Talk:Carboxymethyl cellulose

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 tag these articles upon consent 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) 17:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've put in a redirect to this page from Carmellose, which is how some eye drop manufacturers seem to be referring to this. The word is clearly made up from CARboxy MEthy ceLuLOSE Potkettle (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

What does this have to do with Carboxymethyl cellulose? The linked article does not mention "cellulose gum". --68.101.219.116 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Note: comment moved from talk page there — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

They are synonyms. —Keenan Pepper 09:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It seems that additional usage which is not listed is in ice packs. Haven't found a proper source yet.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oschonrock (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is soluble is the claim. ... Soluble in what? Not a word is written. To define something, one needs to use both inclusion (is a member of) and exclusion (is not a member of). This should be obvious.69.40.241.198 (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC) in water. Very soluble in fact. 76.195.144.116 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for not putting in citations just yet. I am busy right now, but will come back and put them in soon. (570ajk (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC))Reply

Here's the study that found carboxymethyl cellulose caused bowel disease in mice:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14232.html
Nature | Letter
Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome
Benoit Chassaing, Omry Koren, Julia K. Goodrich, Angela C. Poole, Shanthi Srinivasan, Ruth E. Ley & Andrew T. Gewirtz
Nature (2015)
doi:10.1038/nature14232
Published online 25 February 2015

Also an accompanying free-access news story in Nature:
http://www.nature.com/news/food-preservatives-linked-to-obesity-and-gut-disease-1.16984
Food preservatives linked to obesity and gut disease. Mouse study suggests that emulsifiers alter gut bacteria, leading to the inflammatory bowel condition colitis.
Nature News
Sara Reardon
25 February 2015
--Nbauman (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Until there's more than a single primary source, an entire "Health and safety" section seems unwarranted, as per WP:MEDRS. The study itself says that"additional studies will be needed to determine if CMC, P80 and/or other emulsifiers impact human health..."

Here is one more study ("demonstrat[ing] the need for further study of the long-term impacts of this food additive on health") :

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211130130223.htm
Ubiquitous food additive alters human microbiota and intestinal environment
November 30, 2021
Georgia State University

https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(21)03728-8/fulltext#relatedArticles
Randomized controlled-feeding study of dietary emulsifier carboxymethylcellulose reveals detrimental impacts on the gut microbiota and metabolome
November 10, 2021
Gastroenterology

Sambaloelek (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is a video floating around which suggests that seafood companies are injecting Tiger Shrimp with a substance labelled as "CMC" in order to increase volume, weight, and price.
Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQZoWgohz0Q

--Sc0ttbeardsley (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Carboxymethyl cellulose. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfaonline/additives/details.html?id=51
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626142113/http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDOWCOM/dh_0163/0901b803801632c7.pdf?filepath=/194-01430.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc to http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDOWCOM/dh_0163/0901b803801632c7.pdf?filepath=/194-01430.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708174610/http://www.coldchaintech.com/faqs-refrigerants.php to http://www.coldchaintech.com/faqs-refrigerants.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051225045241/http://www.lsbu.ac.uk:80/water/hycmc.html to http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/hycmc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

unreferenced and badly written. At least reference it, if not, please remove YamaPlos talk 03:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

This "Start-class" article does need rewriting to have some uniformity with other articles. It is tagged as needing to be in compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

There is a "Preparation" section (Production?) but not a "Chemistry and occurrence" or "Synthesis" section. There is no "History" section that could cover the FDA approval of the "E" number or possibly a "Safety" section. Otr500 (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the article needs attention to grammar and presentation. Can you please point out the relevant parts of the MOS that mandate the sections you mention? yoyo (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Help, I'm not good enough at sentence structure to change the starts of the paragraphs into something that flows/looks better. Could someone who's better at sentence-rearranging fix that at some point?

Ragamuffiln19 🜺 (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply