Jump to content

Talk:International Numbering System for Food Additives

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A lot of inaccuracies

[edit]

The article listed E122, E123, E124, E125, E131 and E142 as approved in the US. It also listed cyclamate as approved in the US. I've updated the table but there are likely a lot of remaining inaccuracies especially claiming US approval.

https://www.fda.gov/industry/color-additive-inventories/color-additive-status-list https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/aspartame-and-other-sweeteners-food

2600:1700:139A:120:4C17:147F:6134:665 (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Isn't lecithin an emulsifying agent, rather than an antioxidant? -- Malcolm Farmer

It's both, I missed the second. Thanks. --Carey Evans

Untitled 2

[edit]

What about Olestra? Doesn't it qualify as an additive? -- Emperorbma 05:54, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The list is based on data from the sites listed at the bottom, so it currently only lists additives that were approved, at least in the past, for use in Europe, Australia or New Zealand. Yes, olestra counts as a food additive, but as far as I know only the US FDA has approved its use. I'll look at adding it and some others in the appropriate location. --Carey

Untitled 3

[edit]

What about water? Many manufacturers add water in order to provide the most useful expedient of making their products weigh more. The water has no harmful effect on the customer except economically and ergonomically. Water is added generally to meat products where it is held in place by special animal protein products and usually at around 10% to the weight. Just look at the bacon in your supermarket: when it says 87% meat that means 13% unnecessarily added water. I'm thinking of setting up a link to unnecessarily added water. Thoughts, anyone? Matt Stan 01:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • Water can have different functions in foods. But yes, there are some that add it just for weight. For instance, Ball Park says "plump when you cook them". That's the water; read the ingredient list.
  • On some others it's part of the process, like bacon. It's called a "wett cure". It's like a brine, except it's water, sugar, liquid smoke, sodium nitrate and other stuff. It's standard and well established.
  • Then, say on chicken, it actually forms a protective layer. It helps check the chicken fresh, and moisture in. It also creates a barrier against microbos.
meatclerk 14:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that water is not considered as an additive, because additives are defined as "any substance, not commonly regarded or used as food, which is added to, or used in or on, food at any stage ..." As water is a food, I would think, it is not an additive. 202.82.103.23 09:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 4

[edit]

I think there should be some effort to show which of these are or are not FDA approved... I listed as many color numbers as i could find, which is a start --Random832 21:03, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)

Have at it.
meatclerk 14:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 5

[edit]

The wording of the paragraph at the top is confusing.

In the European Union, approved food additives are written with a prefix of 'E'. Australia and New Zealand have their own set of approved additives, which are not written with a prefix letter. In the table below, food additives approved for Europe are listed with an E, see list of E number, and those approved for Australia and New Zealand with an A.

Which is it? --61.9.212.103 05:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the wording makes it fairly clear that the 'A' is only added to the table to mark which additives are approved in Aus/NZ (In the table below [...]). How could it be changed to make it clearer? -- JTN 15:49, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
I just changed the wording a bit; it now reads In the table below, food additives approved for Europe are listed with an 'E', and those approved for Australia and New Zealand with an 'A'. See also the list of E numbers. I would still like this page way more informative, but properly merging this article with E number comes first --Sytse 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy with list in E number

[edit]

See Talk:E number. -- JTN 16:03, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

The products of polyethylene glycol vary from one to another.....

[edit]

Please see

for further info --222.67.218.156 (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-number list added here

[edit]

As both pages provide the same information as list, it is proposed to use in the E-number page only the text, but remove the tables and show in this list with an E whether the additive is allowed within the EU. Creates less work and avoids confusion between the lists.Knorrepoes (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the INS table there are now columns for Australia and teh EU. Maybe columns for other countries should be added ?Knorrepoes (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was not merged. Note that the proposer never presented an argument for the merge, and the following user was responding only to the tag. --BDD (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • E numbers article merge? I don't think the articles should be merged, if there is substantial information regarding the E numbering system. But it might makes sense to merge the Full list of E numbers on the E numbers page, with this list. --Iantresman (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the articles are to be merged (which I am ambivalent about), it should only be done in such a way that no information is lost. There is plenty of organization/classification information and approval status information in the E number article and it would be a shame to lose any of it. If the merge is done, I would recommend making the resulting article a full list of food additives (dropping the Codex Alimentarius qualification) and noting each item's regulatory/approval status in any relevant jurisdiction and whether it is found on any particular listing (such as Codex Alimentarius). -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Numbering System for Food Additives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Numbering_System_for_Food_Additives&oldid=1207726686"