Talk:High fructose corn syrup and health

Princeton Study

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.215.129 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Papers

An encyclopedia article is not a literature review. We should not have whole subsections (e.g., under #Obesity) dedicated to describing published papers. The goal is to concisely present the facts and conclusions from the papers, not to describe the papers themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We had an extensive discussion on this a while ago here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

can you find the archive and get the perm.link for it? I assume the result was that where there is no consensus in the field the differing reports are the best that can be done69.72.27.139 (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the amount of information put into these subsections they should not include outside criticisms of these works unless consistently criticized. If the literature is lumped into one article describing research concerning the dangers of HFCS then a following section should be criticism of that research. This helps to separate fact from opinion and keep these articles truly neutral.Qristopher2 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rohit Kohli

Would someone like to add Rohit Kohli's work, "High Levels of Fructose, Trans Fats Lead to Significant Liver Disease, Says Study" [1] described as from Hepatology.69.72.27.139 (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this a mistake, or do I misunderstand?

The following passage appears in the article:

"According to Ferder, Ferder & Inserra, (2010) fructose consumption and obesity are linked because fructose consumption does not cause an insulin response. This is important because, without an insulin response after consumption of a high-fructose food, there is no suppression of appetite, which is normally induced by hyperinsulinemia after a meal. If satiety or suppression of appetite occurs, then the person will continue eating or overeating as the case may be."

It seems to me the last sentence should read: "If satiety or suppression of appetite does not occur, the person will continue eating or overeating as the case may be." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.217.144 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Given that nearly every medical review article states that there is no conclusive link between HFCS and any disease state in ANY level higher than over eating any other sugar, this article really requires a massive cleanup. I'll work on it when I get a chance. This will be fun debunking a variety of myths promulgated by the big money natural food groups. Sugar is sugar is sugar, and it's all bad for you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree completely. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If the consensus scientific view is that high-fructose corn syrup has the same health effects as sucrose then that should be clearly stated in the lead. I have not seen any sources that natural food groups are attacking the product on the basis of that it has different health effects from sugar. TFD (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not the case though, studies like Borcarsly clearly state that it has worse effects than sugar. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There will always be studies that show things are good for you/bad for you, but what matters is the opinion formed by experts. I do not see that the results of the Bocarsly study has been accepted. TFD (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. I'm going to be WP:BOLD. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree Bocarsly was entered into a peer reviewed journal making it sufficiently accepted by experts. Experts have come out on both sides of the article, just as they have with Bray Federer as well as Tate and Lyle. Criticism or disagreement from a variety of experts on the conclusions of a study does not make the study unaccepted by the wider community. Only if it is sufficiently proven that the study cannot be reproduced with similar results is any research considered "not accepted" once it is put into a peer reviewed journal. Qristopher2 (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That is untrue, not "every medical review article states there is no conclusive link between HFCS and any disease state in any level higher than overeating any other sugar." The prevailing wisdom is that research on HFCS does have reproducible results that demonstrate it can be linked to a greater propensity towards various diseases including diabetes. There are only a few pieces of research done directly on HFCS and sugar which have resulted in a somewhat mixed view of HCDS versus honey versus sugar. However most of the prevailing wisdom comes from indirect sources, research done on other subjects that produce results that consistently define HCFS as worse for you than sugar. Indirect though it may be it is still counter to that claim. Qristopher2 (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out results similar to Bocarsly have been published: Bray in a 2004 issue of American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Ferder in a 2010 issue of Current Hypertension Report. Furthermore, Ferder states that short term responses are the same explaining the results seen in Stanhope while supporting the long term results seen by Bocarsly and Bray. While not exactly a RS "High fructose corn syrup is NOT food" at www.examiner.com indicates there may be other factors that make high fructose corn syrup a major suspect in obesity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the real difference is the appetite for it. Notice how the studies concerning the effects of a given amount of sugar vs. a given amount of HFCS showed no differences, but the ones offering "all you can eat" showed increased weight gain in the HFCS group. Mbarbier (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Mercury

The section about mercury seems to document a single instance of accidental mercury contamination from an unrelated process rather than any health risk inherent to HFCS itself. This kind of contamination could potentially happen in the manufacture of essentially any foodstuff or other products and would seem to be outside the article's scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me from reading the section that the presence of mercury came from the production process for chemicals used to produce HFCS. So while this is not a direct health risk of HFCS, it could be a health risk of HFCS that is manufactured in this way. 138.16.32.85 (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This content is now part of a Wikipedia dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_effects_of_high-fructose_corn_syrup&action=history) Evidence suggests that Americans may be consuming more mercury from hfcs than any other source, and the source of contamination of hfcs in the United States appears to be from 4 plants that use older, obsolete "Mercury Cell" process. A fifth plant in Wisconsin conceded that their "Mercury Cell" process was contaminating hcfc used in other foods with tons of Mercury yearly and stopped using this outdated "Mercury Cell" process to refine HFCS. This is a potentially significant health and safety issue related to HFCS and should to be referenced in this article in some way. Jtankers (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Princeton study - here we go again

The Bocarsly study is already discussed in detail in the article, in a NPOV way (see the Bocarsly section). Note that this study fails MEDRS because it is a primary study, and we should be mainly relying on reviews. However we included this study in the article (along with criticism) due to its high profile. It isn't appropriate to include this study in the lede due to WP:WEIGHT (and even if it was, the current edits saying "the most recent and conclusive research" is definitely not NPOV!)

Sunvox/108.*: please revert your changes, read WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV and discuss any changes here rather than edit warring. If you keep edit warring you are likely to get banned from wikipedia. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please stop edit-warring and discuss changes. TFD (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose on the pharmacokinetics of fructose and acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses in healthy subjects. Le MT, Frye RF, Rivard CJ, Cheng J, McFann KK, Segal MS, Johnson RJ, Johnson JA. Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.

"In conclusion, our findings suggest that there are differences in various acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses between HFCS and sucrose."

This is peer reviewed medically significant research showing that you are wrong and which makes the Borcarsly research worthy of notice in the opening remarks. Just because you do not agree with the results does not make the science any less valid nor should you be allowed to withhold any relevant data from the public. A NPOV includes pros AND cons.

This is a single study. Please read WP:MEDRS and you'll see that we mainly rely on well-cited reviews. It's not that I don't agree (I personally don't give a crap whether or not HFCS is worse than sugar)...the important thing is to follow wikipedia's rules when adding content. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(While I was typing this, Sciencewatcher posted the above. I'll post it anyway as it explains the same situation in slightly different terms.)

Interesting. It's "primary" evidence, though. We can't report it until an expert has reviewed it in a peer-reviewed systematic review. The very fact that you brought that here, expecting to persuade someone that it should be reported in this article, tells me you haven't grasped the essence of our most fundamental guideline WP:MEDRS. It's a difficult, tedious read, I have to confess, but it explains why you're having the problems you are here. Please take the time to read it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did read the MEDRS "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse." (the secondary literature being the 2008 AMA review asking for further research) and given the nature of the issue being discussed and the full spectrum of research now in existence (for there is considerably more work I haven't cited) as well as general global epidemiology I do not see how one can fail to add it in a NPOV opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.128.155 (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The current edit war

The new source you've brought here, Ferder et al PMID 489461351, does not address the question of "experimental and clinical evidence suggesting a progressive association between HFCS consumption, obesity, and other injury processes." It simply says that in passing as part of its argument for its novel hypothesis (that metabolic damage associated with HFCS probably is not limited to obesity-pathway mechanisms). It doesn't even cite a source for the claim. You cannot use that to debunk the AMA position. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the last source cited will fulfill your request and is listed in my comments above. I suggest everyone take the time to read it in it's entirety before resuming the editing war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.128.155 (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Which title/author are you referring to? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I see you have again added your changes that fail WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV against consensus. As Anthony Cole pointed out above, you really should read these policies and stop edit warring. You should also be aware of WP:3RR which you are about to break and likely get banned for (both your usernames and your ip address will likely get banned). --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See my above remarks regarding MEDRS, but as to WEIGHT I would point out that arguing that HFCS is unlike sucrose is NOT the same as saying the "Earth is flat" and therefore does not fail WEIGHT or NPOV. I disagree with you and you disagree with me, but we both have science to support our argument and deserve room in the opening line. I would urge everyone undoing my edits to add their own comments before or after my comments, with countering science and showing the timeliness of the research they cite rather than removing my edits.

Well I see you have undone my change. Obviously I will have to wait 24 hours so as not to violate the 3RR, but I don't see any valid arguments on the talk page that convince me I have violated any rules with my last edit, and I fully intend to re-enter them as often as I can. 108.41.128.155 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)sunvox

Wikipedia is governed by policies and guidelines. We all follow them or get banned. You are demonstrating that you either haven't read or haven't understood or will flout the policies you've been politely pointed to many times. If you continue to push your content onto articles, having been warned that it breaches our guidelines, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority I see you did not respond to my arguments above, and I assume you are a Wikipedia moderator in order to threaten me with banning. Based on my arguments above I believe the last edit I posted does not violate any Wikipedia rules. If you have the ability to ban me and you feel that this post will violate the rules then I would like to appeal this case to someone that has never posted on this page and may be arguably more independent of opinion than are you.Sunvox (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. You will be blocked, though, if you continue to push content onto articles that violates our content guidelines. I'm sorry, I thought I'd looked at all your comments; can you point me to the argument you're referring to? Just paste the first sentence here and I'll find it. It's bedtime here; I'll get back to you in eight or so hours.

An afterthought. Like sciencewatcher, I couldn't care less whether HFCS is more harmful than other sweeteners, though I'm finding the topic very interesting. It is certainly looking like there might be something to all this. Our point of conflict isn't our opinions about the science, it's over what can go into a Wikipedia article, and what has to wait. We can discuss that. But that discussion will only be worthwhile once you're abreast of WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint on the dispute resolution board as Sciencewatcher is apparently a moderator and has warned me I may be banned. I will, of course, abide by the decision made on the board, and can only hope that if you, Anthony, are a truly a disinterested party that you will reconsider the available research and then write your own version of the facts. By the way my name is Joe, and I hope you have a "Good-night". Perhaps as you suggest it is simply a matter of timing since the building evidence does not bode well for HFCS. Sunvox (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Joe

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup". Thank you. Sunvox (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Joe

Studies that have abstracts ending with "in rats", particularly primary studies, shouldn't be used on wikipedia pages unless the page itself is about rats. A brief look at the obesity section alone suggests the need for a minor to major trim of at least the primary studies, and the graph depicting changes in obesity that attempts to link it - implicitly if not explicitly - to HFCS should probably go. We should emphasize studies and findings reported in review articles, and we shouldn't add "BUT IT'S FUNDED BY TEH BIG SUGARZ" in every section. I may have a go at the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was a terrible page. Cherry-picking, use of primary sources to debunk secondary, lots of "in rats" studies cited unnecessarily, I've trimmed it down considerably and eliminated the mercury section - get a review article. Consensus in the medical community seems to be HFCS is no better or worse than any other high-sugar product. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that WLU. I'm flat out in RL and with Wikidrama. You're my hero. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the cleanup WLU. Now that the health effects article is shorter, perhaps it might make sense to just merge it back into the main HFCS article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That would make sense to me - the general consensus seems to be that it's just another form of calories, with some indications it might be more - but not so many indications we can spend a lot of time on it. It's definitely too short for a standalone article on a fringe idea that is unlikely to expand. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[QUOTE] Studies that have abstracts ending with "in rats", particularly primary studies, shouldn't be used on wikipedia pages unless the page itself is about rats. [/QUOTE] You will need to furnish refs for this assumption. Rat and other animal studies are commonly done for medical issues and are perfectly acceptable. Please furnish information that states otherwise. Gandydancer (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• [2]
• [3] full text
• [4] full text
• [5] full text
• [6] full text

Cribbed from here. I don't think we're done here folks, but I think a more solid article needs to be built from good-quality, secondary, human-focussed sources rather than cherry-picked rat studies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources provided about high fructose corn syrup. TFD (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do - try reading them (and not just the titles :) --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Two are explicit, three are about fructose more generally (one of which actually excludes HFCS) but there's probably a place for at least some of them. Right now I only have access to the PMC one, I may try integrating this weekend. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Where's the Arbitration request?

I can't find it anywhere, if it was rejected or closed I will reintroduce or appeal it. The fact is most of the sources that show that it isn't "more detrimental to health than other types of sugars" were excluded despite meeting the requirements of WP:MEDS. This is especially true of the Princeton study which was cited by the Princeton news website as a secondary source and is the latest research on the topic.

Also I suppose the fact that I'm adding my voice to this means there is not a consensus of users as I disagree with the assertions of a "tiny minority" of studies and the incorrect use of WP:MEDS. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind found it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:MEDRS again. We primarily use well-cited reviews, which the Princeton study isn't one of. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus" doesn't mean "everyone is happy". We have to be happy within the framework of the policies and guidelines. For instance, aggregating a series of rat studies to claim it says something about humans is a violation of the policy on original research as well as what wikipedia is not (specifically, not a soapbox). Unless there is strong consensus to ignore the rules, we have to abide by them. I'm not going to ignore our rules on representing the scientific consensus so someone can claim fructose is evil.

A press release is not a WP:MEDRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I mentioned it in the dispute resolution but things like the 2009 AMA study ignores WP:MEDRS and the Princeton study is overwhelmingly valid, to suggest a study on rats isn't valid for human effects is to ignore basic scientific experiments, even the researchers said it used to see human effects. As such, claiming WP:Undue or WP:OP in this case is unwarranted.

Also calling the Princeton news site a PR release is debatable and probably true but the 2009 AMA study ignores any pretense of a secondary source and I believe both are equally valid. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WLU, are you aware that 95% of all studies done looking for medical effects on humans are done on rats or mice? I believe that it would be best to drop that line of opposition. Gandydancer (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article I see that WLU has deleted some rat studies just because they were "rat studies". That information should be returned to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And further reading shows that WLU gutted the article with the edit summary "what an astonishingly selective citation of the literature" while s/he had no problem keeping the private one-man article done by a guy with corn industry associations. Gandydancer (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

White's ref is used for " HFCS-containing beverages has been suggested as a contributor to poor health and problems for people with diabetes" as well, so perhaps we should just get rid of that sentence. Regarding rats: what is important is whether or not we have a reliable review which mentions the rat studies. If so we should then say what the review says...it will analyze the primary studies and discuss whether or not it is likely to be a concern for humans. As per wikipedia policies, we should not use primary studies themselves - we need to stick to using well-cited reviews. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo, we cite what can be verified in reliable sources, not The Truth^TM. We don't pick and choose sources based on whether we agree with them (which seems to be your approach to the 2009 AMA article), we pick them based on reliability and secondary-ness. Also, unless there is a source saying "X article is biased and here is why" we shouldn't qualify it and nor should we discount it.

Gandydancer, per WP:MEDRS and WP:PSTS, we don't cite 95% of studies. We cite the 1% of articles that are secondary sources summarizing primary - and this page isn't about the health effects of HFCS on rats. I think placing large amounts of emphasis on health consequences found in rats is undue weight on the idea that HFCS is no more healthy or unhealthy than equal amounts of sugar. That seems to be the scientific consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, rats/mice are used for 95% of studies and are frequently used in Wikipedia articles. You should be aware of that fact and that you are not suggests a lack of knowledge on your part. Also, summaries do take priority over primary studies, however, when well-done they they are commonly and correctly used on Wikipedia to offer conflicting findings. If you believe differently, you need to document your beliefs, which to this point you have not been able to do. Gandydancer (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we should not use poor quality primary animal studies. What we should be doing is look for high quality sources (reviews), not include every low quality one possible. Yobol (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rats and mice are used as hypothesis-generating animals for human studies, which are the studies of actual interest to other humans. The flaws and failings of other articles are irrelevant here, but please feel free to correct any other pages over-reliant on animal research. Per MEDRS, we shoudln't overemphasize rat and mice studies. When we have an abundance of secondary sources to draw upon, there is no need to overemphasize preliminary research in animals. Those secondary sources pretty clearly converge on the idea that there is no concrete reason to believe HFCS is any worse than any other sugar, though this is still a tentative conclusion.

Sciencewatcher, I think the sentence should remain, since it is a specific claim refuted in the article. I'd suggest spending more time looking for research on carbonyls to see if there is anything else out there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Mercury, redux

I've removed the section on mercury for a third time. This was reported in a primary source and thus does not represent a general problem with HFCS. A secondary, high-quality source should be used if available, we are not the news. If not, then it should not be on the page. The news stories are reports on the single, primary, scienctific article, and thus are not appropriate secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The main article found the primary study to be sufficient for more than a year, but I can search for more references this evening. This is not quackery, and it appears to be more than a minor concern. President Obama himself was involved in legislative efforts to phase out "Mercury Cell" technology (I'll search for reference this evening).

Evidence suggests that Americans may be consuming more mercury from hfcs than any other source, and the source of contamination of hfcs in the United States appears to be from 4 plants that use older, obsolete "Mercury Cell" process. A fifth plant in Wisconsin conceded that their "Mercury Cell" process was contaminating hcfc used in other foods with tons of Mercury yearly and stopped using this outdated "Mercury Cell" process to refine HFCS. This is a potentially significant health and safety issue (particularly for children and pregnant women) related to HFCS and should be referenced in this article in some way. Jtankers (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Longevity of an error is not a reason to perpetuate it. That is still a primary source, and further - it is not a general concern over the health effects of HFCS, it is a concern over the specific processing in specific plants. That source is not adequate to indicate that mercury levels in HFCS is a widespread concern. A search on pubmed for HFCS and mercury turns up exactly two articles, both from 2009, this one and a second by the same group. This does not appear to be a widespread concern. Having a mention of what appears to be a localized problem, within a single country, from three years ago, by a single group, seems to be undue weight on what essentially comes down to a single primary study. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can research, annotate and respond in more detail this evening on: level of concern in the US, level of press coverage, world wide impact (legacy mercury cell process widely used world wide), congressional action including by current president, confirmation of mercury contamination by Wisconsin HFCS production plant, and HFCS mercury contamination sourced by the 4 (previously 5) plants found nationwide in foods in significant enough levels that the average American child is estimated to be significantly exceeding US safe mercury consumption levels (nationwide, still at this time) just from consuming foods containing high levels of HFCS, and no peer reviewed counter study. A purpose of Wikipedia is to consicely present the facts and guide readers to further research if they chose. To exclude an issue of this significance I think would be a dis-service to people attempting to research the health and safety of consuming large quantities of HFCS as particularly Americans do. Please also confirm that you do not have any potential conflict of interest, or any association with the Corn Growers Association of America. Jtankers (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)