User talk:Mk790316/sandbox

The first sentence is "Ractopamine is a feed additive, banned in many countries, to promote leanness in animals raised for their meat." This right from the gate gives this article a bad tone and not really keeping the article non biased. I think talking about the fact that it is banned and why it is banned in many countries could be more useful if it were later in the article. But having that right at the beginning just starts this article out with a biased tone when it should be just giving the basic information about Ractopamine in that introduction paragraph. With that, I think the second paragrah could be more useful in the "Regulation around the world" heading. Having information about the world regulation in two different places makes it look redundant.

The first heading, Mode of Action, is redundant as well, "When used as a food additive, Ractopamine added to feed can be distributed..." I think it's better to take "When used as a food additive" out. At the end of that sentence, it says "where it serves as a full agonist at mouse (Not necessarily human)TAAR1". This is very confusing and needs more detail behind what the mouse and TAAR1 means. At the end it talks about Optaflex and it's use in cattle, but only about the fact that it's used in cattle-not its mode of action in cattle. Therefore I think that information could be used elsewhere.

The second heading gives just a few statements such as "setting any limit is a controversial move" that can be eliminated. There's really no need for it and kind of takes away any neutrality. Halfway through the second paragraph it talks about Chinese officials and their reasoning for banning Ractopamine, but there is no source to back that information up. The European Union subheading needs to be spelled out, and there are parts in that paragraph that need to be reworded, "The uncertainty was particularly great for people who might be thought to be more susceptible than most..."; that's very hard to read. The second subheading needs to be changed to U.S. and Candada, because there is nothing about NAFTA or the USMCA in it, and in the first paragraph, that information needs to be updated. The USDA has a "Never Fed Beta Agonist Program" certification that pork farmers can get. And with modern technology, any packaging company can test this. That information can be found in this link (https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/imports-exports/beta-agonists). Under the Taiwan subheading, the link used does not work, therefore is irrelevant.

I think the WADA Proscription heading has some interesting information, but I think it needs more information to back up why people are finding it as a sporting violation. Right now it just sounds like it is just trying to prove that Ractopamine is bad. With that, the heading International Disputes, can be condensed to the Regulations around the world heading. A few of the regulations subheadings, like China and Russia had very little information to give, so it would be more useful of space and the readers time to just condense regulations and international disputes. And to have international disputes as a separate heading, to me, just adds to the tone that this is trying to prove Ractopamine as a bad thing.

In the Pharmacokinetics in humans heading, the first paragraph is cited without a URL or proper source, therefore as of now it is irrelevant until it is sourced properly. The second paragraph is fine however, except for the last sentence. That needs information to back up why people with cardiovascular disease shouldn't consume it.

So, this might sound biased, but I have raised pork, and I know that pigs are easy stressors. The safety concerns heading has some information that is not relevant and is not backed up by a relevant source. The first sentence is sourced with an article published to a magazine of some sort. When it comes to animal welfare and rights, it's best to stick to reliable sources like the USDA, and scientific journal entires because some new articles can have misleading information from misleading sources. Later in that heading it talks about "downer pigs", but it's sourced from a separate wiki article, and the other source used has a broken link, therefore it is irrelevant right now and needs to be fixed or taken away.

Under the adverse effects heading, the cardiovascular and musculoskeletal subheadings have no source to back up information, therefore it's irrelevant without a source.

The in popular culture subheading is kind of irrelevant because that only refers to one source- and it's from the Joe Rogan experience. What this page does not talk about at all is why U.S. farmers have used it for so long. The positive effects to using it and its use in show pigs.

Overall this page needs an update on it's neutrality and more reliable journal sources that give a neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk790316 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)