Talk:Margarine

"Butter lobby" influence

I edited this article to try to sound neutral, but to no avail. I think we should scrap the article and just rewrite it.Draconius14 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This article contains several references to the "butter lobby" and how they apparenty have curtailed sales of margarine by getting regulators to ban artificial coloring and demand special markings etc. In fact this is common throughout the food industry as a measure against customers being misled. Coloring an ersatz product to deceive consumers to mistake it for the original product is illegal in many countries (and the center of a debate between Norway and the EU).

Since margarine raw materials cost only a few percent of what is needed for butter but the cost to the consumer is about equal, the profit margins are naturally much higher. This means large resellers can negotiate large discounts, which again leads to higher profits for producers of ready-packaged foods (sandwiches etc) when they can substitute margarine for butter without the customer's notice. As the supposed health benefits are at best debatable, it is obvious that cutting costs and increasing profits are the main motives for the trend towards increased use of margarine. I have therefore marked this article as biased. Geira (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea the cost to the consumer is about equal? At my grocery store here in Germany, margarine costs about one-fourth as much per 100 g as butter does (the cheapest 500 g tub of margarine costs half as much as the cheapest 250 g block of butter). 62.145.19.66 (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is not biased, but your comment sure is, Geira. Coloring is not misleading. Practically all food is colored. Margarine is about the only one where coloring is banned, due to the pressure from butter lobbyist. Margarine is not an ersatz product, it is just another food product. Butter is not "original product".

Margarine raw material cost perhaps 50% of butter's. But since the price of margarine in shops is typically 50% of the price of butter, there is no higher profit margin. In many countries, the price of margarine has been artifically increased with high taxes in order to increase the sales of butter, which is another example of butter lobby. Your claim that health benefits of margarine are "debatable" is total BS. The healt benefits of margarine have been undeniably proven by dozens of studies.

There are some biased statements in the article. Most notably, the chapter about trans fat. It reflects the hysteria around trans fats in the USA, which is obviously result of the propaganda by butter lobbyist. That chapter needs to be fixed, but otherwise, the "biased" tag is out of place and must be removed. --PauliKL (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The dangers of trans fats are real, not "hysteria in the USA" and not the result of propaganda by the butter lobby. Butter and normal margarine are about equally (un)healthy. There are trans-fat-free and cholesterol-reducing margarines, which are better for you but way, way, more expensive than regular margarine. 62.145.19.66 (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. There is definitely trans fats hysteria in USA and maybe in some other countries. And it is clearly caused by the misleading propaganda by the butter lobby. There are no "dangers" in in trans fats. What studies show is that trans fats increase the amount of LDL cholesterol and decrease the amount of HDL cholesterol, which causes increased risk for coronary heart disease. However, the unsaturated fatty acids in margarine decrease LDL cholesterol and increase HDL cholesterol. Even in those times when margarines did contain trans fats, the unsaturated fatty acids more than canceled the effect and the total effect was benefical for health. But nowadays, most margarines (at least in Europe) contain no trans fats. Butter and margarine are not equally (un)healthy. Several large studies show that replacing butter with vegetable based margarine significantly reduces cholesterol levels. Margarines that contain plant sterol/stanol esters are of course more effective. And more expensive, but still cheaper than butter. --PauliKL (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"There are no 'dangers' in in trans fats. What studies show is that trans fats increase the amount of LDL cholesterol and decrease the amount of HDL cholesterol, which causes increased risk for coronary heart disease." And why isn't that dangerous? It sounds to me like avoiding them is sensible, not "hysterical", in any country. As for "Even in those times when margarines did contain trans fats, the unsaturated fatty acids more than canceled the effect and the total effect was benefical for health. But nowadays, most margarines (at least in Europe) contain no trans fats", I'm going to have ask for sources for both those astonishing claims before I'm prepared to believe them. The cheap margarine available here in Germany is chock-full of trans fats. And the plant-sterol-containing, cholesterol-reducing margarine I buy is significantly more expensive than butter. I can get butter for about €0.75 for a 250 g block, while the margarine is well over €5.00 for a 500 g tub. —Angr 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I already explained that the unsaturated fats in margarine more than compensate the effect to LDL and HDL cholesterol caused by trans fats. I just added a chapter about unsaturated fats with citations about the fact. I am going to have to ask for sources for you astonishing claim that cheap margarine "is chock-full of trans fats". Hydrogenating unsaturated fat to saturated fat cost's no more than hydrogenating to trans fat, so there is no reason to believe that cheap margarine would contain trans fats. Here in Finland it is very difficult, if not impossible to find margarine that contains trans fats. A 400 gram tub of butter costs around 3.00, and 400 g tub of of most popular margarines around €1.90, cheapest margarines around €1.10. All of the margarines contain high amount of unsaturated fats, low amount of saturated fat and no trans fats, so they offer the undeniable health benefits compared to butter. Thus both of the claims "cost of butter and margarine to consumer is about equal" and "butter and normal margarine are about equally (un)healthy" are clearly wrong. The price difference of butter and margarine depends on how much additional taxes have been put to increase price of margarine, and how much subsidies have been paid to butter producers to reduce the price of butter. But those do not increase the profit margin of margarine, and thus the claim "increasing profits are the main motives for the trend toward increased use of margarine" is clearly wrong. So let's face it, the "biased" tag in the article is totally unjustified and the only reason to put it here is the butter lobby. --PauliKL (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, you sound like you're here representing the margarine lobby. You already claimed that the unsaturated fats in margarine "more than compensate" for the trans fats, but I can't find any evidence for that in the sources you added today. It looks like I was wrong about trans fats in German margarine, but since butter doesn't have any either, I'm still not seeing why ordinary margarine should be significantly healthier than butter. It sounds like butter is significantly more expensive in Finland than Germany, and margarine slightly more expensive. But a 500 g tub of sterol-containing margarine in Germany costs as much as 400 g of butter plus 400 g of ordinary margarine in Finland, so I suspect the sterol margarine will be correspondingly expensive in Finland. As for the tag, I agree it's unnecessary. Mentioning the historical fact that both butter and margarine have had lobbyists who have tried to promote their product and downplay the competition hardly makes the article biased. (Has it never occurred to the dairy companies that they could make margarine in addition to butter and thus make money regardless of which product is currently popular?) On the other hand, claiming that the butter lobby itself is responsible for the "NPOV" tag on the article is ridiculous. —Angr 20:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd support the claim that this article is biased, however, I don't think it's entirely due to the facts involved - the language (particularly the section "Margarine in the United States") reads like the noble struggle of the misunderstood margarine manufacturers (and margarine lovers) against the evil butter lobby. I actually assumed that the article was written by someone working for a margarine manufacturer. Also, can someone please add a scientific explanation to the article of how margarine can be solid at room temperature if it's primarily unsaturated fats (which are not solid at room temperature), because I am somewhat suspicious of this claim 93.97.89.119 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

My reply to the first comment. I don't really think it is about the butter lobby but really just lack of consumer education. My question is about the story of processed cheese coming out and the butter-lobby pushed to have it called embalmed cheese or something? I am trying to put some links together because I originally searched Smart_Balance to see if it is healthy or not, but wikipedia is as clueless as I am, so I'm trying to get some expert links from doctor websites such as webMD but if anybody already knows the story I'm talking about, please send me a pm or write it down here at the references section, and I will cite the footnote. Thanks, Alfred F.

The "nutrition" section is ambiguous and somewhat irrelevant, especially, it does not distinguish between margarine and butter. Moreover, the nutrition section is misleading in that it makes the two sound one of the same and it is my opinion the whole section should be removed until accurate information pertaining to margarine can be obtained.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.210.143 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly biased

Wow, so defensive this article is! Entry should be: "Margarine isn't so bad and here's why" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.129.36 (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Its the power of the few vs the apathy of the many. Just do a page-edit of the article, and set it back to an earlier revision, until we get things sorted out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.210.143 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Margarine or not Margarine?

I saw a program last night on TV (QI, in the UK on the BBC) in which Stephen Fry said that technically Margerine cannot be bought in the UK anymore and what is called Margerine simply isn't. Apparantly Margerine is a specific term and it's banned in most countries.... but I can't find any references for this. Did anyone else see/hear this? Is there any evidence or verifiably references for this? 86.142.66.249 (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional - QI Talk Forum (not viable reference) 86.142.66.249 (talk) 10:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional (Debate starts here) - QI Talk Forum 86.142.66.249 (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that in the UK and EU margarine (like butter) must be at least 80% fat. Almost all such yellow spreads are between 35-75% fat and so cannot use the word "margarine" (those below 41% can call themselves "low-fat spread" and those below 62% "reduced-fat" even though they have higher fat content than most other foods). It is not banned and the QI forum came up with [1] as a rare example of its continued use (though note the German "Biologische" on the packaging).--164.36.38.240 (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't pay too close attention to programmes such as QI. As a rule of thumb they are very poorly researched and make many untrue or misleading assertions. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The QI program did not say margarine was illegal. They said that because no spreads sold in the UK have enough fat content to qualify as "margarine" (80-90%) no spreads can therefore be legally called "margarine" and so are "low-fat spreads". The thrust of the question in the program was how much margarine is sold in the UK and the answer was: none - because it would be illegal to name them as such. 77.101.229.144 (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, In Australia it is illegal to call anything margarine that does not have a minimum high fat content, which is why except for cooking margarine they are all labeled spreads. Secondly, they are all and i mean all, canola based, this can be see in the labeling, clever labeling avoids using the word canola as it is GMO Rape seed, yes all margarine contains GMO, verifiable by checking the origin of Canola and invented plant and the labels that will say canola or where is says vegetable oil, will note having monounsaturated fats, which are only olive, avocado or canola they are the only 3 in the world, and of course no one could afford avocado oil, and certainly not olive oil in cheap spreads, so we know it is Margarine, now labels s[reads is entirely and always they greater percentage as Canola, so it should all be labeled that which it contains a majority - "GMO Obesity Spread" that slows your metabolism (all monounsaturated do this) the world cause of obesity as it is in everything not just margarine start checking labels, if you are even slightly overweight then a slow metabolism is the last thing you need, they can't even deny it, canola first used the slow metabolism in its marketing, saying it "help the body absorb more nutrients" and to this day the even the heart foundation use the term "controls your metabolism"

Published refs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7042878

49.181.141.147 (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC) A C Quinn

References

World War II

I have read that, in addition to World War I, World War II led to increased use of margarine. The influence of major rationing on the use and sale of margarine is considerable and I think it calls for a section on the World Wars' effect on the market and development of margarine/butter substitutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.38.84 (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Is margarine Vegetarian?

Could someone clarify please. Kpmiyapuram (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Most (nearly all) margarines these days are vegetable based. However, some margarines contain small amounts of milk. If this is a problem, check the label if the product contains lactose. If not, it is probably 100% vegetarian. In addition, some (expensive) special margarines may contain fish oil (to add more omega-3). If you want to be 100% sure, check if the product has kosher certification as pareve. There may be a kosher symbol printed on the box, but that is not used in all countries. --PauliKL (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Small amounts of milk - that is, if the milk is derived from animals, such as cow's milk - would mean that margarine is acceptable for vegetarians but not for vegans. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Margarine in any way closely related to plastic

Almost any search of margarine on Google leads to results that range from affirming to speculating its ties to plastic. What is the relationship if any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.251.101 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly the same as the relationship between butter and plastic.

I guess you are referring to the chain letter hoax that contained several ridiculous claims about margarine. One of the claims was that "margarine is but one molecule away from being plastic". In a way, this is true, just as much true as the argument butter is but one molecule away from being plastic. That is, if you take one molecule of butter, replace it with one molecule of plastic, what you get is one molecule of plastic. The fact that this hoax has spread so widely is just another proof of how powerful the butter lobby is.

I can guess where the butter lobby got the idea for that hoax. Both margarine and butter are semi-solid. This state can also be described as "plastic", i.e. "capable of being molded or modeled" (according to Webster dictionary). --PauliKL (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's because it's derived from vegetable oil, like how industrial plastic is made from crude oil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.2.193.20 (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Informal/story tag

This tag does not appear relevant: "This article or section is written in an informal style and with a personally invested tone. It reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry." I could not find anything in the article that sounds too informal or un-encyclopedic. The controversy between the "butter lobby" and "margarine lobby" is balanced now. If anything, the article just needs some organization: it jumps from "What is margarine?" to a lot of legal restrictions without warning, and before explaining the non-animal fat, non trans-fat developments. So I would delete the tag, but I'm leaving it in case others have objections. Sluggoster (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How is it made?

I came to this article looking for some information about how margarine is made and find it rather odd that there is no such information given. I believe there should be more than a link to hydrogenation; I feel the article would benefit from discussion of the actual steps taken to turn oils into margarine. As it stands the article is incredibly vague on the manufacture front. Jack of Many (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I had the same problem so I've googled it an added a section on Manufacture. Richerman (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, Richerman. You wrote "This was originally achieved by passing hydrogen through the oil in the presence of a nickel catalyst," - does that suggest it is done differently now or is that still the case? My apologies for not wading in and helping out with this edit, I've got far too much work to do (though apparently not too much to have check back, see your edits and comment on them). That reminds me actually, I really should go back to a major edit I was working on elsewhere when I have the time. Jack of Many (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the way it's done today and I'm assuming it was alway done that way, so I'll change it to make that clearer. If that's not the case perhaps someone with more knowledge could correct it. Richerman (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that hydrogenation does NOT bind molecules together, as the article states. Instead, it "saturates" some or all of the double bonds, by adding a hydrogen molecule across them. This hardens the fats by decreasing the number of double bonds and increasing the melting point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.198.138 (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

'One pound' rule

This article states that "The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act still prohibits the retail sale (in places like grocery stores) of margarine in packages larger than one pound," and it provides a reference to a law enacted in 1950, but this doesn't appear to be an enforced law. I checked at my local Safeway in Seattle, Washington. "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" and "Smart Balance" were two brands being sold in 45-ounce containers. Every other brand of spread violated the "must state 'oleomargarine' or 'margarine' in the biggest type used on the container" rule. Since there are a lot of old, unenforced laws on the books, I'm not sure this one is even worth mentioning. 67.100.222.184 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting from a historical point of view so I think there should be something to say what the restrictions were, although perhaps not in that form. Richerman (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Long hand writing

Can someone change these to longhand '(4.5×109 kg)'. I would have understood that when I was still at technical college but now that means nothing to me. Generally I think we should avoid the use of such jargon and write things longhand to avoid arising any confusuion. Interestingly enough the imperial weight is written in longhand. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Black margarine misconception.

I have heard this misconception numerous times: that margarine is black when it starts and is then heavily dyed to become white/yellow. This, of course, is a misconception. The starting material for margarine are seeds; the oils of these seeds are collected through the crushing of the seeds, which are, of course, black. The shells are then removed and the oils that remain are what are used to make the margarine and they are not black at all. Margarine CAN be dyed yellow as a marketing plow to compete with butter, but margarine is naturally whitish-yellow and is never actually black.

It was a statement included in the same fear-mongering e-mail letter that "asserts" that margarine is one molecule away from being plastic, as discussed above in this page. A copy of this e-mail can be read here: http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-229816.html, and is discussed here: http://www.hoaxbusters.org/faq.html and here: http://streetcanvas.blogspot.com/2008/01/whole-margarine-is-black-before-its.html?zx=c8bb54d59f16485f.

A simple search on Google will indicate the prevalence of the misconception: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=black+margarine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a.

And the fact is debunked easily by the manufacturing process clearly presented in this article, and a compilation of misconceptions along with their debunking can be found here: http://www.spreadthefacts.com.au/all-about-margarine/margarine-misconceptions.html#q3, and is repeated here: http://www.femail.com.au/the-urban-myths-of-margarine.htm.

The fact that margarine is, in fact, naturally yellowish was known even back in 1944, published in an issue of The Rotarian, found here courtesy of Google Books: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=jEMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=margarine+manufacture+black&source=bl&ots=xowIV0ETKT&sig=lOMj8pi8e9ql0sNL6Vtkb8ZY9ws&hl=en&ei=GSjGTf-vB4SavgPTqZ2wAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=margarine%20manufacture%20black&f=false. It is also discussed in an episode of QI, dealing with "Fakes and Frauds" and "General Ignorance", transcribed here: http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/qi/episodes/6/6/

As a final nail in the coffin, here is a step-by-step guide on the manufacture of margarine where step 3 clearly states that the crude oil is a dark golden color: http://www.cip.ukcentre.com/marg1.htm. It mentions bleaching in the next step, but as seen in the Food Industries Manual that this article already refers to in the Manufacture section, this is a necessary step in refining crude oil so that it is usable: http://books.google.com/books?id=iG3wx9Wh5N4C&pg=PA286&lpg=PA286&dq=margarine+-+nickel+catalyst&q=margarine+-+nickel+catalyst&hl=en#v=snippet&q=margarine%20-%20nickel%20catalyst&f=false. Even then, it is pretty clear that dark yellow is most certainly not a synonym for black despite the bleaching.

I am trying to include this misconception, along with the plastic one, in the List of common misconceptions article, which has a criteria that a misconception must first be mentioned in the original article.

So I believe I have provided enough sources to show that is indeed a common misconception and one that is, in fact, a misconception. So hopefully we can include this in the article and then I can include it in the Misconceptions article, thus making everyone a bit better informed! Sage of Ice (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe it's not butter!

Read this excer[t from the article:

Canadian standard B.09.016 states that margarine shall be:

A plastic or fluid emulsion of fat, or water in fat, oil, or fat and oil that are not derived from milk and shall contain not less than 80% fat and not less than 3300 IU of vitamin A and 530 IU of vitamin D.[46]

Calorie reduced margarine is specified in standard B.09.017 as:

Containing not less than 40% fat and having 50% of the calories normally present in margarine.[46]

Margarine products are not allowed to contain the word "butter" anywhere on the packaging.[citation needed] Canadian grocers therefore do not carry any margarine products that have the word "Butter" or its derivatives in the name.[

Yet it also says that the "I can't believe it's not butter" brand has been available in canada since just a few years after being introduced in the us, at the sime time as the UK.

WTF?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.250.155 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Rama-Margarine.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rama-Margarine.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Precentages of water used in margarine.

According to the article most margarine has 20% water, yet in the stores today, the margarine in stick form is up to around 47% water and tubs the same amount. This has happened over the past few years and no one has commented on this change. Septagram (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• I noticed in the article that it talks about some spreads being half the calories of butter. Is this a round about way of saying that spreads are half water thus are half the calories or are the oils used that much lower in calories? If this is the case, would it be better to come right out and say so in the article?Septagram (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

More disturbing is that MEAT has undergone the same silent adulteration. When you buy a pound of meat these days, you are buying 1/4 to 1/2 pound of water and 1/2 to 3/4 pounds of meat. BTW, Soylent Green is PEOPLE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, margarine has to be 80% fat, as does ordinary butter. This is so rare for any plant-oil based spreads that very few spreads are sold labelled as margarine. So-called "lower fat spreads" are common, and water makes up most of the difference. --86.178.140.126 (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Coloring -- this is true

I am not sure why this was removed, but a recent addition included some information about ye olde tyme oleomargarine, which had to be sold sans coloring. The color pack was an optional addition available to the consumer. This paragraph is therefore correct, so I have included here for potential improvement and re-insertion into the article: [I struck some extraneous trivia.]

During WWII in the U.S., there was a shortage of butter and "oleomargine" became popular. The dairy firms, especially in Wisconsin, became alarmed and succeeded in getting legislation passed to prohibit the coloring of the stark white product. In response, the margarine companies distributed the margarine together with a packet of yellow dye. The product was placed in a bowl and the dye mixed in with a spoon. This took some time and effort and it was not unusual for the final product to be served as a light and dark yellow, or even white, striped product. In 1951, the W. E. Dennison Company received patent number 2,553,513 for a method to place a capsule of yellow dye inside a plastic package of margarine. After purchase, the capsule was broken inside the package and then the package was kneeded to distribute the dye. Although this was considerably less effort than mixing with a spoon in a bowl, it was a job usually given to the children of the household, who enjoyed it immensely. Around 1955 the artificial coloring laws were repealed and margarine could for the first time be sold colored like butter.

I think you are all missing the point. The point is, IT HAPPENED, as anyone over 70 knows. What actually happened may be favorable or unfavorable to the margarine industry, but it cannot possibly be biased. Since I originally inserted the deleted material, I am putting it back. Tbonge (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is that the information is verifiable - see WP:VERIFIABILITY. To quote from that policy "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". If you can find a reliable source it can be added, if not it is liable to be deleted. Richerman (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Richerman: "If you can find a reliable source it can be added," - that's not the precise wording. It can be added even if *you* can't find a source. It simply must be "verifiable" - that means someone needs to be able to verify it. This is the type of claim that can be verified by anyone with Google and a keyboard to type "margarine dye" into it. When it's something as plainly true as this, sourcing this isn't at the top of the list of ways to improve the article. The real Wikicrime here is that someone deleted it without taking the 8 seconds to Google the claim. From WP:CHALLENGE: "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." In my opinion, anyone who thinks a claim is unverifiable when it was experienced by masses of people in the last century is an idiot.

That said, it's apparently becoming more likely that this claim will be challenged (by idiots). It is indeed the contributor's responsibility to cite the claim; again when it's likely to be challenged. That appears to be you, Tbonge. Here's a great chance to brush up on your citation skills. From the edit area toolbar: Cite > Templates > cite web, cite news, etc. Here are two reputable news sources for you too, "cite web" for this one: [2] "cite news" here: [3] Add these and this subject can be put to bed. If you can't manage that, your contributions are likely to go to waste.

On a related note, I never knew about the separate dye until reading this article, so thanks very much for adding it. sudopeople 18:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you're having a go at me - I didn't remove the information (which is something you could have found out in a few seconds by checking the article history) and I wouldn't have done so without trying to find a citation for it myself. I was merely trying to explain to the user the reason why it would have been removed - which was nothing to do with it being "favorable or unfavorable to the margarine industry". Having had your little rant you then told the user that their contributions were likely to go to waste if they didn't cite them - which is exactly what I had already said - so who's the idiot now? Richerman (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As you said, I agree with you (except for a small detail.) Maybe give what I wrote a re-read and point out the parts you think are directed toward you. Your imagined rebuttal was quite entertaining to read though. To answer your final question...well, let's let the Internet decide. sudopeople 22:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, if you say the idiots comment wasn't directed at me I'll accept that, but it's very easy to read it that way. Still, I'm glad you were entertained :-) Richerman (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Margarine in your Potato

I put a block of margarine in my potato, put in the microwave: BIG MISTAKE! potato was covered in plastic substance eew D: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.116.140.246 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The starch in the potato is plastic too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.2.193.20 (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Margarine. 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/20130528195727/http://www.codexalimentarius.org/input/download/standards/10742/CXS_256e.pdf to http://www.codexalimentarius.org/input/download/standards/10742/CXS_256e.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.unilever.co.uk/ourbrands/foods/icantbelieveitsnotbutter.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091109224733/http://www.unilever.ca:80/ourbrands/foods/ICBINB.asp to http://www.unilever.ca/ourbrands/foods/ICBINB.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080622011230/http://www.jacn.org:80/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/5 to http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/1/5
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303184216/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411003503/http://www.ific.org:80/publications/factsheets/sterolfs.cfm to http://www.ific.org/publications/factsheets/sterolfs.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050507092417/http://www.bandt.com.au:80/news/ea/0c00eeea.asp to http://www.bandt.com.au/news/ea/0c00eeea.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003222930/http://www.imace.org/margarine/pdf/vitamin.pdf to http://www.imace.org/margarine/pdf/vitamin.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091028021618/http://www.margarine.org.uk:80/whatisspread-content.html to http://www.margarine.org.uk/whatisspread-content.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) 16:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margarine. 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/20091012023137/http://www.unilever.co.uk/brands/foodbrands/Stork.aspx to http://www.unilever.co.uk/brands/foodbrands/Stork.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/504.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 03:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margarine. 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/20080706021024/http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/index.html to http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

To add to article

Information to add to the article: was the margarine produced from vegetable oils in the late 19th century made from hydrogenated oils? If it was not, how was it made solid? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: G–M contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

• Margarine

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Oleum means oil

Oleum in Latin simply means oil, and in fact olive oil is implied rather than the beef fat stated by the article. Spinkham (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to update article

Hi there!

On behalf of Upfield, I’ve been working on a suggestion for a well-sourced update for the margarine article. In general, I am making suggestions for the introduction, history and nutrition section of the article to include further information and update information in the light of recent developments and research.

You can see my proposed draft in my user space. I've also made this diff to compare my suggestions with the current version of the article (as of November 20, 2018).

My draft offers the following edits:

• Update of the introduction section to reflect recent product developments and reducing redundancies in comparison to the history section
• Adding further information to the history section especially:

Sorted events more in chronical order and added context where suitable

Included sub-headlines to add a little more structure to the text

Added more international context and historical developments from around the world

Added more recent product developments

• Updated the nutrition section to reflect maintenance template by rewriting it incorporating the most recent research including respective up-to-date sources

As I do have a financial conflict of interest, since I'm making this suggestion on behalf of Upfield as part of my work as a private consultant, I will not make any edits to the article myself. In addition, the suggestions of course follow NPOV and do not additionally mention Upfield or their products (some products where mentioned in the article before)!

I would be delighted, if uninvolved editors could review the suggestions and take live changes as appropriate. Let me know if you have any feedback or questions!

I am looking forward to your feedback.

Thank you very much in advance, Conandcon (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Conandcon: Would you be willing to let editors know about any other accounts you may be using? I don't see a 2nd account disclosure on your user page. It does mention you're being paid by a Private consultant, but if this consultant is a Wikipedia editor who is working with you and consulting with you on the development of this article, I believe it might be helpful to know which editor that is.  Spintendo  16:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Spintendo for getting back to me on this. I am working as a private consultant and I am paid by Upfield. The disclosure in the margarine draft in my user space might not have been very precise; I changed it according to the disclosure I made here on the talking page. In addition, I do not have any other accounts I use where I suggest edits in the context of COI. Let me know if you have any further questions! Conandcon (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Conandcon: "I do not have any other accounts I use where I suggest edits in the context of COI." This request to disclose other accounts includes those accounts where you do not suggest edits in the context of COI. The requirements for announcing secondary accounts do not contain nuance: "An editor using multiple accounts for valid reasons should, on each account's user page, list all the other accounts with an explanation of their purpose", per WP:ALTACCN. Would you be willing to list these alternate accounts? Please advise.  Spintendo  20:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Yes, of course. Thank you Spintendo. My private account is User:Sententiosus. I did add this to my user page as well. I use that account usually to edit the German Wikipedia e.g. when traveling or noticing mistakes. Please kindly advise if I should take any further action. I am very open to your suggestions and happy to act upon. Thank you for your patience and time so far! Conandcon (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That's much appreciated.  Spintendo  00:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Do you have any feedback regarding the suggestions I made? What do you think? Conandcon (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

My feedback:

1. The Manufacturing process section mostly contains text which is insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. This text was placed in the article years ago, but because it already exists in the article, the COI editor has included it in their edit proposal, which makes that part of the proposal not approvable. When text is added to an article in an editor's name, they become the new person responsible for it; the fact that they trusted Wikipedia to have already checked their text and found it to be free of plagiarism is understandable—but in this case they would have been wrong, and this shows that caution regarding already-existing text is always warranted.
2. The Nutrition section in the COI editor's draft appears to be superior to the article's Nutrition section in both grammar and references. The nutritional contents are listed much more clearly and succinctly, and the additional details regarding advisements about margarine are placed after the bare nutritional numbers and percentages, which is a more intuitive arraingement than the standing-article's version (where the presentation of that information is reversed).
3. The Legal issues section requires the most scrutiny here, as it makes up the majority of text which the COI editor wishes to have deleted. The section discusses many of the points of contention between the margarine and dairy industries, particularly with respect to what may be seen as the special protections given to the dairy industry in the United States and Canada, the only two countries presented with details. These are noteworthy details, but for the dairy industry I assume, this section might appear to be pushing the line between fact and opinion, since just the act of mentioning the protections given to the dairy industry can seem tantamount to implying that those protections are unfair. As the COI editor proposing the changes works on behalf of Upfield, I can only surmise that some aspect of the dispute described in the section was unappealing to the margarine industry, and that is why it was to be gotten rid of. Although this section is not as well referenced as the rest of the article, it still stands on its own, and I feel that arbitrarily deleting it might prove to be a futile action, especially when other issues such as the Streisand effect are taken into consideration. It certainly isn't something I would feel comfortable approving of without having a clear consensus for the changes.
4. The details listed in the History section of the COI editor's draft are placed in chronological order, which makes the draft version much easier to follow along in reading than the current standing version of the article, which has events out of order in certain instances.

Regards,  Spintendo  23:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Conandcon, instead of asking us to plough through a whole alternative version, would you please summarise here (in brief, please!) the changes you are proposing, and explain how they benefit the encyclopaedia and how they benefit Upfield (which last is not something that anyone here is likely to care one whit about). Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: Thank you very much for your feedback!

1. Manufacturing process: Indeed, I did not check for plagiarism. It described the process correctly and I, therefore, haven’t further worked on it. But I am happy to propose a revision.
2. Regarding the legal issues section it was not my intention to delete it; I must have overlooked it when copying the parts where I was not proposing any changes. I did add this to my suggestion in my user space draft now.

Please find here a diff including the legal issues section.

@Justlettersandnumbers: Thank you for your remark. When suggesting these changes, my goal was to add information (especially in the history section) and update (especially in the nutrition section) information and sources, where I felt this would benefit the reader. I believe this is also in the interest of Upfield as up-to-date information of where Margarine comes from and what development it went through since its innovation as well as an up-to-date description of its nutritional value is important for a realistic picture of what margarine is today.

Here are also more details on what I suggest to change:

1. In the introduction section I suggest to remove the historical remarks when it was invented as they are already described in the history section and I found it more important to focus on a more general description of what margarine is and how the term is used.
2. In the history section I sorted the events more in chronical order, included sub-headlines to add a little more structure and added more information especially in context of its innovation and international product developments in the first decades after invention. I also added more information for its development since the 1960s and included more recent developments since 2000.
3. For the nutrition section I suggest to add a table to compare different spreads and butter to give the reader a fast overview. I added up-to-date sources and structured a little different; first describing nutritional facts and afterwards discussing advisements also reflecting the maintenance templates in this section.

In this step, I did not suggest changes for the manufacturing, national standards and legal issues section.

Please kindly let me know if I can do anything else - in addition to a revision of the manufacturing section - that helps driving these suggestions forward. Conandcon (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply 10-DEC-2018

  Request closed for inactivity  

• The above edit request has not received any non-COI editor responses in the past 2 weeks (15 days total).
• Articles benefit greatly from having discussion amongst editors. It was felt by this reviewer that any adverse changes made with this edit request may be overlooked without the benefits of a discussion. As a safeguard, the request has been declined as needing discussion (e.g., {{request edit|D|D}}).
• The COI editor is urged to revive any stalled communications with involved editors first by making contact with the editor's through this talk page and by reclarifying exactly what new changes are being asked for in comparison to the older text.
• The COI editor may also wish to broadcast requests for changes at the talk pages of the various WikiProjects which govern this article. Those projects are normally listed at the top of each article's talk page.
• Unless being assisted by another review editor, the COI editor is asked to allow for a reasonable amount of time to pass before reactivating a subsequent {{request edit}} on the same issue.

Regards,  Spintendo  02:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Spintendo, Justlettersandnumbers, thank you very much for your time and help so far. As you suggested, I now included a complete revision of the section manufacturing process in my user page draft as the original from today`s article was largely plagiarized. In addition, please find here a commented version of my suggestions with explanations on what and why I suggest as well as a more detailed explanation on why these changes are in the interest of Upfield. Please kindly advise, If I should do anything else that helps non-COI editors evaluate my suggestions. Looking forward to hearing from you again. Conandcon (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I happened to come here for another purpose), but can't help mentioning that, as I see it , this discussion shows the inefficiency and confusion that almost inevitably results from our way of dealing with coi editing. I don't work with coi editors this way, but instead by making suggestions, precisely because of this problem. I'm also a little puzzled by the need to have a statement for why the changes improve the article and help the company. It's enough that they help the article. Spintendo, this is not meant as criticism of you, because you operate under this system much better and more patiently than I possibly could; it's rather my continued frustration with the system. (The only way I find practical is to ask the editor to make the changes, and then revise them. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your questions. I want you to know that for me, your feedback DGG will always be welcomed. To answer your question: the request of the COI editor to provide reasons for why the changes should be made are asked because that is what the suggestions for answering edit requests state that I do:

If the rationale for a change is not obvious (particularly for proposed deletions), explain.

I have found that requiring COI editors to state the reasons for making changes helps to flesh out their general purpose. If that purpose is to innocently supply needed information, then that reason will be easy for them to supply. If there are promotional instincts behind their motives, that can also be revealed through an accounting of their reasons. Since conflicts of interest hide themselves from our own inner recognition of them, its important to use this type of exploration of reasons in order to uncover hidden agendas that the COI editor may not even realize themselves.

Also, there are circumstances where it may not be enough for me to simply state that I feel something is promotional and should not be added; in those cases I need their words to help me "tie the noose" so to speak. Also in a way, the back and forth generated by a request for reasons and my questioning of those reasons (the part of the request process where, understandably, your patience leaves you) lends itself to the type of discussion which all additions and deletions to an article should ideally have.

I hope this helps to answer your questions, sorry for the 5 month delay in responding, but I too only came to this page by chance, while looking at the state of edit requests from one year ago, which I occassionally like to do. Warm regards,  Spintendo  16:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Notes

References

Margarine is not healthier than butter

Butter substitute not healthier 24.48.102.11 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)