Talk:Ractopamine

message: The "Human Safety" subsection under "Safety concerns" appears to contain verbatim content from the only reference at the bottom of the section (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/07/codex-votes-69-67-to-advance-ractopamine-limits-for-beef-and-pork/#.VEZ1xFfGuSo). This website is copyrighted by Marler Clark, so I'm assuming that the content in this section is violating Wikipedia's copyright policy. -Jp4gs (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've removed the Human Safety section.Jp4gs (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Copyright Violation

message: Can we add the chemical structure diagram? Badagnani 00:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chemical structure

message: The Chinese page actually has some good information about specific countries and their thresholds.  If anyone can translate some of it, please do.  If not, I will try to get at some of it next week.  ludahai 魯大海 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese page 

message: The first footnote following the statement, "But it has not been approved in EU until now" is inappropriate at best and fraudulent at worst; the footnoted source is the corporate website for this product (Paylean) and others, and says nothing concerning this statement.  It might be noted too that Elanco is part of Eli Lily.  Until a source is provided showing that the EU has in fact lifted its ban on ractopamine, the statement and its footnote should be deleted.  (I also discern a tone of corporate ad-copy in this entry.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.94.182 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What substitute wording would you propose? Badagnani 15:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a reader of German I have followed the TTIP issue where the prohibition of ractopamine is an argument against the trade pact. Since the negotiations are secret, it is speculation that the pact will 'force' it into the EU; one person's argument is that it is/may be a contributor to obesity. 121.209.56.11 (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU ban on ractopamine? 

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 careful 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) 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Given the controversial nature of ractopamine a decent part of the article should discuss the conversy.  83.85.50.92 (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Safety Concerns" section seems to address the controversy; however, there are limited references in this section and no peer-reviewed scientific research to back up any claims pertaining to health risks. This also applies to the "Adverse effects" section. All points made in the "Safety Concerns" section appear to be biased and are largely, if not exclusively, derived from one article on foodsafetynews.com. These two sections need more credible and objective supporting evidence and less opinionated statements about e.g. international governing bodies. -Jp4gs (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article violates NPOV 

message: the whole section on Adverse Effects has next to none and the links don't support the statements. I am impartial was drawn here by a news article looking for facts. I am not a wiki person in anyway  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.4.97 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very few citations on this article.  

message: The statement that 80 countries ban ractopmine is not supported by the footnoted article.  The clearly tendentious article 4refered to without any authority says implausibly that 160 countries ban ractopamine.  Cutting that ridiculous number in half is in no way more plausible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.108.215.77 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim of "80 countries" is contradicted by the source which says 160.  I agree that 160 is dubiously high.  I have simply removed the claim for now.  If someone can find a reliable number from a reliable source, that would be helpful.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

text: This discussion point doesn't pertain to countries banning ractopamine; it probably belongs under one of the health effects/safety sections. Also, including reports of purposeful, chronic administration of ractopamine by e.g. body builders in uncontrolled (i.e., non-research conditions) would "muddy the waters" if we're trying to maintain an evidence-based article regarding the health effects (both pros and cons) of ractopamine use in humans since both positive and negative effects of ractopamine use in e.g. weightlifters could be attributed to other supplements they use, changes in their diet while using ractopamine, or negative effects caused by over-exercising/weightlifting injuries (to name just a few possible confounding factors).Jp4gs (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries that ban ractopamine

message: I would suggest the following:
:The panel concluded that there were insufficient data available to derive a safe residue level for human consumption, particularly in relation to subgroups of people who may be more susceptible than the general population to adverse events from ß-adrenergic stimulation, such as people with cardiovascular disease or children, and that simply increasing the uncertainty factor would rapidly become arbitrary.
How's that?
Mikalra (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Too Technical" on EFSA/FEEDAP Judgement 

message: This claim is sourced to the American Institute in Taiwan:The American Institute in Taiwan claims that these "and many other countries have determined that meat from animals fed ractopamine is safe for human consumption"... which is a very odd choice for sourcing this. AIT is analogous to an American embassy here in Taiwan, and not really a center for knowledge on food safety and regulation. Moreover, there is currently (and has been for awhile now) a major disagreement between Taiwan and the US regarding the safety of ractopamine. A better source for this claim would be appropriate here, either to establish this as the position of the US government (which AIT represents) or to establish it as objective fact. siafu (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIT source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ractopamine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929040936/http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=506889&lang=eng_news&cate_img=49.jpg&cate_rss=news_Society_TAIWAN to http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=506889&lang=eng_news&cate_img=49.jpg&cate_rss=news_Society_TAIWAN
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ractopamine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110520142039/http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7tAT5wlEJcXoe-fg6E3ItRKS9ig to http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g7tAT5wlEJcXoe-fg6E3ItRKS9ig
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This drug is becoming a political issue.  So there is possibility of POV issues.  But let's get back to concrete things, the article hasnt addressed the difference (if any) between ractopamine and ractopamine hydrochloride?  Its left vague. Doseiai2 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: MISC

message: Section re. NAFTA/USMCA regulations is non-neutral in how it’s information is presented (esp. “apologetic”, “non-science-based Asian countries”):
“As of June 2019 the CFIA maintained an apologetic Canadian Ractopamine-Free Pork Certification Program (CRFPCP) so that Canadian exports to non-science-based Asian countries are not disallowed by their authorities.“ Tluke96 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording is clearly inconsistent with policy outlined at WP:NPOV, so I have edited the sentence accordingly.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in Evaluating Global Attitudes Towards Ractopamine 

message: The first sentence is "Ractopamine is a feed additive, banned in many countries, to promote leanness in animals raised for their meat." This right from the gate gives this article a bad tone and not really keeping the article non biased. I think talking about the fact that it is banned and why it is banned in many countries could be more useful if it were later in the article. But having that right at the beginning just starts this article out with a biased tone when it should be just giving the basic information about Ractopamine in that introduction paragraph. With that, I think the second paragrah could be more useful in the "Regulation around the world" heading. Having information about the world regulation in two different places makes it look redundant. 
The first heading, Mode of Action, is redundant as well, "When used as a food additive, Ractopamine added to feed can be distributed..." I think it's better to take "When used as a food additive" out. At the end of that sentence, it says "where it serves as a full agonist at mouse (Not necessarily human)TAAR1". This is very confusing and needs more detail behind what the mouse and TAAR1 means. At the end it talks about Optaflex and it's use in cattle, but only about the fact that it's used in cattle-not its mode of action in cattle. Therefore I think that information could be used elsewhere. 
The second heading gives just a few statements such as "setting any limit is a controversial move" that can be eliminated. There's really no need for it and kind of takes away any neutrality. Halfway through the second paragraph it talks about Chinese officials and their reasoning for banning Ractopamine, but there is no source to back that information up. The European Union subheading needs to be spelled out, and there are parts in that paragraph that need to be reworded, "The uncertainty was particularly great for people who might be thought to be more susceptible than most..."; that's very hard to read. The second subheading needs to be changed to U.S. and Candada, because there is nothing about NAFTA or the USMCA in it, and in the first paragraph, that information needs to be updated. The USDA has a "Never Fed Beta Agonist Program" certification that pork farmers can get. And with modern technology, any packaging company can test this. That information can be found in this link (https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/imports-exports/beta-agonists). Under the Taiwan subheading, the link used does not work, therefore is irrelevant.
I think the WADA Proscription heading has some interesting information, but I think it needs more information to back up why people are finding it as a sporting violation. Right now it just sounds like it is just trying to prove that Ractopamine is bad. With that, the heading International Disputes, can be condensed to the Regulations around the world heading. A few of the regulations subheadings, like China and Russia had very little information to give, so it would be more useful of space and the readers time to just condense regulations and international disputes. And to have international disputes as a separate heading, to me, just adds to the tone that this is trying to prove Ractopamine as a bad thing. 
In the Pharmacokinetics in humans heading, the first paragraph is cited without a URL or proper source, therefore as of now it is irrelevant until it is sourced properly. The second paragraph is fine however, except for the last sentence. That needs information to back up why people with cardiovascular disease shouldn't consume it. 
So, this might sound biased, but I have raised pork, and I know that pigs are easy stressors. The safety concerns heading has some information that is not relevant and is not backed up by a relevant source. The first sentence is sourced with an article published to a magazine of some sort. When it comes to animal welfare and rights, it's best to stick to reliable sources like the USDA, and scientific journal entires because some new articles can have misleading information from misleading sources. Later in that heading it talks about "downer pigs", but it's sourced from a separate wiki article, and the other source used has a broken link, therefore it is irrelevant right now and needs to be fixed or taken away. 
Under the adverse effects heading, the cardiovascular and musculoskeletal subheadings have no source to back up information, therefore it's irrelevant without a source. 
The in popular culture subheading is kind of irrelevant because that only refers to one source- and it's from the Joe Rogan experience. What this page does not talk about at all is why U.S. farmers have used it for so long. The positive effects to using it and its use in show pigs. 
Overall this page needs an update on it's neutrality and more reliable journal sources that give a neutral tone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk790316 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary sources, and information and very little neutrality.  

message: Why so many countries have banned it? What's their reasoning? Is it trade wars as some imply? Is it safety concerns?
Or maybe the opposite question should be asked. Why some countries haven't ban it yet? Do they do it for the extra profit?
I think as it is, this article fails to address the basic concern about ractopamine. 79.166.4.32 (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, why is it banned?