Talk:High-fructose corn syrup/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Photo?

Anyone have an idea of the type of photograph suitable as an illustration for this article? High-fructose corn syrup is usually shipped in industrial quantities, e.g. railroad tank cars, and isn't generally sold by itself as a consumer product. It looks like a semi-viscous, transparent liquid. Although HFCS is similar in appearance to ordinary corn-syrup, used by home bakers, they are not the same product, as another editor has pointed out above. Thus, a photo of an unmarked, clear jar of clear liquid might do, but would it really be HFCS? Would a photo of a Cargill tanker, marked 'Corn Products' do? Geoff ^{T C} 23:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Added the tanker photo. Geoff ^{T C} 01:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a photo of a tanker is a good photo to illustrate high fructose corn syrup. I think no photo would be better than a photo of a tanker. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

leptin: confusing sentence

The following sentence under "Health Effects" is confusing: "Although the rats that had consumed high levels of fructose showed no change in weight, when compared to the rats that had consumed no fructose fat or levels of leptin in the blood were shown to have developed leptin resistance." Does it need a comma after "fructose"?... "...rats that had consumed no fructose, fat or levels of leptin..." I'm hesitant to add it myself since I'm not an expert in this stuff -- just an interested reader. Peytonbland (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Journalist moonlighting as biochemist

Removed:

-==tv segement I saw==- I was watching some nutrionist on the news discuss how hf corn syrup cannot be broken down by any organ in your body except your liver .. is this true? she also said it can lead to fatty liver disease. I think this junk should be removed from the food supply. One of my favorite foods is cheese flavored rice cakes, and they even have corn syrup. Why would you need to put corn syrup in a cheese flavored snack. this stuff is every where. its like they are trying to poison the entire snack food supply. I laugh at the commercials they show trying to trick ignorant people into thinking this stuff is good for us. what an insult. corn has plenty of legititmate uses, they dont need to peddle it as crummy hfcs, the word is out, the people have woken up, get rid of it already. boycott it and everything that has it in it. and then write the big food companies like kraft etc and tell them you dont want hf corn sryup in your foods. I know they are out for profits, but they dont need to be trading our health for their bottom line. Wow even things like hot dogs have it, its incredible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.81.2 (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In his recent book In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto, journalist Michael Pollan claims that the way that the body processes HFCS is different from the way it processes the glucose and fructose found in other sugars. Digesting sucrose requires the production of an enzyme called sucrase, which breaks the bond between the glucose molecule and the fructose molecule. Because the body regulates its production of sucrase, it can only digest sucrose at a certain rate. Because digesting HFCS does not require sucrase, the rate at which it is digested is not similarly regulated by the body.

A journalist is not an authoritative source for biochemical processes. In order to include this theory, you need to cite the studies he cited, not the journalist himself. The way this paragraph is written, it sounds like this guy is just discussing armchair/pet theories. It also had a "citation needed" tag, but even if the material was directly sourced from his book, that would not be sufficient here.

American Journal of Nutrition 2008 supplement

Hey, there's a supplement dedicated to HFCS in a December 2008 issue: Supplement: High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS): Everything You Wanted to Know, but Were Afraid to Ask. II | (t - c) 17:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

POV in "health effects" section

I deleted the comment in the "Health Effects" section saying that "critics" claimed that a conflict of interests tainted the HFCS studies that were funded by the corn and beverage producers. If this is so, provide a citation. The paragraph already states that the studies were funded by these organizations. So why also tack a POV sentence on the end? Regardless, there is no evidence that the data is wrong or was corrupted by this conflict. Rather, these studies were plain jane, outsourced studies that were unaffected by the source of funds. Much research is funded by parties that have an interest in the results. This is one of the ways research gets done at all. When this happens, the organizations agree to pay for studies regardless of their outcome. That is one of the caveats necessary to go ahead with such research. This is because it is scandalous to the researchers/doctors/scientists when research is corrupted. So, assuming that there is no evidence of corruption, a simple acknowledgement (which is already in place) that the corn and beverage producers provided funding should be sufficient and non-POV. ask123 (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Kind of ridiculous to claim that a study ordered by any company is ok, just because you call it "outsourced". Anything that is paid for by one entity is under some form of control by that entity. As if an employee does not know and is not painfully aware of who funds and pays his bills and wages. This kind of a setup would never have been allowed in any nordic contries or scandinavia, I can tell you that much for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.44.195 (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all pharmaceutical studies are paid by corporate entities. Do Nordic countries have no pharmaceuticals? AGeorgas (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Justification for deletion of statement

“One common criticism of these ads is that despite the fact that they claim HFCS is "fine in moderation," American consumers generally consume relatively large amounts of it every day as it is found in an increasing number of products.”

I deleted this statement because: 1. It is unsourced 2. It is a red herring. 3. It’s a silly statement in general. Criticizing moderation based on the “difficulty” of doing so due to available products? That’s like saying it’s not fine to moderate one’s consumption of meats or trans fats because they’re readily available.

Point is, it’s a stupid statement best better explained or perhaps split into different arguments, but if someone finds a way to cite it and find a way to tie the two together without it seeming like “Point A isn’t valid because ‘OOH LOOK SHINY look over here at Point B!’” then go for it.74.190.101.233 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Removed unsourced criticism in violation of WP:WW, needs to be in a different section for criticism but doesnt belong under health effects and needs to be heavily reworded to have any kind of relevance. 75.74.138.80 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for using the talk page to explain your edit. The only potential weasel word I see is the word "some", but it isn't really, because the subsequent paragraph describes who "some" are. Arguably, the word could be omitted entirely, but it doesn't bother me. As a whole, it seems to me that the text in question does belong under health effects and is highly relevant (and adequately sourced). If you think that rewording is indicated, please propose changes here rather than restoring your deletion again. Rivertorch (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Glucose-fructose syrup

I just read on a blog reference that glucose-fructose syrup (UK name for HFCS) may also be made from sugar and potato or wheat starch, meaning the main article needs updating when a credible reference can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrzippyuk (talk • contribs) 08:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Source

Great story discussing HFCS in the New York Times today: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/business/02syrup.html

If no one wants to add it just yet, I'll do it in a few days once I'm done with my finals. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

practical cooking question

when making a recipe that calls for hfcs what can i use to replace it? honey? some combination of molasses/honey/brownsugar/refined sugar? i would like to avoid hfcs, it grosses me out! specifically i am looking at recipes to "pecan bourbon pie" any pointers, i would be delighted! my email is dhull@oberlin.edu

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.162.218.70 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

The recipes I've seen for such things call for "regular" (Karo) corn syrup, which is not HFCS, but is regular low fructose corn syrup. If it were HFCS, honey or can sugar syrup would be a good substitute, but since regular corn syrup is not as sweet as HFCS, it's harder to substitute for. That difference in sweetness is why it's exciting to have HFCS if you are a junk food manufacturer. (Karo is actually a mixture of regular CS and HFCS, but CS is first on the ingredients list, so it's at least mainly regular CS.)Ccrrccrr 03:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine invert sugar would be a good substitute. Honey would probably work well too and might even be an improvement in flavor. Either way, you might have to tweak the amount used.The myoclonic jerk (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Maple, sorghum, or both. Several years ago, I experimented with replacing the Karo called for in our family's "traditional" pecan pie recipe. Maple & sorghum syrup (a truly traditional Southern sweetener), 50:50, is a wonderful blend, sweet without making you dizzy, and with a complex, not just in-your-face-sweet, flavor. 74.244.57.184 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

jwanderson edit rationale

I moved fructose specific information to the Fructose page.

The paragraphs on beverages were confusing and redundant, so cleaned those up.

Sucrose and HFCS have about the same ratio of glucose to fructose; they are essentially interchangeable from a nutritional point of view. It doesn't matter to a cell in the body where any molecule came from. Once something is digested and absorbed into the blood stream, the cells and molecules in the body must deal with it; the source doesn't matter as long as it's there.

Certainly identical molecules of glucose have the same effect irrespective of source, but when considering the nutritional impact of sucrose and an equivalent amount of fructose plus glucose all bets are off. It is true that sucrose will be converted to glucose before it reaches the cells, but lots of factors will be different. The physiological impact of an ingested compound will be determined by a complex interplay between different organs, different cell types and different enzymes. A significant source of difference is that with sucrose, the extra step required to convert the sugar reduces the peak blood glucose level from what it would be for an equivalent dose of pure glucose, which is all available to cells from the moment it is absorbed in the blood stream. 69.110.149.168 (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

HFCS has been blamed for the current health crisis, but it is really the increase in total metabolic fructose that is the relevant variable, since fructose is about 10X more active chemically than glucose. It just happens that beverages are the most significant source of the increased fructose that is causing the trouble. In Europe, pop is usually sweetened with sugar instead of HFCS. The same trend of increasing sweetened beverages and increasing rates of chronic degenerative diseases is playing out there, but they are behind us on the curve.

Just a note: 42% HFCS is often called corn syrup on nutritional labels. It shouldn't be, but there appears to be a loophole in FDA rules that allows this. If anyone has specifics on this, I'd like to know.

Jwanderson 06:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)jwanderson

Are you sure that the corn syrup on the label is always the HFCS? The two are often used together, along with many other corn products such as xantham gum and maltodextrose. 82.93.133.130 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean my plan of living without water by pumping a mixture hydrogen and oxygen into my body won't work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The myoclonic jerk (talk • contribs) 09:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Coca cola without HFCS

This might not be the best place to ask, but I was wondering if there was a site that listed places where imported coca cola can be bought that contains actual sugar instead of HFCS. I know of at least one location myself, and was wondering if there was a website that listed them. If so, a link should be added to that website, I think.--SkiDragon 19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There is kosher coca cola in usa grocery stores during passover. it has yellow cap. it has sucrose(sugar) instead of hfcs. 71.99.126.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I was in the Bahamas last year (2008) and the Coca-cola had cane sugar, not HFCS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.192.112 (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It is sometimes marketed year-round as Mexican Coke. I believe there are also areas in the US where the coke is simply produced exclusively without HFCS. --96.27.18.247 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in health effects section: Fructose

All of the discussion in the health effects section that refer to studies of "fructose" should either be eliminated or clarified appropriately.

I know much of this is stated already in the article. But I'll summarize it here just to be clear why "fructose" studies are often misapplied to draw conclusions about HFCS. "High fructose" does not mean that fructose is highly concentrated or even is the most prominent component of the chemical; it simply means that it's higher in fructose than "normal" corn syrup (which is almost all glucose).

This is a common NPOV problem in many web resources on HFCS (including this article), but FRUCTOSE ≠ HFCS. Let me say that again: fructose is not the same as HFCS. In fact, most of the goods that contain HFCS other than soft drinks often result in LESS consumption of fructose than the equivalent consumption of normal table sugar. Why? Sucrose (common table sugar that most people don't think is responsible for all the evil health effects listed here) is composed of 50% glucose and 50% fructose. Some digestive enzymes (collectively known as sucrase) break down the vast majority of sucrose in our bodies into glucose and fructose. HFCS is commonly either 42% or 55% fructose, instead of the 50% in normal sucrose sugar. Yes, this is a difference, but the fact is that HFCS quantities can be higher or lower in fructose than normal sugar.

Why does this matter? Because any study of *fructose* that doesn't actually ever use HFCS or have a control group consuming normal sucrose isn't studying the relative strengths/weaknesses of HFCS at all. 100% fructose is not the same as HFCS, and feeding it to mice or whatever doesn't tell us anything about the difference between HFCS and normal sugar (sucrose), and it may or may not have any relevance to the metabolic consequences of HFCS consumption.

Let me give a clear analogy: let's say I wanted to study the effect of drinking a vodka tonic every day after work. Do I feed mice straight tonic water? No. If I did that, I wouldn't see any effect of consuming vodka. Similarly, I shouldn't feed them straight vodka either. Moreover, if I feed them 100% tonic water, I certainly can't draw conclusions about the relative health effects of a 42% versus a 50% solution of tonic/vodka (which is almost equivalent to the difference between sucrose and HFCS).

Granted -- the role of sucrase is actually important and should be included in studies... but that's why we need to compare the health effects of HFCS and sucrose directly (something VERY few studies do). Only those studies tell us something useful about whether HFCS is a healthy or harmful alternative to normal table sugar. The ones only about "fructose," though, can only give us a small part of the story, just like a vodka tonic study that omits the vodka.

P.S. I know this means nothing since I'm posting anonymously, but I'm not a lobbyist -- I just believe that there are problems with excessive sugar consumption, period. I personally think HFCS should be removed from 95% of the products it is used in, but that's just because I think there's too much sugar in most things... not because HFCS is supposedly a poison just because it contains "fructose" in its name.66.30.15.98 (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

After reading further, I take issues with the "mercury scare" as well. See my comment above.66.30.15.98 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Along these lines I feel that the third paragraph should be removed because it is completely about pure fructose and not HFCS. Does anyone have any other comments for or against this study? AGeorgas (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have an issue with your analogy, and consequently with the edits in the article. Sucrose is a compound, just like water is a compound. Water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen. Sucrose can be broken down into fructose and glucose. However, mixing glucose and fructose in equal parts does not make sucrose. Table sugar is 100 percent sucrose--a single entity. HFCS is glucose and fructose mixed together--it is a mixture. It does not matter what the proportions of fructose and glucose are, it is still glucose and fructose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.224.31 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, misleading fructose studies in "Health Effects"

Even if we leave out all of the studies by the Corn Lobby in this article, we're left with 7 studies that are cited, supposedly to demonstrate the effects of HFCS. Of those 7, the majority (4) of the studies actually only study pure fructose, rather than HFCS. As has been pointed out previously on the talk page, and as is actually mentioned multiple times in the article, HFCS usually contains the same amount of fructose as table sugar (sometimes slightly slightly less, sometimes slightly more).

Of the 3 remaining studies that actually study HFCS, one didn't compare its effect to sucrose (table sugar), one said that the effects of HFCS is the same as sucrose, and the final one does conclude that HFCS is worse than sucrose, but only in soft drinks. And in that final study, notably, the concern isn't fructose -- it's carbonyl compounds presumably produced by the unbound nature of glucose and fructose compared to table sugar.

So, what would a rational person conclude from the seven studies cited in this article (again, completely ignoring the ones from the Corn Lobby, some of whose research may actually be valid, but let's just ignore it):

(1) High consumption of sugar is probably bad -- whether sucrose, fructose, glucose, or any blend of the above.

(2) Fructose when consumed alone is also bad; it's probably worse than consuming an equal quantity of sucrose. (We don't know about HCFS vs. sucrose.)

(3) In the one study that claims that HFCS is worse than sucrose, it's apparently only true in soft drinks, but that was measuring other compounds in the drinks, not health effects. And the putative health effects from that difference could be called into question by the other study that compared people who actually consumed drinks with HFCS and fructose and found no significant difference between those two groups.

(4) In the one other study that actually studied a diet with HFCS, no control group was used with sucrose or any other alternative sweetener, so the bad effects were probably to do with a high fat and high sugar diet, rather than related to anything dealing with HFCS in particular.

In other words, according to ALL the peer-reviewed research in this article, there is nothing implicating health effects caused by HFCS in particular, except perhaps in some soft drinks, and even there, the health effects of the chemical differences are at least partially contradicted by another study.

Moreover, even if we could use these studies to condemn HFCS on the basis of fructose content alone, why can't we also condemn honey (which, as the article even notes, has a similar sugar composition with more fructose). Or what about condemning various fruits? Why aren't there "health effects" sections in the "Honey" article on Wikipedia discussing the dangers of fructose? Why aren't these same studies cited in the articles on "Fruit"? Would those editors around here who argue in favor of this section step up in my defense if I start adding such sections to articles on other sweeteners (even those that are supposedly "natural")?

I'm afraid the only explanation here is a massive agenda. Sugar consumption may be out of control for many people -- and we should be doing everything we can to cut down on sugar consumption in general (whether HFCS, honey, white sugar, brown sugar, "natural" sugar, etc.), but this whole section comes across as an attempt to demonize HFCS without any significant evidence that it's any worse than anything else. Why? 65.96.161.79 (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not exist to "condemn" anything; they describe verifiably significant diverse viewpoints, weighted towards mainstream thought and scientific consensus (where it exists). This article, which periodically is a bit of a battleground, most certainly should discuss the ongoing controversy regarding HFCS, as it does now. Your conclusions about the studies in question may well be correct, but they're still your conclusions. If you find a reliable source whose conclusions match yours, please add it to the article or propose it here. (Btw, you generally will find it more productive simply to note the deficiencies of a given article, rather than attributing them to shadowy agendas and the like. Agendas come in all shapes and sizes, and while you may think you see one lurking in text written by your fellow editors, they may in turn think they see one lurking in yours.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I will look for reliable sources. But in response to the idea of an "agenda," I must say that when the majority of critical studies mentioned in an article (4 of 7) don't even study the subject of an article, I suspect that something is being manipulated. As for my "agenda," if you want to call it that, I stated it plainly. I worry about too much sugar consumption in general, and studies have shown that excessive amounts of HFCS, white sugar, natural sugar, honey, corn syrup, etc. all have contributed to major health problems, and the amount of it used in processed foods should ALL be decreased. There is a lot of misinformation being circulated around the internet targeting HFCS, as if that were the only demon, but it's part of a larger problem. The fact that soft drink companies are willing to put huge amount of sucrose in our drinks instead of HFCS is not going to solve the health problems caused by excessive sugar consumption, and "natural foods" people who promote honey instead of HFCS are actually consuming almost a chemically-identical substance.

Now, that's my informed opinion on the matter (and it's based on the current scientific consensus), but that's irrelevant to whether this article portrays HFCS information accurately when it cites studies that don't actually study HFCS. Nor is my "agenda" relevant to the question of whether honey, various fruits, and various inverted sugar products have the same or a higher amount of fructose than HFCS, yet these studies aren't mentioned on their Wikipedia pages. For some reason, HFCS is singled out. That's inconsistent treatment. I'm pointing that out. If you think pointing out such a discrepancy is an "agenda," then that's your opinion. I apologize if I offended you. I just want to see consistency and reason. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken. I was just pointing out that there isn't only one agenda at issue here. For instance, if you comb through the history of the article, you'll see that agents of "Big Corn" have almost certainly left their footprints on the scene, too. One reality about Wikipedia is that it's rarely possible to know exactly who anyone else is and what some of their motives might be, so I think it's usually pointless (and often counterproductive) to speculate about such things in article talk space. Discussing strictly only the edits and not the editors seems to be a better approach. I could be wrong in this instance, but I doubt it. Rivertorch (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps you misunderstood what I meant when I first mentioned an "agenda." I wasn't suggesting that there was a conspiracy of Wikipedia editors who compiled this section to mislead anyone. I wasn't actually questioning the motives of the editors here, per se. I was questioning the motives of the many people involved in various stages of the process that ultimately led to this portrayal on Wikipedia. For example, I assume that many editors who put these citations into this article didn't find them by reading medical journals; they probably found them on various blogs and websites devoted to "natural foods," or they saw references in media articles that hyped up conclusions that may have only been speculations in the discussion section of a scientific article, rather than what the primary conclusions of the studies were.

As I understand it, part of the process of creating an encyclopedia is to sort out fact from fiction. Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" will inevitably include sources that contradict each other. In this particular case, it struck me that there was a bunch of evidence criticizing a substance, but much of that evidence is not clearly linked to the subject being criticized. While such studies may also be used on blogs, websites, and even some media reports to criticize that substance, that doesn't mean that there's real evidence linking the research to that substance. (Or, if there is, that same evidence would link it to many other substances, as I pointed out before.)

In the end, I understand that Wikipedia can only be as good as the sources it depends upon. And I'm not trying to assert my own ideas (which of course would be original research). I'm just pointing out that, from a purely rational standpoint, there are a bunch of studies here on fructose that are cited (even of questionable relevance) when they aren't cited elsewhere. That strikes me as inconsistent, and such inconsistency would seem to be against the overall goals of an encyclopedia. Whether that's due to Wikipedia's editors, the media sources or web sources that they are relying upon, or even the original authors of the studies themselves, I don't know, and I'm not pointing a finger at a particular person or group. I'm just pointing out a rather obvious example of inconsistent treatment.

And, by the way, for another example of assuming an agenda, were you the one who inappropriately posted a threatening warning on the talk page for my IP address? (I only ask, because you now have posted another thing there.) If you did, just in response to one post here, I think you might want to reflect in on yourself about seeing hidden agendas and critiquing the messenger, rather than the message.65.96.161.79 (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I placed a Welcome template on your talk page. And unless you have had something oversighted, that's the only edit anyone has ever made to your talk page. Do you have a dynamic IP, by any chance? If so, registering for an account would be an excellent idea. (It's a good idea, anyway, but if your IP address changes, you inevitably will receive warnings intended for someone else.) Rivertorch (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if my accusation was incorrect. That's the only edit that shows up because the previous talk page for the IP (where a warning appeared soon after I posted my first post on this talk page) was nuked by an admin after I reported an inappropriate warning. As for why I choose not to edit regularly or as a registered user, you can look that up on the admin discussion if you really care. I personally view the current stigma toward anonymous editors who make non-controversial edits to be a rather bad development in Wikipedia, but that's a rather off-topic discussion for this talk page. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the OP, but have not done anything about it other than adding one of the actual HFCS vs sucrose studies recently. In reality shouldn't all the fructose only stuides be moved to the fructose article? There is already a section for health concerns on the fructose page anyway. This seems like a reasonable and scientifically accurate fix to me. In my opinion the article in its current form, is like putting all the health risks associated with heavy water under the water page. AGeorgas (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs balance to reflect the controversy

Specifically, increased scrutiny of the way HFCS affects brain chemistry & appetite. As the article stands now there is no indication of health controversy within the opening paragraphs. In the 'health effects' section, there are too many studies summarized which seem to be simply repeating what the Corn business says. I can guess why, given the discussions above and whatnot, but what can we do about balancing this beast? Btw, Starbucks is another noteworthy business saying no to HFCS. PrBeacon (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Helpful to the sugar industry" is another subsection which seems skewed POV, even if just in the title alone. PrBeacon (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by, "too many studies summarized which seem to be simply repeating what the Corn business says"? A majority of the studies cited do not paint HFCS in a positive light. What is your suggestion on making the article more balanced? Although Starbucks has removed HFCS from their syrups, they still have sucrose in them, which will still lead to your appetite not being satiated. AGeorgas (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Many of us disagree with your characterization of the study summaries. Furthermore, your comments throughout this talk page indicate your bias in favor of HFCS so i'm not surprised to see you still defending it. Specifically, you've reverted two of recent edits: you claim HFCS is a sugar which is ridiculous by any common standard, no matter how it is scientifically classified; and it has been shown to contain mercury and other toxic substances so the introductory information is accurate. PrBeacon (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The new title for the comparisons section gives undue weight to cane sugar and honey being natural and pushes the POV that they are more healthy because they are natural. The most neutral POV is the scientific one, which is why it should be reverted. The "common standard" can be swayed by any POV. AGeorgas (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what exactly is your disagreement is with the study summaries? You say many of you disagree with the current study summaries, but you are the first one that has brought up anything about how the summaries are worded. The new citation that you put on the "toxic" sentence violates Wikipedia:SYNTH because it was published after the original CBS article. This citation should not be used to back up the toxic wording. Also, the toxic claim possibly violates Wikipedia:UNDUE because the actual sentence in the CBS article doesn't say critics feel it is a "toxic concoction", but says "a lot of health-conscious people think it’s a toxic chemical concoction". A minority opinion should not be in the first section of the article. So overall, it is hard to justify why the current wording should remain in the first section of the article. The sentence about the corn industry groups is non-NPOV anyway because there are cited journal articles that weren't funded by the CRA while stating HFCS yields the same effects as sugar. Overall, I'm not saying that these two sentences you added should be taken out, but they should definitely be re-written. AGeorgas (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the non-NPOV, uncited wording in the first paragraph and added a citation to a report adpoted by the American Medical Association's House of Delegates at their 2008 Annual Meeting. It concludes that, "it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose."AGeorgas (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lots of controversy on this topic, and it appears that much of the wiki clean-up effort has been painful. Today's Duke University study is another item that I'm sure will stir the pot in the overall debate. Since I'm not a chemist, I didn't try to explain the study's findings. Deidra71 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There are other editors above & in this talkpage's archives who question the study summaries and other bogus claims of research. PrBeacon (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If anything this is currently unblanced to the other view, the article is to against HFCS, and also lacks relvent sources to express these ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.194.210 (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving needed

This talk page is getting long. If no one objects, I'll sic MiszaBot on it sometime this week. Rivertorch (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Object? Heck, just looking at it now, I urge you to go ahead with it! It looks like it has never been archived. I’m seeing comments from 2005!! — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected, I've set up MiszaBot. It's set to move threads older than 6 months. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 00:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

I moved this entry from "Public relations" to "Health Effects", because the information is about a Health Effect, and the only public relations aspect was a bit of rampant speculation by the author, which I deleted.

I'm going to use a comment about the linked press release as an opportunity to rant a little bit. The press release is extremely poorly written; practically a juvenile, cheerleading affair over what should be a serious subject. The article is better (it's at DOI:10.1002/hep.23535); I didn't add a link to the article because it's not open access. Everytime I approach a subject like this, I look for some real information to make an informed judgement, but I find myself spending half my time evaluating the flaws in the studies on both sides. Of course, its worse reading lay reporting, but its pretty awful in the scientific literature as well. This article claims to have evidence of a link between this disease and HFCS. However, their evidence is entirely based on dietary interviews of people with the disease, and worst of all makes no attempt to correct for differences in overall sugar consumption. If they are observing a real effect, there's no way to know if its a result of HFCS, or if exactly the same effect would result from sucrose consumption! And the fact that they include a standard "correlation does not equal causation" disclaimer, really does not excuse such poor logic. TimeLord mbw (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ASCI study

Interesting new paper in the American Society for Clinical Investigation. [1] They propose a theory that fructose is worse than glucose, because the body does not detect it and adjust its metabolism appropriately, like it does with glucose.

That said, I believe high-fructose corn syrup is targeted unfairly, in that almost all sources of sugar are about 50% fructose (HFCS, honey, cane sugar, etc). People should not be misled into thinking that it is OK to consume a lot of sugar as long as they avoid corn syrup. DonPMitchell (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of interest

This could possibly be a red herring, but there is a section in the main topic area of HFCS entitled "public relations" and there is mention of ads by the Corn refiners Association. Since that association has a web site at sweetsurprise.com, I think it's important to mention the following.

When you first enter the site, you are shown a revolving showcase of 5 "experts". The first expert is Dr Arthur Frank. (http://www.vivus.com/corporate-information/scientific-advisory-board/980-dr-arthur-frank ) While he has excellent credentials, what is not shown is that he is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of a company called Vivus. This company makes drugs that are intended to fight obesity and type II diabetes. ( http://www.vivus.com/home )

Since one side of the argument places blame on HFCS for obesity and type II diabetes, one might conclude that having Dr. Frank advocate for the use of HFCS might increase the number of people that could use the pharmaceuticals that the company Dr Frank provides advice to. This could be a conflict of interest.

Gcohen6 (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

this article is a joke

My edit to include a new objective scientific study was reverted with a note to look at the health section of this discussion page. This article provides ample data substantiating an association between HFCS intake and characteristics of obesity, and I think clearly overrides the dated articles (eg. the AMA statement that seems to be from '08, before this research I've included) cited as being critical of claims that HFCS might have any deleterious health effects. Yet I see nothing directly related to this revert here, so am reverting my original changes. IMHO my edit seems very NPOV and clearcut. If something specific about my edit is disputed could you please state the specifics here so the best NPOV article can be hashed out sans the ridiculous bias currently exhibited. Thank you.--75.177.53.174 (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, wasn't logged in. That's me.--Xris0 (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed your edit. I haven't reverted it, because this issue is contentious enough that I don't trust myself. I can tell you exactly why I find your edit inappropriate. 1) Referring to past controversy implies that there no longer exists any controversy regarding the health risks of HFCS. Tagging your changes with "This is not opinion anymore" makes it clear that you understand that you were making that implication. While it might be interesting for us to wonder what exactly makes something opinion versus fact, I think that few would argue that the controversy is settled. 2) Referring to a study in the opening, when there is a section to discuss various studies, implies special consideration of the study cited in the opening. In this case, considering the contradictory findings of previous studies, no study, and especially no animal study, deserves that kind of special consideration. Papers are not out of date when they're two years old. 3) The study you refer to is already discussed in the health section. The citation you include, 13, is actually a pubmed link to the abstract of a paper cited in the health section, under citation 41. 24.21.167.199 (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

First, the paper you cite is not new. It is discussed in the second paragraph of the health effects section. Based on the seemingly random results (sometimes rats on HFCS gain more weight, other times they don't, rats who are on HFCS less time gain more weight than rats on HFCS 100% of the time, etc.) of this study, it is hardly a diffinitve study as you are trying to push. The study was also called into question by the mainstream media, and some of those articles are cited in that paragraph too. If you read the paragraph describing the study you cite, you will see it found that "Fat pads for rats on HFCS 24 hrs/day did not have a statistically different weight than rats on chow only" and "They also reported that the rats on HFCS 24 hrs/day did not gain a statistically significant amount of weight when compared to the rats on sucrose or chow only." So your edit saying the study found that "HFCS is associated with obesity" and "with HFCS specifically causing increased adipose fat and triglyceride levels" is incorrect and misleading. Based on this I'm reverting it back. AGeorgas (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not same as corn syrup

High Fructose Corn Syrup is not the same thing as Corn Syrup and deserves its own page.

Honestly, HFCS tastes terrible. It should be removed from food because it is an industrial product and not a natural food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.166.162 (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Poison

Calling HFCS a "known poison" is absurd. As Paraclesus, the father of pharmacology, said, "the dose makes the poison." ALL substances, including water, are poisons in high enough doses. To let this statement stand means that ALL Wiki articles on any substance should begin by saying that the substance is a known poison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.48.41 (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness: Anybody can add information or misinformation to an article. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 13:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Obesity section

I just removed a bunch of studies that had nothing to do with HFCS from the Obesity section. Can we remove the POV tag now, or does anyone still have any concerns? --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there will always be concerns. I haven't seen how HFCS is particularly dangerous as it is. Aspartame, on the other hand... Oh, and has anyone here seen the TV commercials about HFCS? Maybe the fact that the issue has been brought to the attention of those watching unrelated shows sharing the same ad during the commercial break should be mentioned?--Strabismus (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Aspartame isn’t dangerous either. As an aside, something amusing I’ve noticed is that some people get their misinformation mixed up, e.g. saying tha HFCS can cause problems because “your body doesn’t recognize it as a real sugar”.… — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 13:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the tag both from the Obesity section and the top of the article itself. If anyone still thinks there are problems with the article, please discuss it here (or better still, improve the article!) --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not Sweet Science

The article is inaccurate, obviously biased with non-credible / mis-quoted citations. For brevity sake, here are a few examples problems with the article:

<<High fructose corn syrup is cited by some nutritionists as a leading cause of obesity and is linked to diabetes.[1]>>

The misquoted citation for this statement is a Washington Post article and to quote the article,

"In November, however, Havel and his colleagues published a review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that examined evidence from multiple studies. They concluded that large quantities of fructose from a variety of sources, including table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, induce insulin resistance, impair glucose tolerance, produce high levels of insulin, boost a dangerous type of fat in the blood and cause high blood pressure in animals. "The data in humans are less clear," the team noted. Others are skeptical that high-fructose corn syrup acts differently in the body than table sugar. "I don't see it as a particular evil," says Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a vocal critic of soft drinks, which he dubs "liquid candy." "It wouldn't make much difference if soft drinks were sweetened with sucrose [table sugar] or high-fructose corn syrup."

So while statements were made in the article that fructose was processed differently with potentially different effects to the human body (but no studies), the published review lumped table sugar along with HFCS as causing negative health effects IF OVER-consumed. If the author wishes to use the cited article, than the author needs to change the statement to indicate that consuming large quantities of HFCS and table sugar is cited by some nutritionists vice just consuming HFCS.

Of course the biased author probably didn't want to make that statement because it takes far less HFCS (almost half) to sweeten a product as opposed to table sugar. Thus if American soft drinks were suddenly made with cane sugar exclusively, the collective sugar intake would nearly double assuming the same amount is consumed.

<<Also cited as reasons to avoid HFCS are that it is highly refined, that it might be produced from genetically modified corn, that various molds found on corn might leave harmful byproducts in the final product, or that corn products in general should be avoided. [2], [3]>>

Citation 2 is www.bodyfueling.com authored by a self proclaimed Herbal Expert and a 'Natural' Healer. They have no credentials or scientific evidence to make such claims. Let's stay in the realm of rational science.

Citation 3 is from Dr Joseph Mercola's Total Health shopping site. Instead of a citation that shows serious studies and proven science, we get sales hype from a holistic health practitioner who's pitching Krill Oil and other interesting 'health' supplements. Again, let's stay in the realm of rational science and objectivity.

If the author is looking for credible citations, how about, "Highs and Lows of High Fructose Corn Syrup: A Report From the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, Nutrition Today. 40(6)253-256, November/December 2005. Hein, Gayle L. BS; Storey, Maureen L. PhD; White, John S. PhD; Lineback, David R. PhD Abstract: Since the early 1980s, the prevalence of overweight/obesity in the US population, as well as per capita consumption of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), has increased. Although some public health researchers and administrators hypothesize that these 2 trends are directly related, current research published in the scientific literature does not support a cause-effect relationship between HFCS consumption and overweight/obesity rates. Some explanations for the popularity of these unsupported hypotheses may be due to confusion concerning the compositional differences, or lack thereof, between HFCS, sucrose, and other sweeteners. In addition, failure among individuals in the scientific community to distinguish between HFCS and "corn syrup" may exacerbate the confusion. Before any relationship between HFCS consumption and overweight/obesity can be examined, more information concerning current levels of HFCS in the food supply, as well as individual-level HFCS consumption, must be established."

<<According to some, the usage of HFCS in soft drinks in America degrades the taste, as compared with those made with cane sugar in most other countries.>>

Who is some and where did the author get this factoid? Was it pulled from the nether regions - please revise or eliminate for objectivity.

I am a chemist and biologist and worked as a toxicologist, but even without those qualifications I can tell you as a person who has drank "Mexican coke" bottled in Mexico and made with sucrose as a sweetener. It DOES taste much better than the corn syrup sweetened product bottled in the US. I am not making any health claims, but this is an observation I have personal experience with

<<American HFCS cannot usually be imported to the European Union because of the European Union's moratorium on the production and sale of genetically modified products.>>

Removed because the statement was attempting to imply that HFCS was genetically modified. HFCS is derived from corn. If the corn happens to be GM, than the product might be banned, but HFCS is not the culprit as the statement suggested.

Unfortunately this is a poorly disguised position paper against HFCS. The article should not be a position paper for or against because factual information is often sacrificed in order to perpetuate a particular position.

<<Unlike sucrose, HFCS consists of a mixture of glucose and fructose,>>...<<Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide composed of one unit each of fructose and glucose linked together>>

Are these two statements consistent? If so their consistency should be explained better. My (brief) research says that sucrose is readily digested in the stomach to its component sugars, by acidic hydrolosis. This implies that even if HFCS is an unbonded mixture of free glucose and frustose the difference is insignificant soon after ingestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.210.84 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 14 May 2006

The person above makes some interesting points, but the part on GM (search for "HCFS was genetically modified") seems to be misleading. While the corn that the HCFS is derived from may not be GM, enzymes used in the process to get from the corn to your soft drink have to be taken into account. Seeing as how those concerned with consuming genetically modified products are focused on more than the act of eating them (i.e., there exists a concern for simply growing genetically modified crops), you can't simply say "it comes from non-GM corn, therefore it's not a GM product".

Here is the source (from the corn refiners assoc.) stating that they use "synthetic" (you can't get these guys to say "GM" or "GMO", but it means the same thing -- an engineered product) fixing agents. http://www.corn.org/FDAdecision7-7-08.pdf

Saying that "HCFS is not genetically modified" is no more true than saying "the oil that people put in their cars comes from natural petroleum". My car uses synthetic oil, so the sweeping statement in either direction is patently false. — Mike :  tlk  20:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cancer growth

I reverted this for a number of reasons:

- it is about fructose, not HFCS

- it just tested cancer cells in a lab, not in vivo

- it is a single study, but we rely mainly on high-quality reviews (see WP:MEDRS).

- the same would be true of sucrose.

Overall, it is too early to add something like this to the HFCS article. Adding it strongly implies that HFCS causes pancreatic cancer, which is a long way from being proven (or even plausible). It adds a WP:POV to the article that HFCS might cause pancreatic cancer, which isn't matched by the available evidence. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion on the talk page. I cannot agree with your reasons for deletion. To answer your points:

It is about fructose, as in high FRUCTOSE corn syrup

Many tests are done in the lab, not in vivo. I'm really surprised you have a problem with this.

Many, many wikipedia entries are single studies.

This study is just a study and of course does not prove anything. To suggest that a relationship to cancer is not even plausible is fine for you to believe, but we must let wikipedia readers be aware of the research and come to their own conclusions. Gandydancer (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is specifically about HFCS, not fructose. Also, we should not generally have single studies in wikipedia - that goes against WP:MEDRS. If other articles have single sources, they may need to be removed or changed - that is certainly not an excuse for breaking the rules on this page. There are some reasons why you might have single studies, but this is not one of them. Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:RECENT. Also note that CBS most definitely not a reliable source for medical info! --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sciencewatcher. Fructose is also contained in sucrose, fruit, honey, etc. Because of this, putting this article in the HFCS article goes against WP:UNDUE.AGeorgas (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have added the study and informed readers that it has long been known that cancer cells feed on sucrose. I feel that this will show that fructose does not "cause" cancer, but like sucrose "feeds" cancer. This study is important because it is the first to show this information. Gandydancer (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the points above. Please actually read WP:MEDRS, WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT and you will see that this fails those policies on many counts. I have reverted. It is certainly not the case that we 'must let wikipedia readers be aware of the research' - this is an encyclopedia and we should be very selective about what research is included, as described in the previously mentioned policies. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, one step at a time. I will agree that newspaper accounts often are not acceptable, however what is your problem with the study and the journal it is published in?Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the study or the journal. The problem is including it in this article. It is a single study so fails MEDRS and WEIGHT. It is a recent study, so fails RECENT. It isn't even about HFCS so it fails common sense. How come you're just adding this to the HFCS article and not to the fructose or glucose articles? --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to explain it another way: the reason we don't normally include single studies is because a future study may invalidate it. Wikipedia isn't meant to have the most recent or complete information on a particular subject - it is meant to present the scientific consensus. We shouldn't be including single studies because that skews the point of view of the article towards something that may or may not turn out to be important. Single studies should only generally be used to give more information about something that is also covered by a high quality review. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've edited many articles and this is the first time I've heard "We shouldn't be including single studies because that skews the point of view of the article towards something that may or may not turn out to be important. Single studies should only generally be used to give more information about something that is also covered by a high quality review." Can you please show me where this information is located in the Wikipedia quidelines? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

From MEDRS: "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above".

And: "If an important scientific result is so new that no reliable reviews have been published on it, it may be helpful to cite the primary source that reported the result. Although popular-press news articles and press releases often tout the latest phase II clinical trial, such trials are rarely important enough to mention in an encyclopedia. Any such results should be described as being from a single study".

It's a judgement call as to whether a primary source should be included when no secondary sources are available, depending on how "important" the study is. In this case because it is not specifically about HFCS I don't think it makes sense to include it. Also see WP:RECENT --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cancer growth, continued

OK, I'm jumping in late. But, I guess I have to agree with your statement that "It adds a WP:POV to the article that HFCS might cause pancreatic cancer, which isn't matched by the available evidence." I think the sub-section ought to have been named more specifically, like "Cancer Cell Growth" or something. ... Anyway, I think the significance of the study is that the cells reacted very differently to the different sugars and that that was unexpected. It seems to be relevant to the controversies around HFCS (which the article mentioned). Probably there's a better way to integrate this information into the article. Not sure about WP:RECENT, but it seems like an awfully straight-forward trial. Not disputing the reversion really, but just asking everyone where and how this information might properly fit into the article. Thanks. Kace7 (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why it should be added at all - it's about fructose, not HFCS. You may as well add it to the sucrose article. This really does smell of POV to me. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it should be added to the sucrose article too. The relevance to this article would be if HFCS increases fructose consumption overall compared to sugar. I'm not sure if that's the case. Kace7 (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Chemically modified, not genetically modified

I'm reasonably sure that high fructose corn syrup is not GENETICALLY modified. The corn syrup is modified after it is removed from the plant. The genes of the corn plant are not involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.42.167 (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited source states "Eighty-five percent of the corn crop is also genetically modified, and, in the form of high-fructose corn syrup, is found throughout the food system." I've clarified that it is the corn and not the HFCS that is genetically modified. Ideally we'd cite a source that said what percentage of HFCS was made from GM corn, but I doubt anyone knows. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed another statement

I also removed the statement at the end of the introduction that stated "Most corn grown in the US is genetically modified corn," as it is irrelevant, at least in the introduction. -Sept 5, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.135.141 (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. That sentence was a left-over from when the article said "Over 85% of the corn syrup produced in the United States is a genetically modified product", which isn't true, as discussed below. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Corn sugar"

In an attempt to sidestep the growing public opposition to HFCS, the US maize industry is attempting to get high-fructose corn syrup labeled as "corn sugar": [2]. This article should reflect that. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the info yesterday to that section and was waiting for reports and reaction to surface so I could cite. I absolutely want to include opposition to HFCS as it is a genetically modified and synthetic compound that wreaks havoc on humans and their environment. --Sfiga (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Price controls

It should be explained in the "production" section the history of why corn syrup became prominent over refined sugar in the United States. The reason is because the united States imposed price controls and tariffs on sugar, pushing the price in the US above worldwide market price, thus creating the market for corn syrup, which unlike sugar cane is grown and packaged in the US. This is very important for the article. 24.207.131.20 (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree and wish I had time. However, I hope that you will consider doing an edit yourself. Don't worry if you don't get it just right - others will join in and help. Sign in first so you can easily track this article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fructose

I think the article might want to touch on a few issues. First, it is largely fructose which should be credited for some of the long-term metabolic effects of sucrose or HFCS, at least in medical literature. Both HFCS and sucrose contain lots of fructose, but slightly more in HFCS. Second, the fructose in HFCS is delivered in monosaccharide form. How much delay is involved in the sucrase-based processing of sucrose? Finally, the fructose (and glucose) of sucrose is protected from reaction with other compounds (reactions mentioned several times), as their ketone/aldehyde groups are covalently bound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.252.248 (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the edits above and below and consider doing the edit yourself or presenting a possible addition with a reference here on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Obesity gains

I feel that the article doesn't reflect this article at all. I came to wikipedia to read up on the information, but it seems that this article is biased and disputes this claim.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

to anyone that would update and add information (or make it more easily recognizable) thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.96.236 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see we already include this and our coverage seems to be more balanced than the Princeton news story, ironically. See for yourself - here is the full-text. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok after actually reading the Bocarsley referece sited in this article I corrected some errors in it. The actual study itself can be found at the following link:

http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.127.33 (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was correct originally and you introduced errors! The article said that rats did not gain significant weight on 24h HFCS - that is correct. I think you are getting confused with 12h HFCS (under which they did gain weight, and the article already says that). Please read the study carefully, especially the results. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm astonished: That is a seriously fucked up paper. The paper prominently states: "3.3. Female rats with 7 months of HFCS access gain significantly more body weight compared with sucrose-fed controls". (See page source for full quote) This is, ahem, BULLSHIT. LOOK on the previous page, which shows: Female rats with 7 months of 12-h HFCS + 12-h chow access having LESS body weight than those with 12-h sucrose + 12-h chow access. The former also had LESS body fat than the latter! And they had the SAME TG levels (128 mg/dL)! Holy statistical misrepresentation, Batman! Shame on the authors - and on the journal's reviewers! It's clear to me that the Princeton news article, and the study authors' own interpretation of their results, are NOT RELIABLE. --Elvey (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Their abstract and conclusions don't seem to reflect the results they got in the paper. That is why I chose to actually take the results from their paper rather than just relying on their conclusions, and I see you have expanded on that. We really aren't meant to do that in wikipedia, but then if we strictly followed MEDRS we probably shouldn't be quoting this study at all. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't quiet understand how you two come up with this determination that the article completely contradicts itself, and in fact proves the opposite of what it says, however, do you have any idea, any inkling, that if what you are saying is true, then everyone who did the study should lose their reputations and jobs? You do realize this, right? What I want to know is, if what you Sciencewatcher, and you, Elvey are saying is really true, why are you only mentioning it in the discussion section of a Wikipedia article? What you should be doing is not editing wikipedia, but bringing this up to Princeton (or directly with the writers of the article/people who did the study, or their supervisors) and doing what you can there to see to it that the alleged wrongs are uncovered and corrected. Why aren't you doing that? Why set the record straight here in some place anyone can edit, and not go to the source that you are complaining about? --Radical Mallard (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I will point out another gross bias in the study. "HFCS was an 8% solution (Nature's Flavors®, Formula 55, v/v dissolved in tap water, 0.24 kcal/mL), and sucrose was given as a 10% solution (Domino® Granulated Pure Cane Sugar, w/v, dissolved in tap water, 0.4 kcal/mL)." They were using flavored HFCS vs unflavored sugar water. 74.70.13.107 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the "gross bias"? You do realize the difference between the term "gross bias" and "inaccuracy" and "intentional lie", right? Could you please repeat what you said with a better explanation of what you are getting at?Radical Mallard (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit unlikely they'd do something as ridiculous as that. Are you sure it is flavoured? I can't find any mention of "formula 55" on naturesflavors.com. Just because their company has the word 'flavors' in the title doesn't necessarily mean anything. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. http://www.naturesflavors.com/product_info.php?cPath=8&products_id=1910 . Still they used differing concentrations of HFCS and Sugar which could have easily contributed to the palatability of the drink. They tracked calories and have used the data to jump to conclusions but didn't disclose the actual consumption calories of drink and chow in the paper. 74.70.13.107 (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't realizing you were wrong about your initial assumption make you re-evaluate your second, new assumption? On what basis do you assume bias? And what exactly is the bias?Radical Mallard (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)