Talk:Ractopamine

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pharmacology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possible Copyright Violation

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)[reply]

I would agree. A close look at the two articles side by side reveals that most of the text is copied verbatim. This is definitely a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. I would recommend deleting the section until it can be better worked into the article itself. Kareesmoon (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed the Human Safety section.Jp4gs (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical structure

Can we add the chemical structure diagram? Badagnani 00:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Ed (Edgar181) 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese page

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)[reply]

EU ban on ractopamine?

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)[reply]

What substitute wording would you propose? Badagnani 15:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a question of "substitute wording"; rather, I would propose finding a source showing the EU ban has in fact been lifted. Or perhaps one could add a footnote to source recent news reports stating that ractopamine is banned in some 160 countries. Written in this manner, the reader would then have a much more enlightening context in which to understand the comparatively much smaller number (20) that have allowed ractopamine (due to some stiff industry arm-twisting, according to recent news reports).

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)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} 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)[reply]

This article violates NPOV

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Very few citations on this article.

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)[reply]

Countries that ban ractopamine

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It would be interesting to know if humans, particularly weight lifters or others who wish to increase their lean meat (perhaps the obese) have been trying this. Much like steroids, regardless of side effects, there would be a 'need' for some people focus on the benefits without much concern for the deleterious effects. And so, let's have some reports of purposeful (non-research related) chronic administration of ractopamine.184.100.25.156 (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.Jp4gs (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]