Talk:Olestra

This looks like it has been edited by P&G Public Relations. It has changed a lot since I last looked at it, and it's become something of an ad. Anyone want to volunteer to rewrite and monitor it?

I'll monitor it. Brad219 06:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for "fixed" side effects?

The claim the side effects have been mitigated is currently uncited in the article, does anyone know where that info came from? How did this stuff get approved by the FDA? Seems implausible to me. zen master T 02:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this in the article anywhere. Brad219 06:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The side effects known as anal leakage, was corrected and verified in clinical studies submitted to the FDA prior to the olestra's approveal for use by the FDA. This and all other clinical studies can be found in the Food Additive Petition for olestra to the FDA.

If the side effects of anal leakage were corrected, then why did the FDA require the label to inform of this side effect? This makes no sense. The side effect still exists and the molecule has not been remedied to fix this issue.Brad219 06:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Animal Testing

The statement that animals could not be tested for long-term effects of olestra because they "physically could not eat the huge quantity," seems unplausible. Of course they can't eat the quantity that humans eat, but as in ALL animal testing of food and drugs, the dose can be scaled down according to the animal's weight, age, etc. I would like to see a citation for this, else have it removed.Brad219 06:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually removed this sentence until it can be cited, because I've found sources that claim P&G perform animal testing regularly (no pun intended).Brad219 06:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep away from pets

My ex's dog got into a bag of Wow chips one time, and of course it lost total control of his bowels. The dog otherwise had no long-term health effects, but keep Olestra food products away from Dogs, or you will have one heck of a mess. Joeylawn 03:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anal Leakage

The following sentence is incorrect: "The warning was popularly misquoted as containing the phrase “anal leakage”, which although not on the label, was indeed a problem with early formulations of olestra that were not marketed."

I know without a doubt that I have seen labels using "anal leakage" in the language. I don't have any citations other than the people I was with at the time who also read it. Anonymous 23:51 27 Apr 2006 (UTC)

I believe that phrase was used on some prescription meds, perhaps you saw it there ? I can personally attest to the fact that Olestra included in some fat-free ice cream caused me severe diarrhea, making it necessary to skip work for a two weeks (because I didn't figure out the cause until I had used up the ice cream and it went away). On the plus side, it did indeed help me rapidly lose weight, as nothing would stay in my digestive system long enough to be digested. StuRat 12:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does your personal story help to clarify that "anal leakage" was not ever actually printed on labels? Brad219 06:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

Anal seepage rediects here. Shouldn't it redirect to anal leakage?

Done. -- Coneslayer 15:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trans fat?

What would you mean by that? Olestra is not the same thing as transfat. WLU 22:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this question isn't clear at all. Brad219 06:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable insertion under "In Popular Culture"

There's a line under the last entry here (craig's list entry) that seems out of place and has nothing to do with the craig's list entry itself. I think it's vandalism because it sounds outragous. Can anybody clarify on this or should it just be removed? The quote is "Side effects include vomiting, severe cramping, passing out, drop in blood pressure." This is absolutely not true, but if it was a part of a comedy routine cited in the pop culture, it might make sense. However, it seems to be vandalism to me. Thx1200 14:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]