Talk:Lanolin

message: From intro line: "Lanolin, a grease from wool-bearing animals, acts as a skin ointment, water-proofing wax, and raw material."
The 'raw material' bit seems incomplete.. raw material for what?
Eleusis 10:43, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
:The whole Wikipedia entry for 'Lanolin' is old fashioned, ill-informed and obsolete. I really would like the world's major lanolin producer (Croda International) to spend a little time updating this section. Many more people worldwide read Wikipedia's description of lanolin than read Croda's own lanolin literature. What a marketing opportunity being missed! However, that seems unlikely to happen, so maybe one day I'll do it myself.(JaX...A retired Croda scientist/lanolin guru)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.65.187 (talk • contribs) 
::For the reader's information, 90.196.65.187's suggestion of having the Croda International company (or any employee of manufacturer of lanolin) edit this article, especially as a "marketing opportunity" would be considered a conflict of interest with all that implies for the fate of those changes. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  raw material? 

message: The name given to the product 'Oil of Olay' is derived from the word "lanolin," a key ingredient, which was chosen by the inventor, Graham Wulff.[2]
The reference given has nothing to say about the origin of the name. Is there any published source? Flapdragon 15:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oil of Olay 

message: The current version of the article mentions the use of lanolin to cure colds:
"It works wonderfully well in the nose, in small amounts, to quickly end the beginnings of a head cold, and to curtail a cold that is well under way."
There's no citation for the source of this "information" (hello?!), and it proports to give medical advice.
Either this actually works and should be identified as citing some reputable source, or maybe wikipedia shouldn't be encouraging folks to go shoving things up their noses, particularly when they have colds well under way?
Just a thought.
170.223.6.147 (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation request/flag for a medical claim... 

message: I wonder where the info on the "more than 180 different acids and 80 alcohols identified" is from - surely not from the single(!) reference, which is for a court decision. The best (reliable) source of information I've found up to now are these rather old reviews:  Wool wax hydrocarbons: A review, [ http://www.springerlink.com/content/a51037557n212g74/ Wool wax acids: A review] and Wool wax alcohols:A review. They're all from around 1979/1980 and aren't heavily cited - a bit better perhaps (but no review) is the German article Über die Analytik von Wollwachs in kosmetischen Erzeugnissen from 1986 which at least lists lead compounds the main esters are composed of and this Gas Chromatographic Evaluation of Wool Wax Alcohols Supported by Principal Component Analysis which identifies 8 out of GC-separated compounds/alcohols. If there are indeed around 200 identified substances, it would be nice to find a way to list them in a table as [b]the[/b] definite information or at least link to a publication/review/book that contains the list Iridos (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition? 

message: There are some surprising neutrality issues with article, at least in the Modern Developments section. Of all things, you have to be biased about lanolin? I'll go ahead and point out some concerns:
"Some years ago, lanolin attracted a great deal of attention owing to a misunderstanding concerning its sensitising potential."
"However, this figure was misinterpreted and taken out of context and became quoted as 1% of the general healthy (American) population. By one estimate, this simple misunderstanding of failing to differentiate between the general healthy population and patients with dermatological disorders exaggerates the sensitising potential of lanolin by 5,000–6,000 times."
"By the time the European Cosmetics Directive was introduced in July 1976, so much adverse (but completely unfounded) publicity concerning lanolin had occurred..."
"Despite only being in force for a short period of time, this ruling did a great deal of harm both to the lanolin industry and to the reputation of lanolin in general."
"The irony is that the Cosmetics Directive ruling only applied to the presence of lanolin in cosmetic products..."
"However, lanolin's safety and efficacy are probably best illustrated by taking a look at the market. High lanolin content baby care products (some as high as 100%) and treatment products for nursing mothers are commonplace."
"More recently, using modern scientific methods, attention has focused on the positive aspects of lanolin and on increasing the understanding about how lanolin achieves its beneficial skin effects."
I have nothing against lanolin, but the obvious subjectivity and NPOV issues shouldn't be ignored. You can state a fact in an objective manner. - Cyborg Ninja 22:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I fixed all remaining issues here.  I removed the neutrality tag on the section.  It isn't perfect, but it's improved.  Re-add the tag, discuss further, and/or edit the article further if anyone feels issues still remain :) -Verdatum (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality problems 

message: from the intro:
"Most lanolin used by humans comes from domestic sheep breeds that are raised specifically for their wool; the meat of such breeds is considered vastly inferior in quality to that from breeds raised specifically for their meat, partially due to the presence of lanolin.[1][2]"
The portion of the sentence, "the meat of such breeds [the wool breeds] is considered vastly inferior in quality to that from breeds raised specifically for their meat, partially due to the presence of lanolin" is not true.
In all the lamb taste studies that have been conducted,lanolin has not been studied because there is no link between lanolin production and meat.  And, hair sheep also produce lanolin, so then one should ask,  "how much lanolin must be present to create inferior quality meat?"
There have been studies between different breeds of sheep, such as dual purpose (those bred for wool production and meat), wool breeds and hair sheep comparing taste.  The MARC study has been one of the best, as it managed the sheep under identical processes from raising to table: 
 http://www.ars.usda.gov/sp2UserFiles/Place/54380530/Publications/LambMeatQualityReportNumber2.pdf
And this study from Australia ties taste to branched chain fatty acids, again, no mention of lanolin: 
 http://www.sheepcrc.org.au/files/pages/fact-sheets/practical-wisdom-notes--quality-sheepmeat-series/Taking_the__mutton_out_of_lamb.pdf
please note, most Australian sheep are the traditional wool breeds.  Australia provides a lot of lamb to the world, and if the meat was "inferior", I doubt they could sell it.
Through a relative, the authors of the two citations were contacted with the request for further information.  Neither source has replied to date with any studies to support their claim.
T5t6popcorn (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  no scientific research supports claim less lanolin = better meat 

message: Lanolin is the source of the Cholesterol chemical that is used with photo synthesis, by UVB irradiation, to make the precursors to Vitamin-D.
Idyllic press (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical feedstock. 

message: The word Eucerit redirects here but the article does not mention it. Is it the same as Lanolin? Hubba (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eucerit