Talk:Tartrazine/Archive 1

Asthma/Aspirin issues - evidence?
This article contradicts the page http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/colorfac.html which the Wikipedia "Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act" article links to. The FDA web site states that there was no evidence that FD&C number 5 ("Tartazine") provoked asthma attacks or that aspirin-intolerant individuals had a cross sensitivity to it. Is there evidence that supports what this Wikipedia article states?

-=-=-=-=-=- I realize I'm not offering any medical evidence other than to say that I am an asthmatic, though I've never been diagnosed with an aspirin intolerance. I, along with several members of my family who are asthmatics have experienced all of the symptoms listed after ingesting Mountain Dew, or other food products with a high dosage of yellow 5. I have known other people who have reported the same symptoms.

Though yes, I've never had an asthma attack after ingesting yellow 5, I'm simply saying I am an asthmatic and I have experienced the symptoms listed. So it is more than likely a simple alergy. If there was some connection though, I would have to suspect the steroid based rescue inhalers that asthmatics regularly use. Perhaps there is a cross sensitivity involved there.

Irresponsible statement
This statement seems irresponsible:

"there was a problem, it would be discovered by now."

Evidence of health risks is available and should be cited
There is a US F&DA docket that discusses this in depth. It is, unfortunately, only available from the FDA as a PDF image, not text, thus neither Google not any other web crawler has indexed it for ready retrieval: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Aug01/081301/cp00001.pdf. It contains numerous citings of disciplined studies showing the detrimental effects E102/Tartrazine/Yellow #5 to sensitive individuals.

The Materials Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) provided by Science Lab, a manufacturer of Tartrazine, makes for interesting additional reading: http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Tartrazine-9927619

Anecdotal support, but worth mentioning: My wife and I are sensitive and have been given medical direction against Yellow #5. I was advised by my US Army Infantry Battalion Physician to avoid MRE (Meal, Ready to Eat) Hot Cocoa mix as it contains Tartrazine, a known migraine trigger. Following his advice and supplying my own store-bought cocoa cut the number of headaches in half. Similarly, my spouse was advised by a highly respected NYC pulmonologist to avoid Yellow #5 after a large glass of orange Tang triggered an asthma atack, landing her in the Intensive Care Unit. We raise egg-producing chickens on quality feed and have found a zero-incidence of migraine after eating their eggs, while there has been an observed correlation in a number of my family members between commercial egg ingestion and migraine.

Then again I worked in a factory that made this stuff in the pure form (typically 80-90% pure dye), bye the metric ton, and over a thousand tonnes a year. The workers on the factory floor would be covered from head to feet in the stuff (it is usually handled as a fine orange powder which gets everywhere, though can be granulated). In the over 30 years that they manufactured the stuff (the business was sold and the factory closed as a result) they never had a single problem with anyone showing adverse effects to the stuff. So while it may cause some very sensitive individuals it is not a general problem. A peanut will kill some people should they be banned or treated as a dodgy food stuff to be avoided?

Why not ban the stuff forever?
The damn stuff gives you asthma, irritation, behavioral problems (fosters Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder), migraine, thyroid cancer, and lupus. It has been established that Tartrazine provokes asthma attacks (though the US FDA do not recognise this) and urticaria (nettle rash) in children (the US FDA estimates 1:10 000); it is also linked to thyroid tumours, chromosomal damage, urticaria (hives), sleep disorders, and hyperactivity. Tartrazine sensitivity is linked to aspirin sensitivity; it has already been banned in civilized countries such as Norway and Austria.

Symptoms of Tartrazine poisoning: Asthma attacks, Conjunctival irritation, Edemas of lips and tongue, Headaches, Periorbital swelling, Rashes, Tingling in mouth. Causes or contributes to almost 90% of hyperactivity cases in children.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, CAN ANYONE IN HIS RIGHT MIND JUSTIFY THE INGESTION OF SUCH USELESS, NON-NUTRITIVE, HARMFUL AND POISONOUS STUFF BY UNSUSPECTING, INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS? --AVM 21:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more than a little sensationalist to say that tartrazine "gives you" all of the above ailments. In the 1970s just about every confectionary or fizzy drink contained the stuff, and I ingested plenty of those and never had any ill effects, nor was I hyper active. I don't recall any of the other children I was at school with suffering with any of these ailments either. It may well be the case that there is a finite probability of tartrazine ingestion leading to the contraction of the above ailments, but you need to weigh this up against other finite probabilities. For example, there is a finite probability that I will be electrocuted to death by using this laptop. It may be a very small probability but it's not zero. So lets drop the tabloid hysteria please. Tartrazine is clearly not "useless", it has a very well known use: it's a colourant. Non-nutritive it may well be. Harmful and poisonous - no sorry, I don't agree. In order to be harmful and poisonous it needs to cause harm to anyone who ingests it, and as I said above, I for one was never harmed by it. StanPomeray (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got your justification right here: Alcoholic Drink. I think the issue here is the lack of knowledge on the subject.  Instead of banning the ingredient, why not put a warning on all products that contain the ingredient, saying that it can cause adverse reactions in sensitive individuals?  They already do that in Canada with aspartame.  The government has to balance between the needs and wants of the consumer, and that of the business.--67.71.176.131 03:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you get an alcoholic to abstain from alcohol? You cant. No one can. Similarly labelling the ingredient will have minimal impact, especially for illiterate poeople who also drink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatboycsaba (talk • contribs) 04:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

bumping for vandalism... cant do meself, on a psp... --66.26.40.8 02:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this stuff really is useless. The only reason it is used is to make foods look more pretty so that they sell better. And even still, there are many healthier and natural colourings that are far safer than tartrazine. This chemical is just another example that the world is more concerned about how much profit is possible than how many people are harmed as a result. - 209.114.234.11 (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

a couple of points`

 * just how common is this stuff? certainly most squashes ive seen in the uk explicitly say they dont contain it.
 * the wording in this article suggests that beta-carotene is mostly used in organic products yet most orange squashes ive looked at seem to use it.

any comments on theese points? Plugwash 11:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed material from "treatment" section

 * Tartrazine sensitivity is a subject with limited free online resources for the afflicted, the bulk of the knowledge base can only be found in published articles in peer-reviewed literature.

These reference do not appear to bolster the claim made in the sentence, which seems to be highly qualitative and unverifiable. It seems these are intended to be examples of "published articles in peer-reviewed literature." They are, of course, but they don't seem to be topical, and are not good overviews of the subject either. I'm putting them here so that other editors can use them to add to the article if they wish.

I also removed the reference to Tartrazine increasing depression. The only article in PubMed remotely resembling these claims is this article, which merely shows that tartrazine sensitivity may be higher among those taking antidepressants that it. No link to depression seems to have been documented. Cool Hand Luke 22:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

SULFUR is shown in yellow, not sodium. Sodium ions are purple
SULFUR is shown in yellow, not sodium. Sodium ions are purple —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.69.20.20 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
 * You are right. I can only assume that User:Alexignatiou made an honest mistake in changing the caption. Cool Hand Luke 22:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

New UK government report shows link to hyperactivity in childern
Take a look at these two articles in the newspaper The Daily Telegraph. Would be nice to have them integrated in the article. MaxPont 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed Austria and Norway from Regulation
"Austria and Norway

Tartrazine is banned in Norway and Austria[6]. Yellow 5 has myths involving either the shrinking of the male sexual organ or the decine of semen. This myth has been neither proven correct or incorrect."

The fact it is banned in Norway is in the intro. The intro also states that the ban in Austria has been overturned due to the EU. Finally, the last two sentences have nothing to do with banning the product and the Urban Legends section was removed.--DizFreak talk Contributions 23:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The "intro" is the lead block which is supposed to summarize the article. If we say something in the lead, we should expand upon it in the article. Therefore, I think the section should be reinstated and expanded by mentioning the EU overturn. Cool Hand Luke 23:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Europe-wide ban call for six food colours includes tartrazine, according to BBC NEWS. Kristjans (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the studies are supposed to be on a too small a scale to prove it is Tartrazine!! It could be some other additive also?
 * Bright food coloring ban unlikely for Australiajavad (talk) 18:58, 15 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)

Tartrazine and Celiac disease
The canadian celiac association has acknowledged (Although not yet on their website) that tartrazine is NOT a safe additive for gluten intolerant persons. My family (All celiac, save myself) show significant adverse reactions when they accidentally consume products containing tartrazine, but no gluten. I cannot find any web resources that reference this, as it is a little known fact that hasn't been picked up by most Celiac associations. Can anybody find a source to back this claim? - 209.114.234.11 (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

tartrazine and effects on impotence
This is not suitable to be included under this topic and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatboycsaba (talk • contribs) 07:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI...Naturally occurring...
--222.67.219.51 (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W6D-4ND0RT0-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1118129802&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=072c4c28c4bc369ff5e362c0dd31794c

Has any scientists extracted yellow pigments from etc--222.67.219.51 (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * yellow capsicum...???
 * lemon peel...???
 * the bran of corn kennel...???

Toxicology of the chemical....

 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WXH-4DBJ9NY-H&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1964&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1193063695&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=04c6ae7a8c9d720b0c7b9e0ef959c753

--222.64.216.27 (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6P-475T955-1M&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1988&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1193062311&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8d3812d3c4e95437648396d1376f36ac


 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3366419

--222.64.216.27 (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6P-4GTW91C-2&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1193061484&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4eb7d271fa9c48f534e7861efa06db3b


 * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TC0-4T0WJT8-1&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1193062368&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5dfebf3eb96f1bfb95270853dd2fc94d

--222.64.216.27 (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/107/5/822

It's better to check all the print versions of the original holdings, because my experiences have told me that electronic versions of literature are not as solid as printed versions. This can be exemplified by the fact that the ref 1 in the article is unretrievable now.--222.64.216.27 (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Have a look at the following --222.64.216.27 (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/chemicals-nutrients-additives-and-toxins/food-additives.pdf

The Chinese translations of the chemical are based on the following...
--222.64.216.27 (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.rggs.gov.cn/article_text.asp?aid=47&classid=0&sid=247&id=13216
 * http://www.fjqi.gov.cn/webtest/access/user/bzxx.asp?id=GB+4481.2-1999

Better reference for hyperactivity
here is a good review regarding the link between tartrazine and hyperactivity - it should probably replace some of the existing refs in the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence from the medical literature
There is substantial evidence from the medical literature that a certain portion of the population, especially some asthmatics have a sensitivity to tartrazine. It is not a true allergy as it works on a different immunological pathway, but it can cause asthma attacks by heightening the sensitivity of the lungs. My son is an aspirin sensitive asthmatic, who nearly died as a small child after exposure to tartrazine. This has beeb confirmed by an oral challenge test. After I petitioned the FDA for its removal I heard from dozens of other parents who had similiar experiences with their children. If you want more evidence, you can look at my footnotes, or look at pubmed for more articles about the medical literature on the topic. An organization called Feingold also had evidence of behavioural changes in children after consumption of tartrazine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.80.89.20 (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

A certain portion of the population are allergic to nuts, to such an extent that ingesting just one peanut can kill them. What do you propose to do about that? Ban nuts? No, you just avoid them, dont you. So why not just avoid tartrazine containing products if you're that hyper sensitive to them? Or does the entire world have to ban anything that may possibly harm a tiny % of the population who are cursed with some weird hypersensitivity? OK, you may have heard from "dozens of other parennts", but "dozens" out a population of 120 odd million is not exactly the bulk of the population is it. StanPomeray (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Flawed logic. Other than the allergy, nuts have nothing to do with it. Tartrazine does NOTHING of any benefit other than act as a food dye. 212.69.38.4 (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Urban Legends
Is that true? And shouldn't an encyclopaedia tell the truth instead of saying it may or may not be true? 193.164.114.4 08:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I mean, this "reference" it's quoting even says it's false. I'm deleting the section. Executor Tassadar 10:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone say it can shrink the penis. Only that it can lower sperm count. Which apparently it has been proven to do in mice. 97.91.172.232 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Name
Article needs to explain the origin of the name. 121a0012 (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And the origin of the substance itself, for that matter. 121a0012 (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

where does it come from?
It doesn't say in the article where it comes from. Does it come from coal tar or oil? I searched about online but can't find any reliable sources specifically telling me where its from. Regular internet sources say it comes from benzene, a colorless runoff from crude oil, mixed with nitric and sulfuric acids to make aniline which is then modified to change the color saturation. Anyone know of any reliable sources to confirm this?  D r e a m Focus  19:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 For all we know, it could have been chemically manufactured. Anyone looking to research on Tartrazine could find such aspect useful considering its use as an ingredient for many things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.198.68 (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC) 

Harmful ingredient?
I hope I am doing this correctly, as I have never posted on one of Wikipedia's TALK pages before. I would like to add the following information to the page but it has been deleted three times by two users. The first time, the user said the source was not reliable enough, which is why I went and looked up the information in a book about cosmetic ingredients. I find the following information helpful because I think the ingredient could be more harmful in cosmetic products than people might think. As a consumer I think this is an important information that I would like to know about if looking up an ingredient on Wikipedia.

In their book Kosmetik-Inhaltsstoffe von A bis Z: Der kritische Ratgeber the authors Knieriemen-Suter/Knieriemen say that this synthetic color "is thought [.] to release aromatic amines, which can be classified as cancerogenic and/or poisonous". Sunpoint (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have my doubts that the book you link would be acceptable as a reliable source - translating (via Google - though my limited understanding of German suggests that it correct) it is entitled "Cosmetic Ingredients from A to Z: The Critical Advisor" - a tertiary source intended for the general public. To include statements that tartrazine was "cancerogenic and/or poisonous" we would need academic/scientific sources which discussed the substance in detail, and made such a statement. Such sources would also be expected to provide a better indication of what the actual risks are. A statement that something is 'poisonous' is more or less devoid of useful meaning unless it is also explained whether it was likely to have effects in the quantities one is likely to encounter. It should be noted that our article goes into considerable detail over the regulations concerning tartrazine, and one would assume that if the scientific evidence was that such risks were significant, the regulations would reflect this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As you point out correctly, you have a limited understanding of German AND have not read the book. Yet, you feel you're in a position to evaluate this source? I am German and have read the book. Here is a full translation of the passage:

"The largest group by sheer numbers under the colors is the azo colors; they are inexpensive and color-stable, and show themselves to have high luminosity. One of these powerful colors is thought nevertheless to release aromatic amines, which can be classified as cancerogenic and/or poisonous. These aromatic amines whose most important representative is aniline (aminobenzol), cannot be used in cosmetics, but can for example be released out of colored textiles through perspiration and saliva, and enter the body. While only a few of these colors which are derived from tar derivatives are approved for foodstuffs and also for textiles, it is represented in the EU in the whole color palette of chemistry for cosmetics. The USA clearly takes this more seriously for protecting the health of the population. There the so-called mon-azo or bi-azo, therefore synthetic colors made of coal or tar derivatives, are not approved except for a few cases, and then only with strong limitations. In the critical literature it was remarked with 25 of the EU countries and also Switzerland that these can leak in through the skin, impact the liver and aniline can be wedged off. Finally a further fatal chain is presented as with the nitrosamines, and this is also one reason that the suspicion of cancer causation is still in play. It is certainly true that azo dye materials can cause allergies (hives, asthma), whereby people with oversensitivity against aspirin can be endangered." Sunpoint (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, particularly in a section on human health effects we'd be wanting something that surmounts the WP:MEDRS threshold. Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The vague words "is thought to" and "which can be classified as" are not enough for a Wikipedia article. Who thinks they release aa's? On what evidence? Who classifies aa's as carcinogenic? On what evidence? Please understand,, that we are not necessarily saying that you are wrong, but that you have not so far found sufficient references for the claim to be added.


 * the EFSA looked at potential carcinogenicity due to aromatic amino acids from manufacturing or metabolism and found no significant risk. See here. Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * additional question - here is the original edit you made, where you wrote that the book says that the coloring "is not approved in the USA". So you either inaccurately described what the book says, or the book has its facts wrong.  Which is it?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The translated material you quote here sounds interesting and potentially useful. Are there any secondary sources mentioned in the book which might be directly relevant? Finding references that meet WP:MEDRS is sometimes difficult; your good-faith efforts are appreciated. Reify-tech (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Sunpoint, by asking you that I was trying to be gracious. The book does not say that the coloring is not approved in the US, so the issue really is your... error.  With regard to using this source - we have the EFSA source which is more recent than the book, and more authoritative.  Please read WP:MEDRS and in particular the WP:MEDREV section of it. The EFSA says there is no carcinogenicity concern from this dye. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You just need to browse the web a little more and you're going to find more sources. What about this one? Also not reliable enough (and I wonder how many sources I have to cite, with this being the third one, until you acknowledge there is link to cancer): "As tartrazine belongs to the azo class, it is still a possible food carcinogen." Quote from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17505761 --

Braz J Biol. 2007 Feb;67(1):141-5. Prolonged use of the food dye tartrazine (FD&C yellow no 5) and its effects on the gastric mucosa of Wistar rats. Moutinho IL1, Bertges LC, Assis RV. Sunpoint (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * you have not read WP:MEDRS nor the WP:MEDREV part of it. Please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Both articles refer to citing sources regarding medicine. This is a food coloring and not medicine. Sunpoint (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the first paragraph of MEDRS - especially its first sentence. It covers content about health, medicine, biomedical information - that field of content.  The content you are talking about, is about health.  Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tartrazine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100107012204/http://www.foodstandards.gov.au:80/newsroom/publications/choosingtherightstuff/foodadditivesnumeric1680.cfm to http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/publications/choosingtherightstuff/foodadditivesnumeric1680.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)