|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Chemicals||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health|
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingTor (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Sorry, signed: KingTor (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
This section entangles (to the point of misleading) bans on Azodicarbonamide in food with a potential side effect of its inhalation, a distinct process from ingestion. A ban is not verifiable information about safety. The motivation for these bans on the part of a particular government could be unrelated to safety or wholly arbitrary. The sources from which the information in question came only describe Azodicarbonamide as having the potential to cause asthma when it is inhaled. They provide nothing concrete about food safety either way. This is the definition of conflation. Listing the decisions by particular governments to ban Azodicarbonamide isn't the same thing as providing information about its safety. For this section to have some semblance of journalistic objectivity, the Safety section should only contain verifiable information about the safety of Azodicarbonamide. A more accurate and honest presentation of the section would appear like fig. a
fig a. In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive has identified azodicarbonamide as a respiratory sensitizer (a possible cause of asthma) and determined that products should be labeled with "May cause sensitisation by inhalation." The World Health Organization has linked azodicarbonamide to "respiratory issues, allergies and asthma." Britain, Europe, and Australia now ban its use in food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The last sentence in this section, "Toxicological studies of the reactions of azodicarbonamide show that it is rapidly converted in dough to biurea, which is a stable compound not decomposed upon cooking" indicates nothing, neither directly nor indirectly, about the safety of Azodicarbonamide. Furthermore, the provided source from which this sentence came describes studies in which "no adverse effects" from doses of both Azodicarbonamide and Biurea at the levels permitted for use in food in the United States.  This information doesnt belong in the safety section. If it is not removed, it will continue to mislead by way of insinuation. Onelastlongsigh (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2014 (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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2009 (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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Jan 7, 2012
- 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 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)
Subway change pertinent?
This chemical was in their bread in the US only but not Europe or Australia -- until recently. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/02/05/subway-says-its-removing-chemical-from-bread/ 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- It seemed pertinent to me here (click link) and I disagree with this more recent deletion of the whole subject again here. Swliv (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- The User:Positronic Girl Wikipedia account was created solely in order to make this one deletion: corporate censorship on the part of Subway (restaurant), which has declared azodicarbonamide no longer to be used in its bread, by 14 April: all the more newsworthy. --Wetman (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Most Recent Edit Regarding South Korea
The source cited is in Korean - could the original editor (or someone) find one saying the same thing in English? Google Translate isn't helping me out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yoga mat chemical
Yoga mat chemical redirects to here, but the article says nothing about that or about Subway. I see there's been removals of this material before, but I think it should be in the article.
I wanted to mention that carbon dioxide is also used as a blowing agent (and in food), but I can see this being called OR, so it's not there. Also, I did not give anyone credit for having azodicarbonamide removed from Subway products, and I am firmly opposed to anyone getting credit for it in this article, since any such person would profit financially to some non-zero extent if they were given credit, and evidence for such credit would be circumstantial. I am not getting paid to edit here. Roches (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)