Talk:Tartrazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chemicals WikiProject
Chemistry Portal
Tartrazine is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Chemistry WikiProject This article is also supported by WikiProject Chemistry.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] Irresponsible statement

This statement seems irresponsible:

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

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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.[1] [2]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. [3] [4] MaxPont 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?