Talk:Tate & Lyle

message: I tried to find out what HG1 actually is and only found article after article discussing the death and it as this mysterious ingredient. The linked source has:
> Eaton said when they had signed the licence agreement, Gosling told Planet Coconut about “his secret ingredient” – a stabiliser called HG1 designed with the food giant Tate & Lyle’s Australian subsidiary. “He was very protective of his recipe,” she said.
Even this coroner inquest ttps://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Celia-Marsh-Prevention-of-future-deaths-report-2022-0379_Published.pdf is vague
> The contamination arose because an ingredient in the yogurt called HG1 had become cross-contaminated with milk protein during its manufacture
That death was from improper labelling and disclosure of ingredients along with their manufacturing conditions. Yet HG1 still seems to be treated as a trade secret and is only vaguely described as a starch containing some amount of milk protein.
If anyone has a source for HG1's composition I'd interested to see it. Trade secrets don't have the trademark/copyright/patent restrictions that would complicate their disclosure on Wikipedia. BeardedChimp (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stabiliser called HG1 

message: There seems to be some attempt to confect a 'controversy' about this company because of a death resulting from a mislabeled product. But if you look at the events in RS (say The Guardian) it says Tate & Lyle just supplied what they were contracted, and assumptions/assurances took place further down the supply chain from other parties. Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly please observe WP:BRD. You should not delete material a second time until the issue has been resolved. Secondly Tate & Lyle should and must take responsibility for its own supply chain. Of course, Tate & Lyle supplied what they were contracted for. However they failed to ensure that the supply chain supplied a safe product. Hence they were criticised at the inquest. Thirdly please change the heading: the death of an individual is a serious matter and not a "silly controversy". Dormskirk (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Tate and Lyle's supply chain is not at issue (presumably raw ingredients like tapioca). It's the onward supply chain which is the issue, which is outside T&L's control. What we had was misleading since Wikipedia was sayingwhen in fact that "dairy free" claim was apparently made by an intermediate company (Coyo) while T&L had suppled the stuff labeled as potentially containing allergens. Where's the controversy (for T&L anyway)? Bon courage (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the BBC, "The yoghurt produced by Planet Coconut contained starch supplied by Tate & Lyle PLC, the inquest heard. The starch was identified as the possible source of the contamination." Are you disputing that? Dormskirk (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, only in as much as it wasn't the "possible" contaminant, it was traces of milk in that starch which was established as causing the death of Celia Marsh. That is not at issue. The issue is that since the starch was not dairy-free, making a product from it claiming to be dairy free had fatal consequences. As the coroner foundand as Pret a Manger  said Nobody seems to think this was T&L's responsibility except Wikipedia. (Add: The only legal action - later dropped - stemming from this case was against Planet Coconut and Pret a Manger. and it is Pret's failure to audit suppliers which is how RS is generally casting this piece of news). Bon courage (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not "think": we simply build an encyclopaedia from secondary sources. And the BBC has reported that the starch supplied by Tate & Lyle was the possible source of the contamination. You do not seem to be disputing the BBC statement so will you please (i) restore the material (I am OK for you to expand it to reflect the points that you have made which I acknowledge) (ii) please observe WP:BRD in future (it should never have been removed a second time) and (iii) amend the insensitive heading. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would object to inclusion of this content as it tells us nothing about Tate and Lyle and is misleading. We don't have secondary sources with respect to Tate and Lyle's role, only WP:PRIMARYNEWS and since it seems everybody agrees on what happened there is no "controversy" and framing it as such is inane POV. WP:BRD is good to ignore when it bakes bad content in. The relevant policy (WP:VNOT) says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content".Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. So to summarise (i) you refuse to accept the inclusion of any properly sourced information on this matter (not even the words in the BBC article which you do not seem to dispute) (ii) you do not accept the application of WP:BRD and believe that you have the right to repeatedly delete the material time again just because you don't agree with it and (iii) you refuse to amend the offensive heading. I will now leave this matter for others to consider. Dormskirk (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were "properly sourced information on this matter" then it might be includable, but probably not here in a WP:CSECTION since Tate and Lyle are incidental to what happened, and it is not a "controversy" for them since it seems inasmuch as they're mentioned, everybody agrees they acted with propriety. Later BBC reports don't even mention them. Maybe in time some analysis might appear in a legal journal, food standards publication, etc. Bon courage (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As I say, I will leave others to consider. Dormskirk (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly controversy