordingly. Jytdog (talk) 08:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really mind what you've done, but it does sweep a lot of encyclopedic detail under the carpet on very specious grounds, IMO. I suspect others will put a lot of detail back in due course.... MLPainless (talk)

If we cannot source health information appropriately it is better to not discuss it at all. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not really health information per se, it's a record of what health information (whether it be inadequate or not in your or my or WP's opinion) national food agencies are using as a basis on which to make decisions. But as I said, I'm happy to leave as is and let others nut it out at some later date. MLPainless (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the NHS nor the EU made their decision solely on the basis of the Southhampton study. That is dead wrong. They conducted a review of all the literature. If you actually read the reports I linked to above -- actually do your homework like we are supposed to - you would know this. This is the second time we have had this interaction, where you make assertions without actually reading the sources. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personalizing and attacking. The "Southampton Six" study was the major driver behind the decisions. although as you know it was only requested because of earlier suggestive findings. MLPainless (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MLPainless, folks are trying to direct you on how we approach scientific topics here at Wikipedia. You're having trouble with content issues here, and it's not a personal attack to point that out in order to try to help you out. Further discussion of those problems should happen at a user talk page though, and it seems the article content in this section has reached a consensus for the time being anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MLPainless please stop adding WP:PRIMARY sources. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream view is that there is little evidence for ADHD effects - I have used very solid secondary and tertiary sources to show that. Even the source you brought says only "maybe". Please bring to talk a solid secondary source that shows that there is an effect. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, I and 2 of my children cannot touch Sunset Yellow. We get diarrhea. We've had the effect tested by food intolerance experts with a double blind setup and it's a reliable result. This is not scientific proof that can be used in WP, but worth noting. If you google for "sunset yellow diarrhea" you'll get a lot of data that is not review quality. Just FYI and it explains my discomfort with pooh-poohing all concerns. MLPainless (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know if you meant it but you have me laughing (pooh-poohing)... :) but really, sensitivities are nasty and disruptive. i am sorry for that. it is good thing that labels are required on things so you can avoid them. Jytdog (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
back to the article, however... it is unclear to me what that has to do with the southampton study, which was focused in ADHD-like issues. population-wise, sensitivity to drugs or additives is a well known issue.. Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material originally added was a mix of biomedical and sociopolitical. Here's the distinction:

  • "One clinical trial found that this chemical was associated with this medical condition": biomedical, and MEDRS definitely applies.
  • "This government agency recommended that manufacturers avoid using this chemical": sociopolitical, and MEDRS does not apply.

In this case, the two statements are closely related: The sociopolitical action was taken because of the biomedical information. You could therefore try to find sources that satisfy both standards. PMID 22420012 probably counts as a MEDRS-compliant secondary source for the study (see third paragraph in the full text), but the secondary source doesn't mention this dye by name or say anything about the recommendation (on the same page, at least) There might be other sources available if we look around. It would be odd for the study to be completely neglected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by "the study" you mean the southampton study it is discussed, and sourced to two WP:SECONDARY sources already. but thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article reordering[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm less impressed with the current version. Moreover, since many of the issues raised refer to all of the Southampton Six, and some would say to AFCs generally, there is perhaps a need to have another article dealing just with this issue. MLPainless (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feingold and Bateman[edit]

Jytdog was the one who inserted Feingold, a primary source, into the article with the dismissive appellation of "advocate" rather than scientist (which he is, as his long list of published studies on many topics shows). Remove that characterization or accept proper citations. MLPainless (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't cite any papers by Feingold. If you want to stick to your claim that I did, please provide a dif. thanks Jytdog (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and you can be a scientist and an advocate. there are plenty who are both (sometimes for the betterment of the world (eg Jonas Salk), but too often not (e.g. Andrew Wakefield, Peter Duesberg and other aids denialists, Frederick Seitz etc etc) Feingold is unfortunately a kind of WP:FRINGEy character. Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know a lot about him, but he seems to have a worldwide devoted following of parents of kids with ADHD who swear by the Feingold diet. I have little doubt that susceptible people can be affected by both food dyes and numerous other substances in regard to ADHD (and other conditions?), as murine studies suggest e.g PMID 16352620. Scientifically, we seem to be on the cusp of many further insights. Commercially speaking, the FSA's move to have manufacturers remove these particular dyes has been stunningly successful, so it's all over bar the shouting in the court of public opinion, in the UK anyway. I suspect the FDA's close ties to industry will prevent that happening in the US ... for now. MLPainless (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind article talk pages are not forums, nor we do care about allegories or editor speculation here. Best to stay on task and use article talk pages for discussing actual edits. Some conversations have been getting in the weeds here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd emphasis on regulation of purity[edit]

In the lead paragraph, it says "to be used in food it must be manufactured according to government standards of purity."(two cites). That seems like WP:UNDUE on something that is presumably true for all food additives and the refs merely assert that it is true in general or that this additive can meet those standards (not a secondary ref on the significance of it for this subject). DMacks (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the sources were for the whole sentence not just the last clause. i came across this article last week and worked it over - it was mostly unsourced crap and it is pretty decent now. i didn't think too much about that clause and don't care - I took it out.Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's looking good now. I saw it was being heavily worked-on, figured I'd avoid ec'ing in the midst of an edit-session on other aspects. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is safe dose?[edit]

The safety section of the article says 'The acceptable daily intake (ADI) is 0–4 mg/kg'. What does this mean, that it could be 0 mg/kg, meaning it might not be allowed at all? Or is this a typo for 0.4 mg/kg? --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow No. 6[edit]

Curiously, Wikipedia doesn't list this with FD&C's Yellow No. 6 here. Rjluna2 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sunset_yellow_FCF&oldid=1210586864"