Talk:Azodicarbonamide

Safety?

What about how other countries view the safety? http://www.kat-chem.hu/en/prod-bulletins/azodikarbonamid says "in Australia and in Europe, where the use of azodicarbonamide as a food additive is banned. In Singapore, the use of azodicarbonamide can result in up to 15 years imprisonment and a fine of $450,000." I don't know this source and don't have time to research this right now, but am wondering if anyone else has done the research or is interested in doing it while I'm looking for time to do it myself.

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 consensus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull 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) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

June 15, 2009

The article currently contains a contradiction. The first section says that when the compound is used in bread it is converted to urea which is stable throughout the baking process.

In the third section, it says that the compound when used in bread is completely converted to gasses (CO2, N2, CO, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.63.195.2 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Both were wrong. I did the research, and fixed it. Harold f (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No bromine in this

People all over the net appear to be wrongly implicating this as containing bromine. There are bromides in food stuffs, but this isn't one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.144.206 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Jan 7, 2012

Where is the source for the ban in Singapore and the 15 years of jail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.250.221 (talk • contribs)

Since the claim doesn't have a source, and I'm unable to verify it (a web search only turns up unreliable sources that probably copy the claim from here), I have simply removed it for now. If someone can verify the claim with a reliable source, it can be added back in. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I also can't find any evidence that it is banned "in Europe and Australia". The reference link for it (6) goes to a dutch language page that, when translated, says nothing about it being banned anywhere.

I would suggest that this entire page be examined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.250.221 (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have updated some of the wording and referencing in that section. Please feel free to double check me and to review the rest of the article as well. I'll try to respond to any additional concerns that you might have. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the work! I agree, there are some issues in that section. It currently cites primary sources for the approval data, one of which relies on the reader interpreting that E927 is not on the list. I am somewhat inclined to remove the sentence until a proper source can be found. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)