Talk:Kraft Dinner

uk version

tastes 'distinctly' different from the american/canadian recipes, this should be reflected they are not the same. 92.236.118.45 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have some sources that say that? E.g. magazines, trade journals, books, newspapers, online reputable websites - something that says how they are different and why the difference? It's interesting, but we need reliable sources. Franamax (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"Contorversies" section

When adding material about issues such as potential health effects of food colours/additives, please ensure that the material has reliable references per RSMED. Taroaldo ✉ 21:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked for a temporary, semi-protection for the article to prevent the IP from re-adding the information. I renamed this section as well. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Dyes

This section "Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 have been linked to certain health issues such as asthma, skin rashes and hyperactivity in children but larger scientific studies have been inconclusive." is a copyright violation that also gets the facts wrong.

The [1] says: "Yellow No. 5 has been linked to hyperactivity, asthma, some skin conditions and cancer, but larger scientific studies have proved inconclusive." The wording used in the above edit is far too close to the original while still adding unsupported claims about Yellow 6.

I'll let anyone interested take another pass at this or fix it myself in a day or three. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's WP:copyvio with WP:synthesis (at best) used to add the Yellow 6. I think all refs fail as {{WP:RS]] for the claims about the effects of Yellow 5. Yes, the cited sources published the info, but it appears the sources are just reiterating what the food bloggers published. We don't know who made the original claims so we can't assess how reliable they are (small scientific studies or just anecdotal?). For that matter, we can't even verify that the claims were ever actually made anywhere but on the bloggers' posts. I don't doubt that they were, but as it is it fails verifiability. Combine that with the fact that major scientific studies (again unspecified) have failed to verify the supposed links, and we have a real mess. I'm undoing the edit. Please provide reliable references for the original claims if you put it back. Meters (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• The CNN article provides links to abstracts of several medical journal articles and the websites of Mayo Clinic and Center for Science in the Public Interest where these claims were addressed.
• What is the synthesis you are alleging?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The synthesis is the claim that Yellow 6 is linked to these effects when it is not listed in the cited sources.

If you wan to use the links on the CNN page as sources then cite them, but I suggest that you actually read them first. Yes, they address the issue, but generally conclude that there is no scientific evidence of the supposed connection.

• The closest is the CSPI link which found "Possible adrenal and testicular tumors." in rats with Yellow 6. The same source found no cancers in rats on Yellow 5, but did find "6 of 11 studies showed genotoxicity. Hyperactivity in children."
• The Mayo Clinic link on ADHD says "Some studies indicate that certain food colorings and preservatives may increase hyperactive behavior in some children. But the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Advisory Committee determined that studies to date have not proved there's a link between food colorings and hyperactivity."
• The NCBI link on asthma discusses only Yellow 5 (Tartrazine) and the result was "In none of the studies did tartrazine challenge or avoidance in diet significantly alter asthma outcomes."
• The NCBI link on skin conditions was of only 12 subjects and concluded "In this sample we were unable to confirm intolerance to tartrazine in 11 out of 12 patients." The possibility of one or more of the 12 subjects exhibiting a positive reaction by chance was 0.46! Meters (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say something like "may be associated with" or add "alleged" or "claimed." Many of the claims about these chemicals are controversial.

One of the cited sources does say that yellow 6 has been associated with health issues (the tumors you mentioned above). If you are concerned that readers may be confused and want to specify which dye has been linked with which issue, that can be done.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the latest version of this edit. Without reliable sources we cannot state that there are "allegations and some evidence that Yellow 5 and 6 may be associated with health issues." None of the cited sources support this statement, since the blog they are reporting on is itself not a reliable source. Meters (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources support that their have been allegations, but the evidence is so weak that I understand your concern.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. You have given us no reliable sources to support the statement. A blog is not a reliable source for a claim of health effects. A news report reporting on what a blog says does not make the blog a reliable source. Meters (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Article about Canadian culture intermuddled with a product promotion.

The title doesn't convey well enough that the article is actually about Canadian obsession with a product of the Kraft food company. But even if it did, the article also goes on and on about "Kraft this" and "Kraft that" in promotions of related Kraft products. It mentions no other competing brands. Just "Kraft" "Kraft" "Kraft" "Kraft" "Kraft" "Kraft" "Kraft".

Assuming that the United States is the largest market, would it be better to name the article by the product's name there, eh? If the article was called "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese", the promotional nature of the article might be more obvious I think, and the need to delete the whole article might also be more clear. Another alternative might be to change the name and focus of the article to "Canadian Comfort Food" or "Kraft Dinner (Canadian Culture)" or something like that, and completely cut the 75% of the article that merely announces Kraft products.

A bad statistic: The fact that they eat 55% more of it per person than Americans doesn't seem very large. Now, if they ate 55% more in total in a country with 1/10 the population, then that would be crazy notable!  :-) Mathematically, the smaller the portion of a whole diet is occupied by it, the more trivial a 55% difference is. And, even though the article likes to give the impression that Canadians eat a lot of it, that 3.2 boxes per year is a tiny tiny fraction of a person's whole diet. As an example, if the 2.1 boxes Americans eat was 2 days worth of food, that would be 0.55% of the American diet, and 0.85% of a Canadian diet, then that means the difference is only 0.30% of the whole diet. It's a perfect example of how to lie with statistics.

100.0.124.147 (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we need this?

Frankly, I can't see why we need this article. A look on Google shows there are many similar products, which do not merit a separate article for each one. Wikipedia's article on Macaroni & Cheese covers the general product very clearly and mentions Kraft's product. 82.31.154.124 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Moriarty