Talk:Amaranth (dye)

Untitled
Currently the article says "Amaranth was made from amaranth plants." -- isn't this dye, also known as Red Dye #2, a synthetic dye made from coal tar? I have marked the article as needing references. --Larrybob 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think it is made from amaranth plants. Also, it should no longer be called "FD&C Red No.2". It should be called "Former FD&C Red No.2" since it is no longer certifiable by the FDA. - Afong 14:35, 01 September 2006 (UTC)

Decomposing
Does this dye change color when it decomposes or is the decomposed dye the same color as the plain dye? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.188.253.13 (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2007 (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) 01:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hives
I know a woman in California who when she was very young broke out in hives whenever she consumed anything containing amaranth, prior to its ban. How widespread was this side effect? knoodelhed (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Toxicology
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0015626472801421 Teratology studies on food colourings. Part I. Embryotoxicity of amaranth (FD & C Red No. 2) in rats] —  C M B J   12:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Amaranth (dye)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Amaranth (dye) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.druglead.com/cds/amaranth-dye.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Requesting verification and also removed irrelevant source
I removed an irrelevant source in this edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amaranth_%28dye%29&diff=721387913&oldid=697178843]. The source doesn't mention anything about the dye in question so its inclusion here seems to be WP:OR, in particular WP:Syn. I've also requested verifcation. I somewhat doubt that the remaining source mentions anything about "as he had earlier defended the FDA against collusion accusations in his 1975 book". I'm not even sure if the source says "defended the dye in spite of all the evidence". Still since I haven't read the source, I felt it better to give someone the opportunity to confirm it does say this or words to the effect before removal. If the statement is correct, I think the article could do with some expansion. The only evidence mentioned is one single Soviet study. This isn't exactly "all the evidence". (There is also another study but I presume this came after the defending "in spite of all the evidence".) The article could also do with some expansion anyway, since other agencies have looked at the evidence including more recent evidence and concluded there's insufficient cause of concern e.g. and. (And while I don't know much about the Soviet study, the small amount I read about the US study suggest it's the sort of thing that at most suggests there may be merit for further investigation rather than cause for significant concern.) The article briefly mentions it's not banned in the UK and other unnamed places but doesn't mention this despite presenting the concerns in an alarming fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)