Side N
What May Be Called Chocolate
Which sources back which section of this article, and what its evidence base looks like.
Which sources back which section
| Section | Sources behind it |
|---|---|
| What happened | Taiwan’s Q&A and the superseded regulation text; the ministry’s announcement; 21 CFR 163; the Federal Register rule; Codex; the EU Directive. |
| Timeline | The same documents, plus the COSMOS trial, the coconut-oil letter and its erratum, the palm-oil impact report and the Commission’s deforestation page. |
| The argument | The EU Directive’s Annex II, read in full for its criteria and its coconut-oil exception, with 21 CFR 163 for the contrast. |
| What others add | Taiwan’s Q&A for the minimums and the label wording; both EU texts; the COSMOS trial; the coconut-oil letter and erratum; the palm-oil report; the Commission. |
| Conclusion | Taiwan’s Q&A; 21 CFR 163; Codex; both EU texts; the COSMOS trial. |
What the evidence base looks like
- 13Sources used on the page
- 9That are a regulator’s, a legislature’s or a standards body’s own text
- 4Approached and discarded — refused by their hosts
- 2Jurisdictions left out entirely, because their texts could not be read
| Function | How many | What they are |
|---|---|---|
| State | 9 | Two Taiwanese regulatory documents and a ministry announcement, the US code and a Federal Register rule, the Codex standard, two parts of an EU Directive, and a Commission page. |
| Reference | 3 | One randomised trial and one Letter, with that Letter’s published erratum. |
| Vendor | 1 | An industry body’s own release about its own certification figures. |
| Origin | 0 | None. The subject is a set of rules, and the rules are the state sources above. |
| Reporting | 0 | None. Nothing on the page rests on a news report. |
| Community | 0 | None. No forum, review or user account was used as evidence for anything here. |
Reliable
Reliable, but with an interestWorth believing and reliableWeak on both, and used with careHonest, but thin
Worth believing