Talk:Saccharin

message: "The FDA in the United States considered banning saccharin in 1977, but after a moratorium was placed on the ban to study the safety of saccharin, the ban was withdrawn in 1991. Likewise, in 2000, the United States repealed a law requiring saccharin products to carry health warning labels."
This makes no sense. Was there a ban between 1977-1991, or not. It says the United States CONSIDERED a ban.... and then it jumps to saying the ban was WITHDRAWN. If there was no ban, how could it be withdrawn?
:1977-91 FDA recommends banning it, and Congress decided not to explicitly ban it but instead to make it something requiring a health safety warning.  The FDA withdrew its proposal in 1991, and Congress withdrew (repealed) the labeling requirement in 2000. --Kaze0010 10:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on its banning/ban withdrawal

message: In the 'Saccharin and Cancer' section, it says that
"The notorious and influential studies of the kind published in 1977 have been criticized for the ridiculously high dosages of saccharin that were given to the test subject rats; dosages were commonly hundreds of times higher than "normal" ingestion expectations would be for a consumer."
This is, I believe, typical of drug studies, where actually buying 1,000,000 of the animal would be ridiculous, and so, a smaller number (10,000 typically?) is used, with far higher dosages than normal, and real-life population numbers are extrapolated from that. Am I correct here? --Superiority 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer 

message: Can someone check the etymological claim (from Greek X, from Sanskrit) in OED or something?  This sounds unlikely : such claims are often made by Hindu nationalists who like to claim that PIE = Sanskrit.  80.168.29.18 08:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: On March 21st, someone introduced erroneous information into the Discovery and History section.  For example, they changed 'Constantin Fahlberg' to 'Mamun "Mono" Shaikh'.12.64.128.22 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Mamun "Mono" Shaikh? 

message: Since the name has very odd spelling, shouldn't there be pronounciation information on it? Undeaf 18:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The spelling is not at all odd. I can't do IPA symbols, but the phonetic spelling is sac-ka-Rin or sack-a-Rin. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 08:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronounciation? 

message: In the same article there are two quoted statements from Teddy Roosevelt
"Anybody who says saccharin is injurious is an idiot." and
"Anyone who thinks saccharin is dangerous is an idiot"
Does anyone know exactly what he said else quote marks should be removed.
That was President Roosevelt, with the exact quote being: anyone who thinks saccharin is injurious to health is an idiot" Enviropearson (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: I removed this text:
The notorious and influential studies published in 1977 have been criticized for the very high dosages of saccharin that were given to test subject rats; dosages were commonly hundreds of times higher than "normal" ingestion expectations would be for a consumer.
because of the objections raised here. As said, this is typical in trials.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superiority (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: As of right now, Saccharine redirects to this page, but a footnote on the very first word of the summary indicates that they refer to entirely different things. Should these two words really have the same article? 209.204.189.199 (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems STILL to be true, after more than a decade.  My understanding is that the -e ending forms an adjective implying extreme sweetness, but totally unrelated to the commercial product Saccharin.  incorrect? rags (talk) 04:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saccharine redirect 

message: I added more detail to the history of saccharin regarding Roosevelt and Wiley, with a quote from Wiley and a correction to the quote from Roosevelt.  My reference may be off though, I direct to the online article that has the exchange within it (see []), but it is actually attributed in that article to a book by Wiley and sourced there... what would be the proper source? I think the FDA article is a worthy place to send people, but not sure if it is the proper one, any thoughts?Enviropearson (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Government Regulation Section

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  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 consenus 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) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I'm a bit confused by the assertion that Saccharin is the oldest artificial sweetner -- the ancient Romans were believed to produce lead acetate by boiling grape must in lead vessels thousands of years before saccharin was discovered. Perhaps this statement needs to be qualified in some way? Otherwise, it appears factually incorrect, and in need of removal. --AdamRoach (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest Artificial Sweetner? 

message: Johnwrd (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect was restored due to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saccharine. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Artificial" Sweetener. 

message: I notice that the story of saccharin's discovery in this article contradicts the one in Ira Remsen, where this article says the sweet taste was noticed by Fahlberg, and the other that it was noticed by Remsen.  I'm not sure which is correct...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.82.100 (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery 

message: The section under "Chemistry" discussing the Remsen & Fahlberg synthesis contains some minor errors.  The intermediate o- and p-chlorosulfones (not chlorosulfonic acids as stated in the text) and the o-sulfonamide include too many oxygens on the sulfur atom.  Those substituents should read "SO2Cl" and "SO2NH2" respectively.  The original creator of the image would be able to make this correction more quickly than I would, but if there's no response in a couple of days, I'll make a new figure.
Nllewellyn (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis Corrections 

message: The following may be gleaned from merely reading the public record available on the internet. Does this amount to "original research"?
The third paragraph of the section currently begins,
:"The delisting of saccharin led to legislation, known as the Sweetness Act; which was signed into law on December 21, 2000, repealing the warning label requirement for products containing saccharin.[citation needed]"
"Citation needed"? I'll say. Though this "Sweetness Act" sentence has been copied many places on the internet, it's pretty inaccurate, I think. Looking at the Library of Congress' "Thomas" website I found that:
On December 14, 2000, during the 106th Congress, U.S. Rep. John Edward Porter (R-IL) introduced House Resolution 5656, the “Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001”. Title V (“General Provisions”), Section 517 of H.R. 5656 reads
:“SEC. 517. Section 403 [misbranded food] (o) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ([Title] 21 U.S.C. 343(o)) is repealed. Subsections (c) and (d) of section 4 of the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act are repealed.”
On the day of its introduction, H.R. 5656 was “Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations”.
On December 15, 2000, H.R. 5656 was inserted into Rep. Porter’s H.R. 4577, “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001” (introduced June 1, 2000) which included
:SECTION 1.(a) The provisions of the following bills of the 106th Congress are hereby enacted into law.(1) H.R. 5656, as introduced on December 14, 2000
President Bill Clinton signed H.R. 4577 into law December 21, 2000 as Public Law No: 106-554.
Also on December 15, 2000, U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) introduced H.R. 5668, the “Saccharin Warning Elimination via Environmental Testing Employing Science and Technology Act”, nicknamed the “SWEETEST act”. It was “Referred to the House Committee on Commerce” the same day. H.R. 5668 subsequently died in committee.
So the thing was actually nicknamed the "SWEETEST act", not the "Sweetness act", and it died anyway. 
The texts of H.R. 5656 and H.R. 5668 have the same effect but are not identical. If one searches for "sweetness act", only this article and plagiarism of it appear, along with non sequiturs. Searching for "sweetest act" in the public record, one finds it died in committee. H.R. 5656 did the work, by way of H.R. 4577. Rt3368 (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Warning label ... removal"; "SWEETEST", not "Sweetness" 

message: The article says saccharin "may trigger the release of insulin... but this has not been confirmed in controlled studies. This is similar for aspartame..." Should that last sentence be removed? This new study shows no effect: Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire. Évaluations des bénéfices et risques nutritionels des édulcorants intenses. January 2015. https://www.anses.fr/sites/default/files/documents/NUT2011sa0161Ra.pdf And in reporting on that French study and the large recent European study of aspartame, the medical site http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/839455 reports, "the vast majority of studies show no effects of sweeteners on insulin or on blood glucose levels. In addition, in observational studies, sweeteners do not appear to increase the risk for diabetes." Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the sentence on aspartame be removed? 

message: The main article footnotes a 2014 paper, Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota, in the journal Nature for this claim, "large amounts of saccharin (corresponding to 4 l of sweetened soft drinks per day [BE: is that a number?] ) have been shown to lead to significantly increased glucose intolerance..." Nature has been taken to task for that 2014 paper, as a quote in the competing journal Science indicates, "I cannot believe the journal [Nature] allowed that title.” http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/09/artificial-sweeteners-may-contribute-diabetes-controversial-study-finds And Nature itself published a rather scathing rebuttal to its own paper, at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7521/full/nature13793.html#comment-64447 So should that glucose intolerance statement in the article be removed, or should reference to the contrary information be added? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the glucose intolerance sentence be removed? 

message: The article states that "saccharin is believed to be an important discovery, especially for diabetics, as it goes directly through the human digestive system without being digested." This is an extremely misleading and false statement.
Saccharin is removed from the body by the kidneys then excreted in urine. For the kidneys to filter out saccharin, saccharin must be in the blood. For saccharin to be in the blood, it must be digested. Whether or not saccharin is broken down into other components (metabolized) is a different story. The body does not METABOLIZE saccharin. (It DOES, however, DIGEST it.) Saccharin enters the blood stream exactly as it was ingested, then the kidneys filter the saccharin, exactly as it was ingested, out of the blood and excrete it in urine, once again, exactly as ingested. If you want to play mad scientist, consume some saccharin mixed with plain water. About 30 minutes later, urinate into a cup and take a little sip. It will taste sweet. (Do this in the evening because in the morning your urine tastes exactly like you expect it to: it tastes like poison.) Rainydaytreat (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the statement is incorrect as written.  Saccharin appears to be rapidly absorbed (not "digested" as you say, though) into the bloodstream and then excreted mostly unchanged.  The point of the statement, that saccharin is safe for diabetics, is correct though. I have modified the article accordingly and added a reference.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Digested??? 

message: How can a neutral source get away with advertising for Big Corp by calling Saccharin a "sweetener," and reverting edits that refer to its actual taste? Can you provide a source proving that saccharin is sweet? No. No, you can't. Because it's not, and anyone who says otherwise either doesn't have a tongue or is a liar. Saccharin is bitter. Any Wikipedia editor who reverts it is in the pocket of Sweet'n Low, and is intellectually dishonest. Case closed. These are objective facts, and not my opinion.68.42.32.128 (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: content in wikipedia is based on reliable sources )see [{WP:RS]]).  Please read the sources in the article supporting the statements about sweetness.  If you have reliable sources saying otherwise, please present them.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So, there's a "reliable" source that says that saccharin is sweet? Oh, right. I forgot. Content isn't based on reliable sources at all. This entire article reads like an advertisement for Sweet N'Low. Care to revise your statement?
Furthermore, "Please read an article that contradicts what your tongue says" is the opposite of reliable.68.42.32.128 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

text: bring  a reliable source for your claims already. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, is it? And would the Oxford Medical Journal be considered a reliable source? I happen to have an article from them published in 2001 on the bitterness of saccharin, but I don't think I'm gonna share it with you. Find it yourself. BTW, I noticed you never found out which article I vandalised eight years ago.68.42.32.128 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial "Sweetener"? 

message: 1) since when? 2) like where? (is this the case when some local habit in the USA is thought to be the directive for the rest of the world? see adrenaline, for example. You can't replace the use of the word adrenaline with epinephrine in europe, ever, because it would not make any sense. Is it only a matter of time when someone will state that the phrase "makes my blood boil" has been obsoleted and you should say "the saturaded vapour pressure of my hemolymph has reached or exceeded the pressure of the external atmosphere"...?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.19.60 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Relatedly, saccharose is an obsolete name for sucrose (table sugar)." ????