Talk:Potassium sorbate

Toxicology

I am a cosmetic manufacturer, and I not only have allergy from the use of very small amounts of potassium sorbate, but 10% of the volunteers that test it, also report skin irritation. It's uncompreensible how such authorities claim that only a tiny percentage of the population report allergies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpsit (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you KNOW that the reaction occurred as a result of this chemical? Have you published your research in a peer reviewed paper? Please publish the paper's and article's details so that we can look it up. Otherwise your entry is but a blatant health fanatics' propaganda. Unsuitable for Wikipedia's consideration.

I am so allergic to this chemical yet this webpage makes it sound harmless. It causes such an extreme reaction to my eczema that it makes me furious that this page has not been updated. Many people have reactions to this chemical, just google its side effects.

Every chemical has side effects. Mushrooms may have good taste with a side effect of death in agony. If you are affected, well, don't use it on your skin. Google is a source of garbage. Can't go on hearsay. Find the relevant article in a peer reviewed paper and edit the main article accordingly. University libraries are your friends.

RUBBISH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.66.78.30 (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Toxicology section has problems "Allergic reactions are very rare and it is well tolerated when administered internally." refers to a specific clinical trial about tube feeding, not to the general population. The rest of it reads like an industry pamphlet. Krisjohn 07:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It may read like an industry pamphlet, you removed the only scientific source which states that it is pretty safe (tube feeding is still eating, and I hope that the group of people tested is a subset of the population. Off course there are always downsides to compounds, and your addition of the other information is OK, though I would like to see scientific references for those as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing that supports the claims for behavioral effects in any of the listed sources. Plus, they look very dubious to me - fedupwithfoodadditives.info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.61.233 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 27 December 2006

The last five references under the toxicology section are unreliable references. I will remove the troll references. --Organic Flavor 21:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone has disputed the non-irritating classification by citing an extremely dubious link - http://www.beok.co.il, which appears to be a site where anyone can just throw up an article. The article linked to in this case appears to have no information about the author available. I think this dubious indication should be removed unless a valid source can be found. 173.228.123.66 (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Since this statement was based on a source that shouldn't be considered reliable (WP:RS, WP:MEDRS), I have simply removed it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

EFSA 2015: The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion re-evaluating sorbic acid (E 200), potassium sorbate (E 202) and calcium sorbate (E 203) when used as food additives. Sorbic acid is absorbed and mainly excreted as expired carbon dioxide. The Panel noted that there was no evidence of genotoxic activity for sorbic acid or potassium sorbate. Sub-acute, sub-chronic and chronic toxicity studies did not show any adverse effects at concentrations up to 9 200 mg/kg body weight (bw)/day in rats. Given the lack of genotoxicity data on calcium sorbate and the available positive genotoxicity data on sodium sorbate, the Panel concluded that calcium sorbate should be excluded from the group ADI. The Panel concluded that the present dataset on reproductive and developmental toxicity gives a reason to revise the group ADI of 25 mg/kg bw/day set by the Scientific Committee on Food in 1996. The Panel considered that the no observed adverse effect level of 300 mg sorbic acid/kg bw/day from the two-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats can be used to allocate a temporary group ADI for sorbic acid and its potassium salt. By applying an uncertainty factor of 100, the Panel established a new temporary group ADI expressed as 3 mg sorbic acid/kg bw/day for sorbic acid and its potassium salt. The Panel noted that the most realistic approach using reported use levels and analytical data in the non-brand-loyal scenario did not exceed the temporary group ADI in any population group at the mean or in adolescents, adults and the elderly at the high level, except in the toddler and children population groups in one country. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/de/efsajournal/pub/4144 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.110.229.178 (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

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 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) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Validation work for.....these reports....

• http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php?mode2=detail&origin=ibids_references&therow=663590
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635512
• http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php?mode2=detail&origin=ibids_references&therow=307101

--222.64.223.42 (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCN-3RJG2RS-14&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F06%2F1997&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1184040066&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a10cd6d66a30b2b6a14c91cafe110947

--222.64.223.42 (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Validation? What validation? Astronaut (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the following editions, which have been mucked off....

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Potassium_sorbate&action=history

--222.64.223.252 (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What? I don't understand why you provide this link here? Astronaut (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

affectionately?

'Also known affectionately as "wine stabilizer" '

I don't know the first thing about potassium sorbate, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and remove that particular adverb.

76.28.105.10 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC) burgo

Amazing… People with NO clue but SO much unwarranted confidence…

Yes, it’s called a “wine stabilized”. In my country it’s written on the bottle by law.

I suggest learning at least enough to know that you know nothing, before randomly terrorizing encyclopedias with your arrogant cluelessness. — 2A0A:A547:1791:1:A35C:28C2:A0D2:D630 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Genotoxic

this word alone should be enough to steer everyone away from its use (i.e. - causes cancer) Jamesvanrude (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Severely misleading "good quality pickles" statement

This statement in the article is severely misleading. Pickles, by their very definition, preserve by themselves, without any preservatives. So they are already of good quality, and it is completely irrelevant whether potassium sorbate is added. While the article wrongly suggests that the additive would somehow be the cause of that. … Either the person who wrote it like that has never pickled in her life, or she is a shill. Probably both. — 2A0A:A547:1791:1:A35C:28C2:A0D2:D630 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)