Talk:Sunset yellow FCF

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)
 * I only mentioned it because it is mentioned in the Irn Bru article itself, as a reason why it is not produced for the US market. -- Two Halves, not logged in, of course

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:
 * The Politics of Food
 * Academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry

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, T c p e k i n  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)
 * Orange (fruit) peel
 * a proper combination of natural red and yellow pigments
 * Talk:Tartrazine

Sunset Yellow FCF
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)


 * Wow...it's tricky. It seems to have another IUPAC name and have a look at the following....
 * http://www.lookchem.com/chemical-dictionary/en/product_f/2783-94-0/
 * http://www.taketombo.co.jp/ci/y5.htm
 * http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=DD:13:16:31996D0335:MT:PDF

--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....

 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=E110+food+yellow&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=1985&as_yhi=1988&as_vis=0

--222.64.218.117 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=E110+food+yellow&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=1989&as_yhi=1990&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--222.64.218.117 (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=E110+food+yellow&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=1991&as_yhi=1992&as_vis=0

The Chinese translation of the chemical are based on the following...
--124.78.212.16 (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://new.agridata.gov.cn/Web/advanced_search.aspx?TITLE=%E6%80%BB%E9%87%8F%E7%9A%84%E6%B5%8B%E5%AE%9A
 * http://www.fjqi.gov.cn/webtest/access/user/bzxx.asp?id=GB+6227.1-1999

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)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunset_Yellow_FCF&diff=341824965&oldid=341824902

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)

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)


 * 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)

Feingold and Bateman
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 . 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)
 * 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)

Odd emphasis on regulation of purity
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

What is safe dose?
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)

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