Talk:Sugar/Archive 1

Production and processing and chemistry

The refining process as described refers to Cane extraction only and not to Beet extraction which takes its own distinct form. I may supply a text myself - having spent about 13 years in the industry.

The text is more knowledgable on cane than beet, presumably the author is better versed in the one than the other. For example the cane sugar countries are identified but not the beet sugar ones.

On the subject of the chemistry

Sugars are taken to go up to about 4 units, certainly the trisaccharides dersever to be included as sugars.

Sugar under a microscope

Today, I was curious and examined some sugar. It's different from salt because it's NOT cubed. It's broken and messy.

Removed some junk science from "Naturopath"

The article had this paragraph that called sugar a "drug" and linked to an artcle by a "Naturopath" who had a degree in "pre-med". I took it out because if I wanted to read splogs there are already many places on the web to do that. Your a big fat meanie. And also who the heck are you?

Direct link to the FAO WHO UN diet research

Here it is for someone who knows how to update the citations: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/AC911E/ac911e07.htm#bm07.1.3

Bad Article?

Certainly worse than not-good. I propose that this page be used as a gateway, reference work or entry page to the many facets of sugars. It should be structured as an extended introduction and summary of specific pages. Sugar, in general parlance, means nothing more than "table sugar" or sucrose. This is what the vast majority of people mean by sugar when they do a search or look-up. Wikipedia is targeted at everyone so a general description page with entry points makes sense to me. Chemical structures are not necessary on this page (see sucrose, saccharide, etc.) I think the merger proposal with sucrose was not totally off base but this page can provide good service to a wide audience. It will take a lot of effort. Codwiki (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codwiki (talk • contribs)

This is indeed a "bad" work, I understand why it is locked, but it is locked as truly bad. It implies that excessive sugar intake itself causes diabetes. Its overuse contributes to obesity and obesity contributes to diabetes. It's like saying eating causes "x", therefore, one should not eat.

This is a classic example of the problem with Wikipedia...and why it should not be relied upon for *any* information. It's like relying on The Daily Show for news. 68.189.164.199 (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Too many dubious sugar links

I've deleted a few of these links because they seem to me either biased, or in one case a seemingly blatant attempt to commit fraud (I talk of the Icumsa45.com link). In general, and specifically as regards health and socio-economic aspects, it seems to me that the subject of Sugar ought to be placed in Wikipedia's special category of contentious articles. 86.5.104.143 (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)hoolio46

bulk density wrong?!

those bulk densities don't make sense! they imply sugar is less dense than WATER, i.e. that sugar would FLOAT in water!! This page makes more sense: http://www.iun.edu/~cpanhd/C101webnotes/matter-and-energy/density.html (makes sense that sugar is denser than water!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.181.150 (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sugar is poison

Hello, as I was reading the article, I noticed that citation 2 links to an article at all-creatures.org. Browsing through the site, and according to her resume, Gerry Coffey has a B.S. She's not a doctor or scientist, I don't think that she is a real authority on the subject. That wouldn't bother me so much, but the article that is quoted has no citations, she doesn't cite her sources. Does anyone know of any credible sources? 154.5.185.223 07:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Zeroedout

Actually, it's somewhat worse than the anonymous comment above (correctly) notes. The article cited is written by Michael Dye. I am sure that there are many doctors named Michael Dye, but I suspect that this particular Mr. Dye is the one listed on Amazon as the author of "God's Way to Ultimate Health: A Common Sense Guide for Eliminating Sickness through Nutrition", "The PeaceKeepers", and "Vaccinations: Deception & Tragedy". I'm assuming that these are all by the same man, although that is not 100% clear. I can find no identification of him as a doctor. I did find a description of Mr. Dye, the author of "The PeaceKeepers", as a "Christian Law Enforcement veteran" on http://www.christianlawenforcement.com/. While "law enforcement veteran" is not necessarily incompatible with "Many doctors", this (presumed) inconsistency casts even more doubt on an already questionable claim, prima facie. At a minimum, the footnote should cite a work by a doctor, or be modified to be a true statement. Even better, this batcrap (at least the "poison" part) should be deleted. If I can figure out how to dispute the neutrality of this section, I will. This is supposed to an encyclopedia, not a pulpit. Amccray (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I figured out how to dispute the neutrality. I'll do some more poking around in the next couple of days, and if I can't find anything reputable from some (at least pseudo-) qualified medical type labeling sugar a "poison", I'll delete the statement and the reference. I think it's inappropriate as written. Amccray (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, there are alleged MDs who write this, quite explicitly, at least on the internet. I have removed the dispute of neutrality, cited one, and changed the wording clearly to differentiate this allegation from the other, more reasonable, argument - to classify sugar as a food additive. The other possible citation on the web is http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303141416. Both of these individuals (Spreen and Dean) have multiple books listed on Amazon. Personally, I think they are quacks looking to make a buck, but they are credentialed, and that seems to be the standard in these decayed times. Whatever happened to good judgment and sound sense? Anyway, to answer the question asked in the first entry above, I could find no credible sources--just credentialed ones. Sigh. Amccray (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the part about poison. You cannot in any justification say this. What you mean is it's not good for you or that too much is bad but it is not in any form a poison. The references were not credible sites. Anyone can open a website and have an opinion, Wikipedia means you have authoritative sites. Even having an MD doesn't make you an authority, it just means you have a degree. One of these sites was from a 1939 study that was hopelessly outdated. If you want to state sugar is not good for you that is one thing but poison is simply inaccurate and a weasle word in an attempt to influence people with an agenda. Sugar in the form of refined or sugar in the form of an apple acts upon the body and the teeth more or less the same way. 4.143.237.164 (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)eric

This should debate should probably be looked back into. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM "Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 16717]". Also published here with a quick summary: articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/01/02/HighFructose-Corn-Syrup-Alters-Human-Metabolism.aspx Both go quite into supporting that sugar is a poison, just as ethanol is. Balupton (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Title Sucrose or Sugar

Most of the information in the article SUGAR relates to sucrose, while the aticle SUCROSE is barely more than a stub. I think it would be better if SUGAR discussed and defined sugars in general, with mention or links to blood sugar, diabetes, glucose, corn syrup, candy, and quite a bit else. Much of the current article could be moved to SUCROSE, or the two articles could be combined. The maing sources of sugar are fairly straight forward yet complicated. Read through the article and carefully try memorizing substances in sugar --Anon

I see no harm in moving some of the sucrose specific stuff to its own article. IMO the chemistry section is more important than the sucrose section for this page, and the common applications of sugar could be moved to sucrose and glucose. Someone (me if nobody else goes ahead with it) could add more on bonding between the monomers, structure (linear and ring structures), cis-trans isomers and the shapes of polymers, etc... or perhaps someone's already done that on saccaride... --Steinsky 03:32, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This chemistry graduate disagrees with moving non-chemistry sugar to sucrose. We need to try to keep the common meanings on the initial page and use different pages for in depth specialization. High fructose corn syrup is "sugar" in common usage, so the items can't be moved to sucrose and glucose without confusing people who aren't aware of the chemistry. Those who understand chemistry can better handle the transition to an in depth discussion of the chemistry in another article. I'd hate to have a six year old looking up sugar and finding chemistry rather than food! See also my added note that sugar=diabetes in parts of the southern US. This is to some extent a disambiguation page.

It still seems odd to me to have sucrose be a different article from sugar, especially when table sugar points to sucrose, rather than sugar. It would make more sense to me to merge sucrose into this article, and discuss more general "sugars" elsewhere, like at carbohydrate. Shimmin 03:28, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Commercial sugar is categorized into some 20 grades, the most common seem to be #11 and #14. I suggest this article be augmented with an explanation of what these grades are.WmEKimberlySr 16:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of 20 grades, I can probably name a good dozen including "caster" and "non-pareil" but I've never seen them numbered - is that a country specific thing? I would suggest it went in a subsidiary article such as List of commercial sugar grades rather than cluttering up this one. GraemeLeggett 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Open chain or closed

Glucose exists in an equilibrium of 10% chain, 90% ring, meaning it can exist safely in organisms.

What does this mean (the part about safety)? What would make it unsafe? Safe for the glucose, or safe for the organism? Josh Cherry 22:57, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

the chain form of glucose is the reactive form, the ring form isn't. The amount of chain form glucose is one of the limiting factors in the rate of respiration - if it was all chain form the reactions could occur too quickly, releasing too much energy. Or something like that. I can find some references if neccesary. -- Steinsky 11:35, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I changed the relevant section. Here's why.

First of all, apparently the open-chain form of glucose is much less common than the quoted 10% (about a thousand times less). Naturally I changed this.

As for the notion that the open-chain form is the substrate for energy metabolism, I can find no suggestion of this anywhere. In fact hexokinase and glucokinase, which catalyze the first step of glycolysis, seem to act on the closed-chain forms. This makes sense, as acting on such a rare form sounds like a bad strategy in terms of efficiency. Sure, you may not want to limit the rate of reaction, but just make less enzyme.

Which leads into the next point. If there were some danger of too-fast respiration, cells would just make less enzyme or something. Open-chain sugars wouldn't be a threat to life as we know it. And plenty of organisms would be happy to get faster metabolism for free.

I would add that open-chain tetrose and triose derivatives, and other molecules with free carbonyl groups, are common biochemical intermediates. Josh Cherry 02:46, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

History question

The third crusade did not capture Jerusalem so how could one third of it have gone to the Venetians who established a sugar cane plantation. Something must be wrong here. Rmhermen 18:21, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

I have removed this section from the article for further work:

In 1190 AD, the 3rd Crusade was carried to the Holy Land in Venetian ships. The Crusaders agreed that Venice would be paid with one-third of the land conquered. In this way one-third of Tyre, Sidon and Jerusalem came under Venetian control. The single sugar plantation established in Jerusalem went to Corneiro, brother of the Doge of Venice. The sugarcane had been carried there from India by the Muslims and had originated in the Indonesian Archipelago.

Sugar was then made by the Muscavado method which took skill (and would subsist until modern refineries were built). First, the art of casting ceramic containers capable of withstanding 1100 degrees Celsius (2000 degrees Fahrenheit) had to be mastered. Then the cane juice had to be boiled to an exact temperature and consistency; left to cool for the right time; then turned over to dry in the famous “sugarloaf” form. This cone would have precious white sugar on top, then light brown, then dark brown and finally a soggy molasses slog.

From Jerusalem, generation-by-generation, descendants of Corneiro took sugar out into the Mediterranean; first to Cyprus, Chios, Crete and other Greek Islands.

Google finds no occurrence of "Corneiro" with "sugar". Is there an off-line source that can verify this? Other problems are that Jerusalem was not in Crusaders' hands after the third crusade, most online sources say that sugar was introduced to Europe after the Second Crusade, not the Third. The text seems to imply that sugar is cooked at 2000 °F when that is the firing temp of the ceramics and it is not clear why ceramics would be necessary as you can cook sugar cane in iron pots quite well. Rmhermen 19:05, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

I need to review my sources on the Crusades at the time of the spread of sugar by the Corneiros from Jerusalem to the Greek Islands. The Venetians transported Crusaders in a crusade of that time. It might have been the second. The granting of land may not have coincided precisely with the capture of Jerusalem. My interest is more on the acquisition and diffusion of sugar production skills and the Spanish tradition of the Greater Antilles and the Portuguese (via the Dutch) of the Lesser Antilles. It is not clear how sugar plantations and production were managed between 1190 AD and the advent of printed books (after 1450 AD). Was labor free or enslaved? The introduction of sugar, island by island, is well recorded. Cyprus, Chios, Crete. Columbus specifically mentions his visits to Chios and the similarity of its flora to the Caribbean Islands potential. Ceramics were fired at 2000 °F to contain boiling sugar. Iron containers were not available until rather late. Copper boiling pots are still found in the Caribbean Islands from before 1750. In 1200 to 1400 ceramics alone were generally available. Corneiro documents are found in the Vatican, St. Georgio Library in Genoa and in the Venetian archives. I have examined settler lists up to 1700 in most sugar colonies. One of my books, CONQUEST OF EDEN 1493-1515 is available for free download at <www.mapesmonde.com>. Little acurate information is available, other than the hand written documents in the archives or libraries mentioned above, on sugar in the Mediterranean between 1200 and 1450. I have worked on this for 20 years and read most romance languages both modern and from that period. I believe one of the few reliable sources in print is Verlinger, former head of the Belgian College in Rome. His work is published (not translated) in Italian, Spanish, Flemish and English. I am contributing only work not yet on google -or why bother [user Michael Paiewonsky]].

We do not promote original research on Wikipedia. We just compile facts - that's why we are an encyclopedia, not a research journal. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. That's not to say that much of this information isn't correct or able to be added to this article, we just need to be better about adding sources. Rmhermen 05:37, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs some cleanup work, especially the long History of Sugar in the West section. Numerous ideas occur more than once in that section and parts of the timeline are out of order (Cuba). Rmhermen 13:58, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Sucrose bias

Why is all non-sucrose chemistry being deleted from this article? It seems to be swinging towards a culinary bias now. Joe D (t) 14:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The disambiguation states that it is about sugar as in sucrose the commodity. Put the chemistry into carbohydrate chemistry or disaccharides and monsaccharides, and refer to it from the chemistry section. PS This is far from a culinary article while it has my industrial production bias GraemeLeggett 15:12, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The disambiguation states that it deals with sugar the food, not sucrose, but if you interpret that as meaning only sucrose it's clearly too ambiguous itself. Joe D (t) 07:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you say 'sugar' to the ordinary person, then they understand that to mean the gritty white stuff. 'Sugars' (plural) is something else.GraemeLeggett 09:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Table sugar is a term that describes 'gritty white stuff' of commerce less ambiguously. I think many ordinary people understand non-sucrose sugars like 'fruit sugar' and 'malt sugar' also to be types of sugar.--Eloil 03:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sweet salt?

Does anyone have a citation for Eleassar777's addition today about sugar being called "sweet salt"? If not, it should get reverted.

Paulus Aegineta calls sugar the Indian salt, "in colour and form like common salt, but in taste and sweetness like honey." Shimmin 11:46, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

- Sugar causes diabetes

- Sugar causes obesity

_ sugar can clog up your arteries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.75.122 (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

- Diabetics must avoid sugar at all cost Sugar known as sweet salt is just a comparison that does not have to been existing. If I said drowning fish, it would mean they look like they're dead. InternationalEducation 10:09, December 13, 2006 (UTC)

Sugar and health

I don't know how many times I've heard the phrase "sugar is bad for you". Well, I'd sure like to know why! What evidence do they have that supports this theory?

Generally it seems to be that excessive consumption can be bad for you, more so if it causes you to omit other nutrients in your diet. This is a case of blaming the product rather than the consumer (IMHO) GraemeLeggett 13:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

So what's the difference between excessive consumption of vegetables and excessive consumption of sugar? Scorpionman 19:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Energy levels & propaganda. The high energy value of sugar as compared to veggies is a major factor in making sugar the 'bad' also sugar by itself isn't a good nutrient (energy value aside). The other reason is the money earned from the sales of "light" (sugar-free) products - On that note, why aren't 'sugarfree' sweeteners mentioned in the article?

Another possible reason is that eating "too much" veggies is someting quite rare compared to eating "too much" sugar.--Pro bug catcher 13:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts have shown that sugar is very addictive and that on average Americans eat or drink 5 pounds of sugar a month, drastically higher than 10 years ago due to the fact that sugar is hidden in many foods under many different names, even in ketchup. Yes we all know how much Americans like their Ketchup. Is it really so surprising that ketchup has sugar in it? It is sweet after all. Perhaps we could do away with the stereotyping and replace ketchup with something that's actually surprising to find has sugar in it.

Some brands of salt actually have sugar in them, that's quite surprising (at least it was to me). --Pro bug catcher 13:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ketchup is actually good for you, when consumed in reasonable quantities. Shinobu 08:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just added a section on the "sugar is bad for you" theme. We're taught it causes cavities; I've never had a cavity, but over four years ago after my doctor recommended I cut out sugar (he recommends that to everybody), my general health improved tremendously. I've done lots of research and found out sugar has very bad effects on our immune system, among other things; see the entry under "Pervasiveness" on Wiki's Sugar page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs) 01:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Sugar-high

However, recent studies that have been done show that there is no link between comsumption of sugar and hyperactivity levels, even when the researchers focused on children with a presumed "sugar-sensitivity". - What studies? Where can the results be seen? Bit more background info would be appreciated.

Agreed. The ccmr link provided is not informative, it is the opinion of one doctor citing unnamed studies, when in fact there is a wealth of debate in this field, and a lot of information to consider. The unequivocal "no" is rediculous. consider this document http://www.garynull.com/Issues/Sugar/SugarResponse.pdf in the bookmarks is the section on SUGAR AND CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR. it is complete with references to journals with the results of the studies it cites. The sugar industry financed studies to disprove claims of increased hyperactivity, but the studies were not very convincing. Groups of only 30 children, the amount of sugar used in some studies only that of 1 can of soda/day, when the average child consumes more than three times that amount, &c. Considerably more impressive are Schoenthaler's long term studies (seven years, 800 new york schools, 1 million children) and smaller scale but no less impressive studies with incarcerated delinquents. There's a lot of information out there. I'm not qualified to edit this page, but I suggest refining section 4.1 (pun intended). OkashinaSakana 09:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The information provided for sugar-high is inaccurate to my knowledge. A sugar-high isn't limited to children and isn't a permanent condition which is being implied. That said sugar rush is only a disambiguation but is linked to from this article. The section should either be filled out or an article created of it's own. --208.44.234.50 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have found a link to some references which might prove useful. http://www.answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=751999 I think we should edit the section to include BOTH points, instead of one point and a little blurb about neutrality. If ANYTHING we should show it from the standpoint of the references (that sugar does NOT produce a high) and add a blurb about neutrality. If noone says anything about it I shall take it upon myself to "be bold" and rewrite this section using actual references. Nebarnix 20:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All sugars sweet?

"A sugar is a carbohydrate which is sweet to taste."

i hear that not all sugars are sweet (sugar referring to molecules of the formula (CH2O)n). anybody else with more experience that has the guts to go change the article? --Karch 05:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

can't think of a non-sweet one off hand - they are not all as intense as sucrose, but if you get the conentration up...Some of the trisaccharides might be. GraemeLeggett 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is slightly more into the world of falseness than the world of truthness. Sugar aren't always sweet. For instance, NaCl(sodium chloride)is a salt and it tastes salty. Not all types of salt are salty you know. Some are posssibly even sweet. Some bitter, some sour. What makes him have the right to say sugar is sweet? I don't have any guts to change the article because I'm just a sixth grader. But I'm almost definite not all sugars are sweet. Cause if you think of it in a chemistry based way, sugar doesn't mean a sweet crystal. By the way, wouldn't we know that sugar is sweet?. So I think this article should mainly just contain chemsitry. InternationalEducation 10:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Uses

I just deleted an paragraph from the history section that wasn't about the history but it did have this semi-useful sentence.

"Sugar is used in a wide-variety of products such as baking sugar, candy, art, and many other uses. Sugar is also found in alcoholic beverages and in the soap that we wash ourselves with everyday."

That's not worth much on it's own but perhaps a section on uses of sugar could be added. I don't know... --Lomacar (talk) 20:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuboid sugar

I added a cuboid sugar picture in Wikimedia Commons. See this link. Regards, Carioca 01:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Little difference between beet and cane?

When making confectionary, I noticed that using beet or cane sugar strongly affects the taste of the end-product. However, I had refined beet sugar on the one hand, and brown cane sugar on the other, so I do not know whether the difference comes from the source plant or the refining process. Any other opinions on that?

The difference between white and brown is strong - entriely due to the presence of the molasses, the differences between refined white from either source is less though I know of people who say they can tell the difference. This may be due to a a residual odour around white sugar - in Britain white from beet is stored in large silos before packing near the factories which do smell rather, and this could leave a slight vegetable quality to a freshly opened pack. Once it is actually used in something the difference would be undetectable. In practice apart from the subjective qulaities of taste and smell the only way to tellwhite sugar from cane and beet apart is by various chemical tests - the key one is the presence of raffinose - a trisaccharide. Any help to answer the question?GraemeLeggett 08:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A reference to the chemical tests ued to distinguish succrose from cane and beet sources need to be added. --Ernielippert (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sugar rush

Currently, if you enter "sugar rush" to the search box on the left, you will arrive at the Sugar Rush article, which has a disambig link to the subheading in the sugar article. Perhaps it would be better to make a redirect from sugar rush, and add a notice in this article like "sugar rush redirects here, for the novel, see Sugar Rush", since probably most people would be looking for the effect and not the novel (which itself is named after the effect). PeepP 15:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I think "sugar rush" should go straight to the novel page, like "Sugar Rush" does. Many people will search in lower case only, so I would support making both link to the novel. Paddyohale 13:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree, Sugar Rush is actually a television show in the UK which is very popular. Not only are you ignorant of this - I quote (which itself is named after the effect). you haven't even read the novel! 'Sugar' is a character from the novel/show who is the object of desire for the protagonist Kim (with lesbian overtones, the 'rush' is sexual because Sugar is a very extroverted and sexy character.). Nowhere is the connection between sugar hyperactivity and the character of Sugar.

It is aired on prime time Channel 4 (around such big shows like Big Brother) - it's figures were in millions and it is frequently advertised. Infact, the new series 2 starts this wednesday (today). I don't know how to get rid of your edit but i strongly disagree with it, as its common sense to type 'sugar' to look for 'effects' you don't type in the search 'caffeine rush' you type in 'caffeine'. --213.106.102.178 15:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation would appear to be the answer - Sugar Rush (novel), Sugar Rush (TV series) and a link to sugar (health section). GraemeLeggett 13:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation would work if Sugar Rush (metabolic function) or something similar existed and would redirect to an article about the bodily event. As of now, it's an empty circular reference for a complex process. --208.44.234.50 15:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Raw vs. refined

I've frequently been told that raw sugar is better for you than refined. It would be nice is this article discussed this. Anthopos 04:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I added some discussion of this fact under "Pervasiveness and Controversy".

Sugar has also been attributed as a leading cause of diabetes

That's a news for most people. Please if it is true include citations in the Health Concerns section.

Is that "attributed" as in proven - I doubt it personally. GraemeLeggett 16:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think "diabetes and" should be removed from the sentence "In the United States sugar has also been attributed as a leading cause of diabetes and obesity." --68.96.241.18 01:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted "diabetes and" from the first sentece and the second sentence in: "In the United States sugar has also been attributed as a leading cause of diabetes and obesity. As stated in the Diabetes in America, 2nd Edition [3] more and more children at younger ages are becoming victims of this deadly disease." --68.96.241.18 13:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If people insist on including this quite vague assumption, it should at least only be related to type 2 diabetes, which even then is still only the case in a small percent of cases.. Either way, i've updated the article accordingly. --Nirvana- 10:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is natural to think that excess sugar causes type 2 diabetes since the pancreas must respond quickly and could eventually wear out. What I'd like to see is discussion of scientific testing that asserts or denies these allegations or an explicit observation that none has been done. This has been a hot topic for half a century. It seems inconceivable that conclusive lab tests have not been attempted.Rvmolen 20:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If the onset of diabetes is linked to sugar consumption (Section: Diabetes), then the incidence of diabetes should be low in Ethiopia with consumption of 3 kg/person-yr and high in Belgium at 40 kg/person-yr (Section: Trade and Economics). Is this borne out by the incidence of diabetes in these countries? --Ernielippert (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

High sugar consumption causes significant weight gain; most diabetes cases are caused by the affected person being overweight. There is no doubt that sugar is the cause of a significant proportion of diabetes cases. Best name (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of things wrong with this article. Firstly, excessive consumption of sugar is not linked to Type 1 Diabetes as the article seems to suggest. This is caused by an autoimmune response, and occurs in people regardless of their physical fitness or what they consume. Genetics and/or viral infections are believed to be responsible, and there is next to nothing you can do to avoid it. Secondly, sugar is not directly responsible for increased incidences of Type 2 Diabetes. However, excessive consumption of sugar leads to obesity, which is responsible for increased incidences of Type 2 Diabetes. So sugar itself is not responsible, but obesity is. I don’t know what the figures are for other countries, but In the UK, 80% of Type 2 Diabetics are considered overweight.

"Eating too much sugar causes Diabetes" is a very old myth and is probably the biggest misconception about the disease that people have. At the moment the article is misleading and incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.60.81 (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bone char used for processing sugar

I see nowhere in this article the mention of bone char (crushed animal bones) being used for filtering of sugar. See Bone_char for more information on this. I believe that this should be mentioned as it may be a concern to vegetarians. 80.43.58.1 20:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Brown sugar

I'd like to point you to this discussion, because it appears the article contains a few incorrect facts about edibility of sugar beet molasses. Shinobu 08:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what you beleive is in error? Rmhermen 01:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As per the linked discussion, we think the statement "molasses from sugar beet is unpalatable" is wrong. If our information is correct (and we don't really have a reason to doubt it) it is quite nice on pancakes. Also the statement that it's only sold as cattle food is wrong. Similarly, brown sugar can also be produced using beet molasses. This information was all obtained from an actual carton and the website of the producer, so it's first hand information. Shinobu 08:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Scrapped (small) pieces of the article suggesting beet molasses are inedible. Shinobu 21:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who worked with Beet molasses and encouraged a friend to eat it (I will remember his expression for a long while) it really is not that nice. I would ask who the manufacturer of the brown sugar in question and then investigate which process they used. The amount of brown colouration required for to make sugar brown is minimal and secondly they may have used different processing to that described in the articles. GraemeLeggett 09:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

All I know is that first the beets are washed and cut up, the suger is then extracted using hot water. Chalk is added for purification purposes, which is later removed for agricultural use. Water is being evaporated and crystals form (stimulated by adding some powder sugar). The result is centrifuged to seperate the crystals from the melasses, which are sold separately, for example as syrup for pancakes etc. The Dutch wiki, the English sugar beet article, and the website as well as cartons from the producer seem to be roughly consistent. Remember that sugar cane can't grow here, so we have to use beets. When you go near Groningen in the season, you can clearly smell it too... Shinobu 12:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Importation of cane molasses into the country for making brown is not beyond companies which is what British Sugar used to do. Of courese if its already in the country because it's come from cane refining (by Tate and Lyle) then it might be a bit cheaper. Danisco (dk) seem to get it OK "Soft brown sugar consists of sugar and cane sugar syrup"[1] GraemeLeggett 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I worked for a beet sugar factory in Oregon as the factory chemist. We produced both light and dark brown sugar using beet sugar and blending with cane molasses to make the dark brown and using something known as coating syrup to produce the light brown. Coating syrup is a blend of cane molasses and invert sugars. I have personally tastes beet molasses and I will let the cattle have it. Most beet molasses is sent through chromatographic separation and the factories are able to pull off most of the remaining sucrose as well as in some cases amino acids, such as betaine, that can be crystallized and used to increase revenue. I hope that clears things up. Swmalone 09:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My father used to suck on the cattle pellets while working on the farm, but that was post war Britain. I forgot about betaine - worth mentioning under molasses. I don't know if chromatographic separatation has gotten everywhere yet - depends on how the costs stack up -BS were investigating it when they "let me go" some 5 years ago now.GraemeLeggett 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

@blending with cane molasses: here a combination of beet syrup and caramel is used.

Anyway, to summarize things: over here beet molasses seem to be used for the production of brown sugar and syrup, which people will happily spread on their pancakes, while at your place people get sick at the thought alone.

That gives us roughly three possibilities:

1. It's an acquired taste.
2. We use better beets. (Yeah right.)
3. Our processing is better.

So which one is it? Shinobu 05:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is Turkey under "cane"?

This line ends the section on "Cane":

"Turkey is also one of the countries best quality sugar is produced."

a. Grammatically incorrect. b. Why the heck is it under "cane"? c. Nothing against Turkey, but isn't "best quality sugar" somewhat subjective? :-)

I'd go ahead and delete it, but just checking if anyone has justifiable cause.

Turkseker, the monopoly sugar producer in Turkey, produces sugar from sugar beet, not from cane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.104.143 (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Other meanings of sugar...=

Shouldn't there be some infomation that there are some other meanings of SUGAR. At least "Sugar Ray Robinson" and the Band Sugar?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.247.166 (talk • contribs)

There is! See the very first line of the article (or follow: sugar (disambiguation). Happy browsing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and in-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 23:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There no citations in the current article, in-line or otherwise. Nunquam Dormio 05:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are two, but that's not even close to enough, i'm delisting this myself. Homestarmy 23:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

I have delisted this article from GA status because there's no way your telling me two little references make this whole article well-referenced. Might they reference the whole thing? Maybe....but I doubt it, due to all the citation needed tags. But then, even if they somehow do, simply being referenced alone is not the same as being well-referenced. Homestarmy 23:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Commodities futures

There is no information or vary little about How Sugar is traded on the New York Bord Of Tread. Millions of dollers are invested in suger and I just thought maybe there should be more info about the commodities futures of sugar. Grosscha 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was my sugar crash see also edit removed?

its a stub and tagged for attention and probably belongs in sucrose, though it can refer to any of the 3 major saccharide sin our diets - glucose, fructose or sucrose.? perhaps sugar crash should redirect to reactive hypoglycaemia. GraemeLeggett 10:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Teamscience

Why does the introduction use the term "teamscience' as opposed to non-scientific use. This is a term unknown to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethwoodworth (talk • contribs) 02:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

This is a redirect for "Castor sugar", yet I still have no idea what castor sugar is

Can someone answer this in the article? Can someone provide an explaination of what is meant by castor sugar and maybe where the name came from if applicable?

24.1.230.190 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

its usually Caster. It is under the section Sugar#culinary sugars. its white granulated of a particulr size range for quicker dissolving or incorporation in cake mixes. GraemeLeggett 12:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comes from using a castor (now caster) to sieve the sugar. My question is: is castor/caster sugar the same as North American superfine sugar? Hakluyt bean (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How about adding a comparison table of sugars?

How about adding a "comparison of sugars" article with a table about things like which sugars cause cavities, which ones taste sweet, various health effects and so on? Undeaf 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Too much opinion, not enough science

There are too many statements of opinion in this article, without reference to scientific evidence. For example:

It can cause critical growth-hormone deficiency, and depletes the body of potassium and magnesium.

The link associated with this statement is to an article about the comments of some naturopath.

Additionally there are statements of belief attributed to various parties without sources given, which suggests that certain parties or bodies are being misrepresented.

This has to be one of the worst WP articles. Ordinary Person 01:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In which century did Cuba become the richest Caribbean land?

It's not clear what "this century" means in this sentence from the article: "In this century, for example, Cuba rose to become the richest land in the Caribbean . . ."

Is it the 21st century? That's the current "this century", and Wikipedia didn't exist prior to the 21st century, so that's the obvious choice, but I really doubt it. More likely it was plagiarized from something written in the 20th century, or even earlier. Would somebody who knows/cares fix this up, or delete the "in this century" part of the sentence? Thanks. 76.28.209.137 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Invert sugar sweeter or not?

Inverted sugar syrup says invert sugar is less sweet than sucrose; Sugar#Chemistry says it's sweeter. Yuubi 20:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

and both have credible cites. So. . . How does one make a determination? I'm going to undo the cite claiming invert is sweeter than sucrose unless a more credible cite can be shown. Peter Camper (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Both appear to say the same thing, although in a confusing way for those unfamiliar with chemistry. The inverted sugar syrup article says its 85% as sweet as sucrose of an equivalent concentration. But it also mentions the other key point, you get double the concentration (since you're breaking down the disacchride sucrose into two monosaccharides. glucose and fructose; so instead of 1 molar of sucrose you've now got 1 molar of glucose and 1 molar of fructose or a total of 2 molar of sugars). Therefore although inverted sugar syrup of an equivalent concentration is not as sweet as sucrose, when you are producing inverted sugar syrup you get a sweeter syrup then what you started with Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Glycemic Index

Is the Glycemic Index of sugar not relavant to this article? since most of the critism of sugar comes from the fact it causes a rapid rise in blood sugars, would this not be relevant. In fact diabetics are not encouraged to avoid sugar, only to use it in moderation, just like everything else they eat. I believe sugar (sucrose), under most circumstances has a lower G.I. than baked potatoes, a staple of many peoples diets. I think this anti-sugar stuff is rot(excuse the pun) esp. in relation to diabetics. so in short could someone include this information, and be sure to compare it to some other relatively high G.I. foods, at least then people will have a better idea of what they are eating, without all this histerical BS surounding something that could easily be part of a balanced diet. (I would do this, but I am afraid I have a conflict of interest.) Thanks. 124.197.5.33 (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Attribution needed for common knowledge?

"Some commentators have suggested links between sugar-consumption and health hazards, including obesity and tooth-decay."

Is "attribution" needed for something that is widely accepted as common knowledge? 66.234.220.195 (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The Human Health part of article is bias and non-NPOV

The part of this Article Titled "Human health" Is Very Bias and has little to no truth in it. There have never been any reserch in to suger that found it to be harmful in any way. Tooth-decay, Even the American Dental Association says that sugers do not cause tooth decay, Tooth decay is caused mostly by starchy foods like breadsticks, cereals and potato chips that linger on teeth and prolong acid production. Diabetes, Suger doesn't cause Diabetes this part makes it sound like it does. Obesity, In 2002, a 3-year study conducted by The National Academy of Sciences concluded, “There is no clear and consistent association between increased intakes of added sugars and BMI.” BMI (Body Mass Index) is an indicator of body weight and obesity. Gout, What in the world is this doing on here, Gout result from inflammation caused by deposits of needle-like crystals in connective tissue and/or in the fluid that cushions the joint (the synovial fluid). The crystals are made up of uric acid, a waste product produced during the natural breakdown of purines. Purines are part of all our body's cells. Your kidneys eliminate it from the body mostly through urine. However, if the body produces too much uric acid or if the kidneys don't eliminate enough of it, uric acid will build up in the blood. Nothing to do with sugers. I atempted to edit this area to include more truthful data from reliable souces, but an Administrator, Mike Rosoft, removed it with out reason. If Wikipedia is truly a Free Encyclopedia that wishes its articles to be from a NPOV Then it needs to read its articles and allow people to edit parts that are too bias to include other views. Its Administrators should not be removing edits for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.12.117 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro to history section

I removed the following introduction to the History section, because it appears to be original research:

The history of sugar is a progression of growth. Sugar tastes good. Throughout history this has created demand, which in turn has fueled increases in the production of sugar, making more sugar available at affordable prices, leading to the development of more food products containing sugar and the addition of more sugar to existing products, accompanied by a growing average intake of sugar by consumers.

Particular issues: "sugar tastes good" is not a fact. I agree that sugar usually tastes good to most people, but too much sugar can taste bad to almost anyone, and I'm sure some people even dislike the taste of sweet things. In any case, it isn't encyclopedic, and doesn't present any useful information other than that there is a historical demand for sugar, which is true for most foods anyway. My other issue is the progression of greater demand -> greater supply -> lower price -> greater demand accompanied by practically identical greater demand. While this progression at a glance seems reasonable, I don't see any references for it, so I have to conclude that it is original research. -kotra (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Many un-mentioned types of sugar

The article doesn't really mention the wide variety of sugars currently being sold. These are all real things that exist in the real world -- easily verifiable with Google or a trip to the grocery store -- with no reference on Wikipedia.

• cane juice crystals
• dehydrated cane juice crystals
• unrefined cane juice crystals
• raw cane crystals
• washed cane juice crystals
• Florida crystals (a trademarked name)
• unbleached evaporated sugar cane juice crystals
• crystallized cane juice
• unbleached crystallized evaporated cane juice
• organic dehydrated cane juice
• unbleached sugar cane
• evaporated cane juice
• evaporated cane juice sugar

Sincerely, Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Half or more of those just seem to be other names for evaporated cane juice. Some redirects to evaporated cane juice might be in order, and a couple of those might deserve mention in this article if they aren't already, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -kotra (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly claim

I removed this rather silly claim [2] since clearly HFCS is not its main ingredient or it would be almost unbearably sweet. I presume it's main ingredient is water with some flavourings and HFCS as a sweetener but none of this is referenced Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The cultural influences

In some media (The Simpsons, Sluggy Freelancer) there seem to be a common element of sugar having similar effects to alcohol. I've never met this before so I'd like someone to comment. I think is eighter element of culture(city legend or something like that) or an element of some illness. Could one comment it? Uzytkownik (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect data

It seems the production data is wrong. According to naostat (world >/ sugar cane/ production quantity) sugar cane production is 1,557,664,978 metric tons of which brazil secures 514,079,729 metric tons. The text states 30 million tons. Correct me if I'm wrong! Daniel.redgate (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Why there is no reference or any mention of ICUMSA?

To me, It should be important to make a refefence and to mention what's ICUMSA (International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis) in the sugar world.

"ICUMSA is a world-wide body which brings together the activities of the National Committees for Sugar Analysis in more than thirty member countries. Work is carried out under various Subjects each headed by a Referee. ICUMSA is the only international organisation concerned solely with analytical methods for the sugar industry. In addition to use by that industry, ICUMSA methods are recognised by authorities such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the OIML, the EU, and the US Food Chemicals Codex"

Reference: http://www.icumsa.org/index.php?id=4

PLeae anybody comment or suggest what to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielmejias (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Added. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Timeline - Muslim Agricultural Revolution

There is no mention of the timeline when sugar industrial revolution started, there is a mention of Indian around 350CE, then Arab period without mention of estimated year and then it jumps to 1390. I think the date / timeline should be mentioned. From Muslim_Agricultural_Revolution,

"During the Muslim Agricultural Revolution, sugar production was refined and transformed into a large-scale industry by the Arabs. The Arabs and Berbers diffused sugar throughout the Arab Empire from the 8th century."

Ref: http://www.history-science-technology.com/Articles/articles%2071.htm 63.118.215.92 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

L-Sugar?

I first heard about l-sugar back in the 70's. Left-handed sugar is the molecular mirror image of ordinary sugar. It looks like sugar, tastes like sugar and can be cooked like sugar, but the human body can't metabolize it. It doesn't cause tooth decay and is safe for diabetics to use.

What happened to it? Why can't I buy it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.124.238 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 February 2009

L-sugar is used as a laxative. Useful medically, but that's not the effect you want from a food. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? That doesn't explain why "mirror image sugar" doesn't seem to be available at all, since people still eat olestra and prune juice.

I agree that this article needs more information on "mirror-image sugar". How is it made? Why can't I buy it? Is L-glucose (briefly mentioned in the glucose article) the only "mirror-image sugar"? How does dextrose, levulose, and inverted sugar syrup fit in? All these questions should be answered in this article. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

True enough. But a single serving of potato chips/crisps has roughly 10g of fat. Most people probably eat more, but compare that to the 140g of sugar in a (42 oz) Super Big Gulp. Ouch. (Eat 14 servings of olestra-chips and, well, yuck.) Further, I think some L-(sugars) are partially metabolized by gut flora. Think of it as the "anal leakage" of olestra with the added bonus of the flatulence of beans. Not a good combination.

It's reasonably easy to find foods with absurd amounts of added sugar. Finding foods with similar weights of added fat is a bit tougher. No one is making burgers with olestra (yet), and a Big Mac has "only" 26g of fat. I'm hard pressed to come up with anything anywhere near 140g of fat, much less 140g of fat that could (in theory) be replaced by olestra. Sugar is easy.

L-(sugar) is in no way like inverted sugar syrup. "Inverted" in inverted sugar syrup refers to a method of measuring the stuff. L-(sugar) is a chiral form of a D-(sugar) (a "mirror image" molecule, if you will). Nutritious (caloric) sugars are mostly D- forms enantiomers (D-sucrose, etc.).

The only research I'm aware of re L- sweeteners involves someone who did try to find the "ultimate" no/low calorie sweetener. Most were bitter. All were very expensive to produce. Then he came to tagatose, a natural sugar that grandma probably never heard of (though it's found in tiny amounts in milk). He ordered L-tagatose, but was sent D-tagatose by accident (supposedly). As it turns out, D-tagatose is about as sweet as table sugar, but has roughly 1/3 the calories. Last I heard, the U.S. listed it as GRAS and Europe gave it the damaging Novel food cert. Tagatose puts application of the stuff in development hell, but I could have sworn Pepsico had used the stuff somewhere or other.

I don't know of anyone investigating L-tagalose. The only cites I can really provide on this are the laxative patent and someone trying and failing to produce various L-(sugars) using E. coli.

Beyond that, I have nothing. This is way outside of my field. The basic bio-chem class I took for my master's was, for me, one of the hardest classes I've ever taken. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

America's first sugar refinery

Source: Siegel, Adrienne. Philadelphia: A Chrononlogical and Documentary History. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publications, 1975

"In 1783 America's first sugar refinery is opened by two entrepreneurs, Jacob Morgan and Samuel Miles on Vine Street" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonifaceFulda (talk • contribs) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Burn sugar

"If combined with fine ash, sugar will burn with a blue flame."

Dows anybody have a explanation or a link to why the sugar burn. (Maybe it should be said, that without the ash, the sugar doesn burn but melt...) 130.225.100.78 (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WebMD reference does not support article, contradicts conventional wisdom

In the first paragraph, there is the sentence: "Excessive consumption of sugar has been associated with increased incidences of type 2 diabetes, obesity and tooth decay." It cites the following as a reference: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/sugar-shockers-foods-surprisingly-high-in-sugar. The article is only about eating less sugar and says nothing about its health effects. In fact, this does not appear to be the conventional wisdom.

The American Dietetic Association says, for example, "Myth: Carbs cause diabetes. Truth: Again, the answer is no. Sugars and other carbohydrates do not cause diabetes." (http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/home_13922_ENU_HTML.htm) The American Diabetes Association states, "Research studies show that, gram for gram, sugars, like table sugar, do not raise blood glucose any more quickly than do other carbohydrates, like potatoes, rice or pasta. This research holds true for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes." (http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/sugar.jsp) The glycemic index shows that sugar raises blood sugar levels more slowly than some complex carbohydrates such as potatoes and white bread. "Some people even thought that eating sugar caused diabetes, an idea that we now know isn't true." (http://www.diabetes.org/nutrition-and-recipes/nutrition/sweeteners.jsp) Diabetics must keep track of the sugar that they eat, but they must keep track of all the carbohydrates. This is called carbohydrate counting. Of course, diabetics can benefit from using artificial sweeteners.

It is true that sugar contributes to cavities, but unfortunately, starch does, too. The USDA and HHS say, "Sugars and starches contribute to dental caries by providing substrate for bacterial fermentation in the mouth" and also point out that most bottled waters are not fluoridated. (http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/pdf/DGA2005.pdf) The texture of some foods makes an important difference. As far as causing obesity, sugar does add calories to the diet. Foods that have added sugar have a lower nutrient density, i.e., fewer nutrients per calorie. By contrast, foods with natural sugars such as tomatoes, dried fruit, 100% fruit juice, and milk tend to be rich in nutrients. Sweeteners can make some healthful foods (such as yogurt) more palatable. Replacing caloric sweeteners with noncaloric sweeteners will no doubt help control obesity. The American Dietetic Association says, "Myth: Carbs make you overweight. Truth: Eating too many calories, from any food source, not just starches and sugars, causes your body to produce extra pounds of body fat." (http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/home_13922_ENU_HTML.htm)

It is also worth mentioning that sugar does not cause hyperactivity. The American Dietetic Association says, "Myth: Carbs cause hyperactivity. Truth: Sugar has been wrongly accused of causing hyperactivity and attention deficit-hyperactive disorder in children for years. No scientific evidence supports any link between the intake of sugars and hyperactivity." (http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/home_13922_ENU_HTML.htm) The American Academy of Pediatrics says, “There is no evidence that ADHD is caused by eating too much sugar, food additives, allergies or immunizations.” (http://www.aap.org/healthychildren/06fall/adhd.pdf)75.89.24.102 (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The WebMD link is broken. Sadly, they quietly redirect to a totally different article, rather than having an error page. The correct link is (http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/vitamins/114).

A few more comments (not directly in response to yours; I wrote them up, then came to the talk page to report them):

The WebMD article mentions diabetes and obesity in general, but only references tooth decay in the context of honey. A more direct citation is needed for tooth decay.

The WebMD article is about sugar in general, and clearly not limited to just sucrose. This line in our article should be changed to refer to sugar instead. 198.53.213.246 (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Superfluous "and" in last sentence of first paragraph

Someone who can edit the article should remove that.. "But Brazil and has the highest per capita consumption and India -- the highest per-country consumption." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethyleneoxide (talk • contribs) 19:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! -kotra (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Almost all of the article is about sucrose. Parts that are not about sucrose duplicate the content in carbohydrates. So readers are not getting the best presentation, and editors are duplicating their efforts. I understand that sugar has many uses and many cultural impacts. --Smokefoot (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in Trade and Economics Section

The last paragraph in the Trade and Economics section about the Sugar Industry's ad campaign isn't particularly noteworthy and it seems to violate NPOV. The paragraph was originally added by an editor who made three changes to the page of which the other two were rejected as unverified claims while this change was reworded and kept. The changes were made Sept 17, 2007 by an anonymous user at 67.168.217.5. I rarely edit here on Wikipedia but the particular paragraph I am talking about sounds a bit like astroturfing for the sugar industry:

The Sugar Association has launched a campaign to promote sugar over artificial substitutes. The Association now[update] aggressively challenges many common beliefs regarding negative side effects of sugar consumption. The campaign aired a high-profile television commercial during the 2007 Prime Time Emmy Awards on FOX Television. The Sugar Association uses the trademark tagline "Sugar: sweet by nature."[18]

I realize that it could be argued that this point is merely factual but I think it detracts from the professionalism of the article. Ckelloug (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Broken link

{{editsemiprotected}} The link to ilovosugar.com in footnote 2 (http://www.illovosugar.com/worldofsugar/internationalSugarStats.htm) is broken and should point to http://www.illovosugar.com/World_of_sugar/Sugar_Statistics/International.aspx. -- Cobalt60blue (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 22:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong information

{{editsemiprotected}} Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz) data is wrong. For granulated sugar instead of "1,619 kcal (6,770 kJ)" it should say "387 kcals ( 1,619 kJ)". For brown sugar inseaad of "1,576 kcal (6,590 kJ)" it should be "386 kcals ( 1,573 kJ)". See for example: http://www.caloriedatabase.com/search.asp?search=sugar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zufar (talk • contribs) 16:45, 4 December 2009

Done Welcome and thanks for catching that. The problem seems with the template that displays the nutritional values. It was recently improved and I've notified that editor of the problem. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. {{nutritional value}} was assuming that the input was in kcal and not kJ. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Granular Sugar:

The densities for "granulated sugar" are not internally consistent. Domino Sugar Company (DSC) cited as follows:

Granular sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 200 g

Granular sugar - Bulk Density cited (note 6) as 0.70 g/ml

1 cup = 8 oz volume. Dimensional analysis to convert to g/ml:

(200 g)/(8 oz) * (33.8oz)/(1 Liter) = 845 g/L = 0.845 g/mL

0.845 is more than 20% greater than 0.70

A +20% error - DSC ref is 20% greater than Note 6 ref.

Powdered Sugar:

(DSC) Powdered sugar 1 cup = 48 teaspoons ~ 120 g = 0.507 g/L (Note 6 ref) Bulk Density = 0.56 g/L

A +9% error - DSC ref is 9% less than Note 6 ref.

It seems Bulk Density should be greater than 1 cup density - due to geater packing.

Jsusky (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Sugar as an antibacterial/microbial

Hello, Do you think this article could benefit from a section on using sugar to treat wounds? Or would that be better included in the history of sugarpage?

cheers Safez (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Article gutted during September 2009, use History > 'older 500'

Someone please restore the article to its full state, user Smokefoot has reduced it to tatters. History, processing, and issues surrounding sugar are completely gone. Smokefoot claims it is because this is the history etc of Sucrose, and it is true that sucrose is how chemists know sugar, but it is hardly the history of sucrose, as it was not called that historically. Common use calls for inclusion of the material under the more common name. If necessary, the info can be duplicated on both articles, but if not, Sucrose should be an article about chemistry and a more detailed look at production. Anarchangel (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

This article is poorly sourced.

There needs to be a distinction made between bulk density and specific gravity (density) Should reference:http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s7394.htm The MSDS for Sucrose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hienrich Jager (talk • contribs) 13:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sugar was absolutely not known during the Gupta dynasty. Something more akin to Molasses was known. The first evidence of Sugar we have comes from Nestorian Christians in Persia, and the academic consensus points to it being first perfected in a crystaline form in Persia in the 6th century. The domestication of the Sugar Cane however, and boiled sweet juice, is indeed traceable to India. The article needs to reflect this reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.188.134 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 13 April 2010

The probability that Christopher Columbus met with the governor of the Canary Islands in 1492 is doubtful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantrento (talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 September 2010

Etymology

Somebody with permissions (since the article is semi-protected), please make the following edit:

replace: The Greek word for "sugar", zahari, means "pebble"

with: The Greek word for "sugar", sakcharo(n) (σάκχαρο(ν)) or zahari (ζάχαρη) is also cognate.

This is to correct an error that crept into the article with the following edit back in 2007:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sugar&diff=next&oldid=157694231

Those words never meant "pebble" in Greek (I don't know about Sanskrit or other languages). Thank you for your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.60.49 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

More information

Perhaps we should add more info on trade trends like , Russia is the largest importer and that over all world production is expected to shrink. Production of brazil and mexico alone expected to to rise.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/ai482e/ai482e07.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheshnlj (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok i have a science project and this page is BAD. I looked on other sources and they say totally different things

Archiving

Archiving for this page needs sorting out. I have added {{archivebox}} and a link to an empty archive page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've marked the talk page for auto-archiving by MiszaBot, I'll come by and clear up the remainder in a few days. --McGeddon (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Honey vs. Sugar

In the history section the page suggested that sugar was a product distinct from honey. The difficulty is that honey gets the sweet flavor from the natural sugars fructose and glucose, and while these two are different from the standard sucrose that tends to be referred to colloquially as "sugar," they still are sugar, which is to say that honey is a sugar based sweetener, and its production is in a way sugar production. I recommend editing the history section such that it refers to "table sugar" or "sucrose" as opposed to just sugar. Thus when it discusses early societies primarily using honey as opposed to sugar, it will more easily distinguish that the sugar discussed is todays commercially produced table sugar from beats and cane, all while honey is in itself a different sugar product.

Small complaint, I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.108.67 (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Sykurmolarnir?

Since it redirects here, shouldn't there be at least some mention of sugar cubes? (Including correction of a mistaken claim Henry Tate invented them....) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The discovery of crystallized sugar.

This article states that, "Crystallized sugar was discovered by the time of the Imperial Guptas." Which makes no sense at all unless you happen to know when these Imperial Guptas lived. To simplify things, I checked the Imperial Guptas article and got the rough date 320 to 550 CE, and paraphrased that to "around 400 AD". In hindsight, it might have been better to write "around 5th century AD". Anyhow, there is a reference on the Imperial Guptas article to support these dates but I fail to see why that is relevant in this article.

Charlesdrakew, if you disagree with my reasoning, please discuss it here rather than undoing my edit yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nakerlund (talk • contribs) 01:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Overstatement that excess sugar consumption does not cause diabetes?

The intro says "Experts now agree that eating too much sugar does not cause diabetes.[4][5][6][7][8][9]", and indeed these cited sources say just that. But I see contrary statements elsewhere, suggesting that not all experts agree.

For example, (1) the wiki article glycemic index says "Several lines of recent scientific evidence have shown that individuals who followed a low-GI diet over many years were at a significantly lower risk for developing both type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease than others. High blood glucose levels or repeated glycemic "spikes" following a meal may promote these diseases by increasing oxidative stress to the vasculature and also by the direct increase in insulin levels.[11]"

(2) The wiki article diabetes mellitus type 2 says "There is inadequate evidence that eating foods of low glycemic index is clinically helpful despite recommendations and suggested diets emphasizing this approach.[50]" But saying that the link is unproven is not the same as saying there is no link.

(3) The article "Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Risk of Metabolic Syndrome and Type 2 Diabetes: A meta-analysis" by Vasanti S. Malik et al., Diabetes Care 2010, 33(11), 2477-2483 available at http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/11/2477.full?sid=25e775f0-e2cd-4094-823e-214acf07dea8 , which is a meta-analysis, says in the intro "Because of the high content of rapidly absorbable carbohydrates such as sucrose (50% glucose and 50% fructose) and high-fructose corn syrup (most often 45% glucose and 55% fructose), in conjunction with the large volumes consumed, SSBs [sugar-sweetened beverages] may increase the risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes not only through obesity but also by increasing dietary glycemic load, leading to insulin resistance, β-cell dysfunction, and inflammation." In its concluding section it says "Additional adjustment for potential mediating factors including BMI, total energy, and incident type 2 diabetes attenuated the associations, but they remained statistically significant, suggesting that the effect of SSBs is not entirely mediated by these factors."

Based on the above, is the quoted statement in this Wikipedia article an overstatement, and should it be toned down? Duoduoduo (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see it has been changed from "Experts now agree..." to "Some experts believe..." That's an improvement, but it still strikes me as the wrong way to start that paragraph. Maybe something like "Opinions are divided on the link between sugar consumption and diabetes." If someone is just skimming, they might just read the "some experts believe..." part and assume that summarizes the rest of the paragraph. 24.162.240.37 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is sugar toxic?

A very well documented article about the health effects of sugar, to read in NYT of yesterday. Here the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

For sure some information from this article should be used in this wikipedia article! Regards, Clerambj (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sugar nomenclature

Is there any interest in my adding a table listing the various types of white sugar? There are differences in nomenclature and in product. For example, powdered sugar is marketed as "confectioner's sugar" in the US and "icing sugar" in Canada, but icing sugar contains slightly less cornstarch than confectioner's sugar. In the same way, finely ground sugar is sold as "berry sugar" in Canada but as "caster sugar" in the UK, but they're not identical products (one is finer), and neither is identical to the "superfine sugar" sold in the US. This seems like something both easily sourced from books and notable. Would anyone mind such a thing, or has it been discussed before? --NellieBly (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent addition to the Terminology section. I have no clue if it has been discussed before, though. But still, go for it :) --Nakerlund (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced opinion flag

I just inserted an "unbalanced opinion" flag. If you read the consumer reports article, you can see the quotation from that article been taken out of context. Until the rest of the paragraph from Consumer Reports is integrated here, I can't call this NPOV. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 08:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article is contradictory, so possibly why the extracted quotation doesn't work properly. I added the text before it showing the quote as contradictory with experimental evidence while also explaining why the contradictory evidence appears (see the discussion above about sugar and diabetes). Should there be a better quote? I don't want to remove it without adding in an improved one, which is why I added the text before it. I will add citations to the discussion on diabetes to try and help show the contradictions there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged Sparrowhawk (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Agradman and Ged Sparrowhawk. The quote does include the "rest of the paragraph" from Consumer Reports that is on the topic (there isn't any more there in that paragraph to add). It is important to say for example dental cavities can arise from human consumption (CR should have said so). So maybe we need another quote. Agree: I don't want to remove it without adding a improved one. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted a re-write of parts of the unbalanced section to explain the sourced articles' approach to the studies completed. I also added a short section to explain that the referenced article does contain elements about the negative health effects of sugar, but included studies (including very recent ones) that specifically address the ADHD (hyperactivity) issue to show the conflict of opinion. The paragraph still looks like it needs re-writing to give it better structure, but no longer makes the Consumer Reports article look like it assumes all sugar impacts are overblown. Does this address the issue, or have I missed the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged Sparrowhawk (talk • contribs) 07:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ged Sparrowhawk, you did a great job with a rewrite. Thank you. Nope I don't think you've missed the point at all (I disagree however with what this article says now, though, based on information linked from sciencebasedmedicine.org. Also a meta-analysis of 23 studies, albeit not entirely current, seems to me to be as significant as 3 studies we have linked now.) I don't think it's fair to say this is article is unbalanced just because somebody disagrees with it, so I encourage removal of the unbalanced opinion flag. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I see my cryptic comment has generated a good deal of discussion. I'm glad to see that, and sorry I was so cryptic. I left a response at Ge Sparrowhawk's talk page. I will come back tonight and make a substantive contribution. Thanks. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 19:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

US cultivation edit request

I would like to add some text to the History portion.

I found this text from a website (I'll post the link} and the information was very helpful to me (I'm doing a paper on the health effects between HFCS and Sugar} so I thought I could maybe add it to this article. Here is the text:

"It was not until the eighteenth century that sugarcane cultivation was began in the United States, where it was planted in the southern climate of New Orleans. The very first refinery was built in New York City around 1690; the industry was established by the 1830s. Earlier attempts to create a successful industry in the U.S. did not fare well; from the late 1830s, when the first factory was built, until 1872, sugar factories closed down almost as quickly as they had opened. It was 1872 before a factory, built in California, was finally able to successfully produce sugar in a profitable manner. At the end of that century, more than thirty factories were in operation in the U.S."

And the link: "http://www.essortment.com/history-sugar-41718.html"

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisw23445 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

DOI help

Hi. Perhaps someone familiar with the system can fix citation #17 (to Wolraich, ML et al. (November 22, 1995). "The Effect of Sugar on Behavior or Cognition in Children". Journal of the American Medical Association 20: 1617-1621. doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530200053037). I'm sorry, I don't know what typo to fix in that doi but it's not connecting. Luckily the URL works. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Cardiovascular Disease

I had my edit removed with a comment that it "looks like synth". Could others please check the references, since I do not want to reinstate my edits again myself (though I can see why someone may suggest that it "looks like" a new idea if they are not familiar with the medical references? The concept added (mainly about cardiovascular disease) was debated hotly back in the 1990s (see the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, volume 86, March 1983, pp183-184 for a good example) when the debate was between fats and sugars causing heart disease. More recent references now take the balance back to sugars linked with fats, as long as the sugars are clearly differentiated between free sugars and others (some looking at it as glycaemic index, some as the refining process – the precise split point is not clearly agreed, but the WHO and FAO refer to the "bad" sugars as "free sugar"). I suggest others check this since having a health section on the Sugar page that does not include this research leaves a big gap.--Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

After a brief review of the references, I do not see one reference making the claim, "There is now increasing evidence that the impacts of refined carbohydrates are more significant than those of saturated fats on cardiovascular disease, while reverting to a more natural diet of unrefined carbohydrates can help prevent the onset of this disease," in its entirety; this sentence appears to be cobbled together by sources supporting different parts of the sentence, which is not allowed (if there is one reliable source which makes this claim, let's cite that one source, instead of going overkill on the citations). I will also take a closer look at the other sections as well, including the section on ADHD, which appears to have significant WP:WEIGHT issues, when I have more time. Yobol (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yobol, thanks for the comments. I'll just quote from the abstracts of two of the sources I happen to have to hand:

"A focus of dietary recommendations for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and treatment has been a reduction in saturated fat intake, primarily as a means of lowering LDL-cholesterol concentrations. However, the evidence that supports a reduction in saturated fat intake must be evaluated in the context of replacement by other macronutrients. Clinical trials that replaced saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat have generally shown a reduction in CVD events, although several studies showed no effects. An independent association of saturated fat intake with CVD risk has not been consistently shown in prospective epidemiologic studies, although some have provided evidence of an increased risk in young individuals and in women. Replacement of saturated fat by polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat lowers both LDL and HDL cholesterol. However, replacement with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, can exacerbate the atherogenic dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance and obesity that includes increased triglycerides, small LDL particles, and reduced HDL cholesterol. In summary, although substitution of dietary polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat has been shown to lower CVD risk, there are few epidemiologic or clinical trial data to support a benefit of replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate. Furthermore, particularly given the differential effects of dietary saturated fats and carbohydrates on concentrations of larger and smaller LDL particles, respectively, dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity."

"This study is notable for its large size, long duration of follow-up, and detailed assessment of dietary and lifestyle factors. It is the first epidemiologic study to specifically examine the effects of replacing saturated fats with either high- or low-quality carbohydrates, and it provides direct evidence that substituting high-GI-value carbohydrates for saturated fat actually increases IHD risk. Unfortunately, most carbohydrates in Western diets are highly processed, including bread, rolls, pizza, white rice, and most ready-to-eat cold cereals and sugar. Prior studies show that these types of carbohydrates are particularly harmful for overweight and obese individuals, suggesting that adverse effects of carbohydrates are aggravated by underlying insulin resistance (7). The obesity epidemic and growing intake of refined carbohydrates have created a “perfect storm” for the development of cardiometabolic disorders. For this reason, reduction of refined carbohydrate intake should be a top public health priority. Several dietary strategies can be used to achieve this goal. These include replacing carbohydrates (especially refined grains and sugar) with unsaturated fats and/or healthy sources of protein and exchanging whole grains for refined ones. A combination of these approaches can increase flexibility in macronutrient composition and thus long-term adherence. In addition, limiting sugar-sweetened beverage consumption, a major source of dietary GL and excess calories, has been associated with lower risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and IHD (8)."

The words "increasing evidence" may be a bit suspect, though strictly they only mean that someone has added evidence, and the earliest evidence I have is back in the 1980s, though the division between refined and unrefined, or high and low glycaemic index, was not so well understood back then, but I didn't want to have to give historical quotes to show the changes, otherwise we would need a history of health section. Both these quotes seem to state exactly what the sentence I put in says, though they also include evidence for other impacts. It may be a précis, but I believe does match. I did not combine the sources to develop any new ideas from either of these. I didn't want to leave out sources, since the cardiovascular evidence is far less quoted in the popular press, as far as I am aware, so I wanted to ensure there were several sources in place. It wasn't intended to make it look like synth... Again, if I am mistaken, then I don't mind trying to fix it somehow.--Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked all the sources again this morning, and see that it could have been construed as synth given that not all the sources contained all the links in the sentence. I have split up the sources, assigned more appropriate descriptions coming from each source, and segregated these within the same section so it is clear what each source brings to cardiovascular disease. Only the citations that do provide the entire statement are therefore linked to the sentence that discusses the greater link between refined carbohydrates and cardiovascular disease than saturated fatty acids. I am not sure the paragraph is quite as clear for general readership now, but there shouldn't be an issue with synthesis.--Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 11 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like citations for this claim posted:

"twenty studies demonstrate that sugar and starch cause blood glucose to rise at similar rates"

Gelainest (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I just removed , but results from more than twenty studies demonstrate that sugar and starch cause blood glucose to rise at similar rates. because I see no reference.  Chzz  ►  00:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but this means the following sentence no longer makes sense as the preceding piece is no longer there. We either need a reference to starch and sugar (that has never been provided) or need to re-write the following sentence. There must be references since more than one reference on the page effectively talks about how such studies do not produce effective results due to the fact they have insufficiently segregated the types of sugar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged Sparrowhawk (talk • contribs) 04:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sugar production

I propose to extract production information from "History" section and establish new section "Production". It will help find information about production methods of sugar. It will also encourage anybody to write more about production technologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synthesium (talk • contribs) 02:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views. See this edits. Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Tobby72 (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2012

please add the following under "links:

Sugar: The Bitter Truth UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public 7/2009 given by Dr. Lustig , Health and Medicine, Show ID: 16717. Accessed April 2011 (1 hour 30 mins)

174.63.36.201 (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You didn't provide a link. Celestra (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Immune system-realted health problems

"According to WebMD, consuming too much sugar suppresses the immune system.[56]"

Is a cite to the website WebMD enough? I'm no expert, but in my opinion it should be checked if there is any mention in a any serious peer-reviewed paper and if there isn't that subsection should be removed. 80.59.134.144 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Invention of sugar cubes

Hi, I think the invention of sugar cubes would be corrected. Henry Tate of Tate & Lyle (as written in the article) might contribute of making the sugar cubes in UK, but the first producer of the sugar in cubes and the patent owner was Jakub Kryštof Rad, more info on cs:Jakub Kryštof Rad, see also [3], [4], or [5].

I suggest the new text can be, for instance, like this:

Until the late nineteenth century, sugar was purchased in loaves, which had to be cut using implements called 'nips',[28] while in later years, bags of sugar became more common. The first inventor of a process to make sugar in cube-form was Moravian Jakub Kryštof Rad, director his own sugar company in Dačice. He was granted a five-year patent for his invention on January 23, 1843 and sugar cubes started to be produced also from Rad's sugar company. Henry Tate of Tate & Lyle, manufactured cubes at his sugar refineries in Liverpool and London. Tate purchased a patent for sugar cube manufacture from German Eugen Langen, who had invented a different method of processing of sugar cubes in 1872.

I'll be glad for any comments and/or language corrections.

The Jakub Kryštof Rad article is currently a stub. Probably it should be slightly improved before inserting its information into Sugar. For instance, the patent date is not included in the Rad article. Also, the Notes link leads to an error page, written in Czech.

I took a look at Henry Tate: "In 1872, Tate purchased the patent from German Eugen Langen for making sugar cubes, and in the same year built a new refinery in Liverpool." Thus, if the information about Rad is correct, it pre-dates Tate's patent by 30 years. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I took a shot at adding information about Rad's patent from the German wikipedia page about him. My German is not the best so I invite people to correct/update my initial edits. The Czech page on Rad may also be useful. I also added relevant translation information for the German page, which I used, and the Czech page, which I have not used yet. ʈucoxn\^talk 23:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Because of above action, I am re-activating the change request. I also made language/copyedits to the proposed text, with information from the German wikipedia page for sugar manufacturer Pfeifer & Langen. ʈucoxn\^talk 23:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Whoa, I'm confused! I have no clue what this edit request is asking for now! If someone wouldn't mind opening a new one at the bottom of this page, I'll look at it. Thanks :) gwickwire | Leave a message 03:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)