Talk:E number

message: What's the source of the PAR, LGM, and AO annotations in the list? -- JTN 16:03, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
: I see that more than 18 months later, the source has still not been identified. This is not good. — Haeleth Talk 10:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, time to remove them -- it's been two years now. I will do it. --Macrakis 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone mind if we add columns in to the tables for these (Possible allergic reaction, Likely genetically modified, Animal origin), obviously with each cited individually. It's very useful information. Muleattack (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If I don't get any objections soon then the status column is going and being replaced by an Animal Origin column. This is my area of interest but I'd welcome the re-addition of allergic reaction and gm columns. Muleattack (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of annotations

message: Since a tag has been added a Cleanup, I would like to ask what is so wrong with the article? I fell that all the list of the E numbers, strongly, must stay. These E numbers are really often used in chemistry. For example E Number 'E507' is Hydrochloric Acid. If it is anything that needs cleaned up - I think it should just be the opening passage. Thanks, 18:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Just created few templates. Feel free to improve them, create new similar ones and give constructive feedback.
The mother template is template:E-ingredient, it is used by ingredient specific templates such as template:Ingredient-E414. I'm using them on article Hubba Bubba soda.
What would be a good category to place the articles having the template in "category:food and drink having Exxx" or maybe "category:food and drink having ingredientname" ? --Easyas12c 21:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "category:Exxx" good enought? The list of categories will get quite long with the ones I suggested earlier. Please give me a comment on this. --Easyas12c 22:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be aware of other Exxx things, eg. various roads. What about "Exxx additive"? --Shaddack 02:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for food articles 

message: Coverage is given to the health concerns of E-number food additives. However, the very point of an additive getting an E-number is that it has been deemed safe for food use. This article therefore needs some material describing the testing and approval process. I'm afraid I know nothing about the details, so I can't do it. 213.94.244.13 10:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: These two E numbers are not in the official list. The article on Erythorbin acid seems to be an old copy of Erythorbic acid with neither the name, nor the E number changed. Highly suspicious. Jeff Knaggs 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  E317,8 

message: User:Ayeomans changed Ethanon to Ethanol. Is this correct? Ethanol is a toxic substance and so unlikely to be assigned an E number. But what is Ethanon? — Monedula 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethanol isn't really that toxic; it's found in alcoholic beverages, but its also used as a preservative (for example in soy sauce).  I would assume that ethanol is correct.  I have never heard of ethanon, and it doesn't sound like a standard chemical name.  There is something called ethanone, but it appears to only exist as a functional group and not as a substance. --24.16.148.75 02:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  E1510  

message: Hi folks, I started making some infoboxes to put into articles describing substances that have an E number. So far, the following exist:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
I've put these into the respective articles, but what's missing now, of course, is similar templates for the other ranges (100-199, 200-299 etc.) and subranges (100-109, 110-119 etc.) Does anyone feel like helping out and making these? I hope the intended structure of the infoboxes is clear from the above templates; if not, the idea is to have three "layers", so to speak:
# One layer for the basic classification (e.g., colours, preservatives etc.)
# One layer for the more specific classification inside the first layer (e.g., yellows, oranges, reds etc. in the case of colours; similar for other basic classification layers)
# One layer for the actual substances (e.g., curcumin, riboflavin etc. in teh case of yellows)
Every infobox describes one "specific classification" layer (e.g., yellows) and lists all the substances that fall into this layer. The entries in the first two layers that the infobox describes (e.g., "colours" and "yellows") are bolded.
That's about it. If anyone feels like creating more infoboxes, that'd be great; also, feel free to tweak and improve the layout and so on, of course (as usual, be bold). :) If you want to get back to me, just leave me a note on my talk page (I may not see if you reply here). Thanks, and have fun. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info boxes 

message: Hi
Changed the phrasing for E605 about this to be more useful when just glancing through.  You no longer have to click the reference or scroll to the bottom to see the substance it is.  Should E605 be on this page as it is not a food-additive e-number, that being the definition given at the top of this page.  Surely there are more "e-numbers" like this that the Germans use?
Chris
81.151.191.129 22:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  E605 

message: I've made links out of all the Exxx words, so that it is possible to see which redirects still need to be created. Also, those Exxx  pages that are NOT redirects (if there are any) might be redundant if the agent has an article under its full name. László 09:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to E''xxx'' pages 

message: The link "Current EU approved additives and their E Numbers" is out of date. The page was last updated in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.36.45.155 (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2007
:If there haven't been any changes to the EU approved additives list since then, then it isn't out of date. If it is, then please contact the government department responsible for that page. It's still a valuable link. Ciotog 14:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of date external link 

message: While Parathion has E605 as a synonym, its article clearly indicates this does not mean it should be a food additive.  The E in this case is German for development number.  ChemGardener 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Parathion]] Removal 

message: It would be informative if there was a list where each E substance was banned/allowed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hreinn (talk • contribs) 13:34, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
* In Russian Wiki it's exists - example with E100-E199. Could you create the same?  --Panfily was here (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned where 

message: Hi. I have information that E317 is Potassium isoascorbate. In this article E317 is Erythorbin acid. Where is the truth?--Panfily was here (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  E317 

message: can anyone tell me where i can find a full list of E numbers, their names,ci numbers and their names.This is driving me mad. My family are all intolerant to artificial colours and preservatives and now cosmetic companies only use ci numbers and i can't find any information to compare everything.78.146.238.176 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the list [here] where also CI numbers are given.Knorrepoes (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  E numbers and ci numbers 

message: If there's is anyone out could specify which E number is classify as natural or artifical. It does not give enough details to support the increase awareness of food additives. For most, the public couldn't tell which additives are made from natural source or made synthetically.
the artificial colours are no. 101 to 150. but the worst ones (azo dyes) are E104 to E 124. Avoid at all costs.78.146.238.176 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or chemicals are chemicals. You want to avoid the dangerous chemicals, not the man made ones. 86.133.220.75 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Natural or artifical

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) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: if the note cited correctly, as my French is very rusty and has not been touched fully for 20 years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.64.209.0 (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not unusual, it's because there isn't a verifiable source. Wikibollocks is an appropriate description.78.105.243.103 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help to examine.... 

message: Pulegone or is it listed as a food additive???--222.64.30.89 (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is an aroma compound and not an additive, so no E-number.Knorrepoes (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the E number of .... 

message: beta-Caryophyllene ???--222.67.201.53 (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is an aroma compound and not an additive, so no E-number.Knorrepoes (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the E number of .... 

message: E number and where can I find it???--124.78.211.208 (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the official/formal definition of.... 

message: I find the use of "unpermitted" and "dangerous" in the "Status" column misleading.
I read "unpermitted" as meaning "not permitted" and "dangerous" as "universally dangerous". I expect both to mean that the substance in question has been banned, which seems not to be the case for either.
The intended meaning of these terms is explained in the key, but it's easy to overlook that when browsing the table. I suggest that better terms are sought. Does anyone else have a view on this? 86.152.242.213 (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading terms 

message: Is there a reason that they skipped the 800s? 71.203.66.120 (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  E800s? 

message: * http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/webprojects2001/anderson/colourings.htm
--222.67.203.24 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messy info...E number... 

message: * http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/newsroom/publications/choosingtherightstuff/
--222.67.203.24 (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A call for a book review of the following....   

message: * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Polyethylene+glycol+site%3Awww.usp.org%2Ffcc%2F&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Polyethylene+glycerol+site%3Awww.usp.org%2Ffcc%2F&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
--222.67.218.156 (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem of E 1521.... 

message: Why are there two clarification tags and a citation tag in the first paragraph of this page? There is no explanation with them of what is requested. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one ("[clarification needed]") might have been added because the given reference doesn't say anything about the naming. The German Wikipedia says "E steht hierbei für „Europa“ aber auch für „edible“ = engl. für essbar" ("E stands for "Europe" but as well for "edible"). But I don't get what's the problem with the second one. --StYxXx (talk) 04:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification and citation tags (??) 

message: The food that contain the additive is
五两素鸡 by www.sh-tramy.com
--222.64.218.155 (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  E number of [[defoamer]]s.....??? 

message: The further I went down the Full list section, the more blank cells I saw in the Status column. By blank, I mean the cells were completely empty, without N/A, Unpermitted, or any other notes written in that cell (E426, E700, and so on). These cells should either be filled with the appropriate information or the text before the first table in the Full list section should include a description of what should be in that cell. 
Also, where the opening section uses the term "food additives," the text before the list in the Full list section uses the term "additionals" to apparently mean the same thing. This is especially confusing because of the sub-header, "E1000–E1999 (additional chemicals)." 
I'm sorry that I can't do more than point these problems out. Thanks in advance for your help, --Geekdiva (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blank cells in the Status column? Additives vs. additionals? 

message: It may be useful to mark prohibited or unpermitted with red.
There are also some, believed to be causing allergies, they should also be marked somehow - I'he seen such colored tables as comparison of computer software.
Greetings,
Newp. 15:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marking prohibited / not permitted / harmful E numbers with colors in the table 

message: Of the little information present in the status columns none is cited. Also, is it really information that would be helpful to anyone at a glance? I suggest the column goes.Muleattack (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a bunch of references to this column, and removed some of the unreferenced and/or contradictory information.  I suggest this column be used to add referenced information pertaining to legal status in various local juridictions.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status Column 

message: I want to add in a column that shows at a glance what the origin of each E-number is. Previously there were three columns, AO (Animal Origin) PAR (Possible allergic reaction) and GM (Genetically modified). These were removed as no source was provided for the information. I propose a column headed 'Source' is added with the options animal/mineral/vegetable or a combination. I may be oversimplifying with just the three options so let me know if there's a flaw in my proposal and how to remedy it and if you think it's a good idea or not. Muleattack (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just found this website that lists the sources of all the enumbers, would anyone oppose it's use a source for what I have proposed above and the addition of this information back in to the article? http://www.food-info.net/uk/e/e100-200.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muleattack (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Better read E-numbers of animal origin: http://www.food-info.net/uk/qa/qa-fi45.htm first.Knorrepoes (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean because some can be from more than one origin? I did mention it could be a combination of sources. Other than that is it okay do you think?Muleattack (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal, Mineral or Vegetable? 

message: The article says that numbers beginning "4" are emulsifiers, but I have seen, on a packet of sugar free flavoured sweets, E322
indicated as an emulsifier, along with E471. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lecithin is both an emulsifier and an antioxidant, but it can only have one E number. —Keenan Pepper 17:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Query about number for emulsifiers

message: ^ In Germany, it was the practice to designate compounds by their development number. Another compound known commonly in Germany by its number is parathion, which was the 605th compound to be developed in search for insecticide. It is commonly known as E605 (E stands for Entwicklungsnummer (German for "development number")
Is said elsewhere in wikipedia - perhaps thsi could be disambiguity link? Maybe this is the origin of the term E number and not from Europe number - that being a later designation?? Can it be looked at and added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology / Other use of E numbers 

message: Here is my query about E160b, in other words, annatto. The article says that this gives food an orange colour, but shouldn't it say "red", given that this is what is typically found in Red Leicester cheese? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you add a little bit you get orange cheese, if you add more you get red cheese.--Stone (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Query about annatto

message: (Copied from my discussion page)
I'm trying to figure out the difference between E315 Erythorbic acid and E317 Erythorbin acid, and consequently the difference between E316 Sodium erythorbate and E318 Sodium erythorbin. I can find nothing on the erythorbins. --Iantresman (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have actually tried to figure out the same thing out too, without success.  I think they are synonyms, but then they shouldn't have separate E numbers...  -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen several sources that seem to suggest that, but I think they're either being lazy, unsubstantiated, or perhaps they're something like enantiomers? I've tried to find similar sounding pairs of chemicals, like "ascorbic acid" vs ascorbin acid, but there seems to be the same uncertaintly. --Iantresman (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Erythorbic vs Erythorbin ?

message: Anyone have an authoritative reference for any E700–E799 (antibiotics)? --Iantresman (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: , I doubt it, and Im going to add a citation needed. Christian75 (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: E700–E799 (antibiotics)

message: Approved for use where? In the UK only or the whole EU? I understand the FSA is British. Dawright12 (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All E-numbers are approved in the whole EU. FSA is here only a sourceKnorrepoes (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: E1203

message: Good Day.
I just wanted to point out, that a search for "clean label" redirects to here. I found nothing about "clean label" stuff on the page.
Although I do basically know what "clean label" means, it seems a bit strange to me to redirect here without even mentioning it.
Thanks. lg --Crotha 09:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect "Clean Label" to E-Number article 

message: E number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number‎
E numbers are codes for chemicals which can be used as food additives for use within the European Union and Switzerland (the "E" stands for "Europe").
‎Numbering scheme - ‎Colloquial use - ‎Classification by numeric range - ‎Full list'''
I took this from a Google search. Note the parathetical phrase.
This line now heads the article E does not stand for europe. it obviously stands for life. Summer thinks e is for europe. its not. Whoever has is having a spat with "Summer" needs to seek professional help. You make it look like people interested in limiting additives in their food to be mentally unstable.
98.249.144.192 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article vandalism 

message: My Swiss Coke Zero has E150d. The article only shows "approved in the US"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.126.160.35 (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As it has an E, it is approved in the EU (the E is only valid for the EU)Knorrepoes (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  E150d in EU 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on E number. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110406040011/http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Additives%20alpha.pdf to http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Additives%20alpha.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110406040011/http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Additives%20alpha.pdf to http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Additives%20alpha.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does this article address any statutory labeling requirements? (I don't see any)... Are there requirements? I propose to create a section called "labeling requirements". Thought I would get some feedback here in the process:
EU: 
*source: food.gov.uk : "European Union (EU) legislation requires most additives used in foods to be labelled clearly in the list of ingredients, with their function, followed by either their name or E number. An E number means that it has passed safety tests and has been approved for use here and in the rest of the EU."  
* exporthelp.europa.eu : Additives and flavourings must always be labelled on the packaging of food products by their category (anti-oxidant, preservative, colour, etc) with their name or E-number. 
Australia:
* source: foodstandards.gov.au  (June 2016) Food additives in most packaged food must be listed in the statement of ingredients on the label. Most food additives must be listed by their class name followed by the name of the food additive or the food additive number, for example, Colour (Caramel I) or Colour (150a). Enzymes and most flavourings (or flavour) do not need to be named or identified by a food additive number and can be labelled by their class name only.
USA:
* FDA.gov  Food manufacturers are required to list all ingredients in the food on the label. On a product label, the ingredients are listed in order of predominance, with the ingredients used in the greatest amount first, followed in descending order by those in smaller amounts. The label must list the names of any FDA-certified color additives (e.g., FD&C Blue No. 1 or the abbreviated name, Blue 1). But some ingredients can be listed collectively as "flavors," "spices," "artificial flavoring," or in the case of color additives exempt from certification, "artificial colors", without naming each one. Declaration of an allergenic ingredient in a collective or single color, flavor, or spice could be accomplished by simply naming the allergenic ingredient in the ingredient list. 
::Flavors and Spices, Add specific flavors (natural and synthetic), Pudding and pie fillings, gelatin dessert mixes, cake mixes, salad dressings, candies, soft drinks, ice cream, BBQ sauce	Natural flavoring, artificial flavor, and spices
::Flavor Enhancers, Enhance flavors already present in foods (without providing their own separate flavor), Many processed foods	Monosodium glutamate (MSG), hydrolyzed soy protein, autolyzed yeast extract, disodium guanylate or inosinate
I will do a bit more digging and see what I can come up with. Input from fellow editors who might be experts on this subject would be welcome :-)
Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Labeling requirements

message: I do not think the links in the “E number” column are any useful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think that? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  They link to the same targets as the substance name column, either through redirects or by hard|linking. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  “E number” column 

message: Who’s the furry that put that put monosodium glutamate (E621) as the second picture? I’m certain it was on purpose. Because it’s really funny, I don’t have a problem with it, but maybe a picture that doesn’t reference a porn site might be better. Someone more qualified than me should decide though Blob401 (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In the eye of the beholder? MSG is a flavour enhancer, [too] widely used all over the world. If there is a connection with pornography, it will escape most people, it certainly escapes me and, for some unfathomable reason, I am not inclined to go looking for it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  E621 picture 

message: The article reads  (meaning allowed in the EU, at the time it was written). The page linked now says that it is the list allowed in the UK. As of today, the lists are almost certainly identical but we have to assume that they will diverge. I have tried in the past to find the definitive list of allowed/prohibited anywhere on EurLex or similar, without success. Can anyone else find it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavily used citation needs to be replaced 

message: I believe the numbering scheme and the full list should both be moved to International Numbering System for Food Additives. The scheme should be moved because the article states that . The list should be moved for two reasons:
* Redundant with INS in large part
* Claims to contain "those no longer allowed in the EU", but a good portion had no information on whether it had been allowed in the past at all. A good number, like E561 vermiculite, seem to have something to do with being only approved in animal feed though.
Artoria2e5 🌉 13:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split sections