Jump to content

Talk:High-fructose corn syrup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Strabismus (talk | contribs) at 05:03, 22 June 2010 (→Obesity section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Source

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

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

practical cooking question

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

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

The recipes I've seen for such things call for "regular" (Karo) corn syrup, which is not HFCS, but is regular low fructose corn syrup. If it were HFCS, honey or can sugar syrup would be a good substitute, but since regular corn syrup is not as sweet as HFCS, it's harder to substitute for. That difference in sweetness is why it's exciting to have HFCS if you are a junk food manufacturer. (Karo is actually a mixture of regular CS and HFCS, but CS is first on the ingredients list, so it's at least mainly regular CS.)Ccrrccrr 03:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine invert sugar would be a good substitute. Honey would probably work well too and might even be an improvement in flavor. Either way, you might have to tweak the amount used.The myoclonic jerk (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maple, sorghum, or both. Several years ago, I experimented with replacing the Karo called for in our family's "traditional" pecan pie recipe. Maple & sorghum syrup (a truly traditional Southern sweetener), 50:50, is a wonderful blend, sweet without making you dizzy, and with a complex, not just in-your-face-sweet, flavor. 74.244.57.184 (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jwanderson edit rationale

I moved fructose specific information to the Fructose page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you sure that the corn syrup on the label is always the HFCS? The two are often used together, along with many other corn products such as xantham gum and maltodextrose. 82.93.133.130 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean my plan of living without water by pumping a mixture hydrogen and oxygen into my body won't work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The myoclonic jerk (talk • contribs) 09:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not same as corn syrup

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

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

Not Sweet Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coca cola without HFCS

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

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

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

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

NPOV in health effects section: Fructose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After reading further, I take issues with the "mercury scare" as well. See my comment above.66.30.15.98 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Along these lines I feel that the third paragraph should be removed because it is completely about pure fructose and not HFCS. Does anyone have any other comments for or against this study? AGeorgas (talk) 04:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have an issue with your analogy, and consequently with the edits in the article. Sucrose is a compound, just like water is a compound. Water can be broken down into hydrogen and oxygen. Sucrose can be broken down into fructose and glucose. However, mixing glucose and fructose in equal parts does not make sucrose. Table sugar is 100 percent sucrose--a single entity. HFCS is glucose and fructose mixed together--it is a mixture. It does not matter what the proportions of fructose and glucose are, it is still glucose and fructose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.224.31 (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other (industrial) Uses

Isn't there other uses for HFCS? I'm probably thinking of molasses, but isn't HFCS at least one part of the process for explosives? That's just one possiblility. I'm certain HFCS must have more uses, and at least some of those should be added to the article for further enrichment.

"(because some of the alcohol produced was to be used in making munitions)" See Boston Molasses Disaster#Cleanup

Criticism

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

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

Glucose-fructose syrup

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

Again, misleading fructose studies in "Health Effects"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia articles do not exist to "condemn" anything; they describe verifiably significant diverse viewpoints, weighted towards mainstream thought and scientific consensus (where it exists). This article, which periodically is a bit of a battleground, most certainly should discuss the ongoing controversy regarding HFCS, as it does now. Your conclusions about the studies in question may well be correct, but they're still your conclusions. If you find a reliable source whose conclusions match yours, please add it to the article or propose it here. (Btw, you generally will find it more productive simply to note the deficiencies of a given article, rather than attributing them to shadowy agendas and the like. Agendas come in all shapes and sizes, and while you may think you see one lurking in text written by your fellow editors, they may in turn think they see one lurking in yours.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. I will look for reliable sources. But in response to the idea of an "agenda," I must say that when the majority of critical studies mentioned in an article (4 of 7) don't even study the subject of an article, I suspect that something is being manipulated. As for my "agenda," if you want to call it that, I stated it plainly. I worry about too much sugar consumption in general, and studies have shown that excessive amounts of HFCS, white sugar, natural sugar, honey, corn syrup, etc. all have contributed to major health problems, and the amount of it used in processed foods should ALL be decreased. There is a lot of misinformation being circulated around the internet targeting HFCS, as if that were the only demon, but it's part of a larger problem. The fact that soft drink companies are willing to put huge amount of sucrose in our drinks instead of HFCS is not going to solve the health problems caused by excessive sugar consumption, and "natural foods" people who promote honey instead of HFCS are actually consuming almost a chemically-identical substance.
Now, that's my informed opinion on the matter (and it's based on the current scientific consensus), but that's irrelevant to whether this article portrays HFCS information accurately when it cites studies that don't actually study HFCS. Nor is my "agenda" relevant to the question of whether honey, various fruits, and various inverted sugar products have the same or a higher amount of fructose than HFCS, yet these studies aren't mentioned on their Wikipedia pages. For some reason, HFCS is singled out. That's inconsistent treatment. I'm pointing that out. If you think pointing out such a discrepancy is an "agenda," then that's your opinion. I apologize if I offended you. I just want to see consistency and reason. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. I was just pointing out that there isn't only one agenda at issue here. For instance, if you comb through the history of the article, you'll see that agents of "Big Corn" have almost certainly left their footprints on the scene, too. One reality about Wikipedia is that it's rarely possible to know exactly who anyone else is and what some of their motives might be, so I think it's usually pointless (and often counterproductive) to speculate about such things in article talk space. Discussing strictly only the edits and not the editors seems to be a better approach. I could be wrong in this instance, but I doubt it. Rivertorch (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps you misunderstood what I meant when I first mentioned an "agenda." I wasn't suggesting that there was a conspiracy of Wikipedia editors who compiled this section to mislead anyone. I wasn't actually questioning the motives of the editors here, per se. I was questioning the motives of the many people involved in various stages of the process that ultimately led to this portrayal on Wikipedia. For example, I assume that many editors who put these citations into this article didn't find them by reading medical journals; they probably found them on various blogs and websites devoted to "natural foods," or they saw references in media articles that hyped up conclusions that may have only been speculations in the discussion section of a scientific article, rather than what the primary conclusions of the studies were.
As I understand it, part of the process of creating an encyclopedia is to sort out fact from fiction. Wikipedia's definition of "reliable sources" will inevitably include sources that contradict each other. In this particular case, it struck me that there was a bunch of evidence criticizing a substance, but much of that evidence is not clearly linked to the subject being criticized. While such studies may also be used on blogs, websites, and even some media reports to criticize that substance, that doesn't mean that there's real evidence linking the research to that substance. (Or, if there is, that same evidence would link it to many other substances, as I pointed out before.)
In the end, I understand that Wikipedia can only be as good as the sources it depends upon. And I'm not trying to assert my own ideas (which of course would be original research). I'm just pointing out that, from a purely rational standpoint, there are a bunch of studies here on fructose that are cited (even of questionable relevance) when they aren't cited elsewhere. That strikes me as inconsistent, and such inconsistency would seem to be against the overall goals of an encyclopedia. Whether that's due to Wikipedia's editors, the media sources or web sources that they are relying upon, or even the original authors of the studies themselves, I don't know, and I'm not pointing a finger at a particular person or group. I'm just pointing out a rather obvious example of inconsistent treatment.
And, by the way, for another example of assuming an agenda, were you the one who inappropriately posted a threatening warning on the talk page for my IP address? (I only ask, because you now have posted another thing there.) If you did, just in response to one post here, I think you might want to reflect in on yourself about seeing hidden agendas and critiquing the messenger, rather than the message.65.96.161.79 (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a Welcome template on your talk page. And unless you have had something oversighted, that's the only edit anyone has ever made to your talk page. Do you have a dynamic IP, by any chance? If so, registering for an account would be an excellent idea. (It's a good idea, anyway, but if your IP address changes, you inevitably will receive warnings intended for someone else.) Rivertorch (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if my accusation was incorrect. That's the only edit that shows up because the previous talk page for the IP (where a warning appeared soon after I posted my first post on this talk page) was nuked by an admin after I reported an inappropriate warning. As for why I choose not to edit regularly or as a registered user, you can look that up on the admin discussion if you really care. I personally view the current stigma toward anonymous editors who make non-controversial edits to be a rather bad development in Wikipedia, but that's a rather off-topic discussion for this talk page. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the OP, but have not done anything about it other than adding one of the actual HFCS vs sucrose studies recently. In reality shouldn't all the fructose only stuides be moved to the fructose article? There is already a section for health concerns on the fructose page anyway. This seems like a reasonable and scientifically accurate fix to me. In my opinion the article in its current form, is like putting all the health risks associated with heavy water under the water page. AGeorgas (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs balance to reflect the controversy

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

"Helpful to the sugar industry" is another subsection which seems skewed POV, even if just in the title alone. PrBeacon (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by, "too many studies summarized which seem to be simply repeating what the Corn business says"? A majority of the studies cited do not paint HFCS in a positive light. What is your suggestion on making the article more balanced? Although Starbucks has removed HFCS from their syrups, they still have sucrose in them, which will still lead to your appetite not being satiated. AGeorgas (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us disagree with your characterization of the study summaries. Furthermore, your comments throughout this talk page indicate your bias in favor of HFCS so i'm not surprised to see you still defending it. Specifically, you've reverted two of recent edits: you claim HFCS is a sugar which is ridiculous by any common standard, no matter how it is scientifically classified; and it has been shown to contain mercury and other toxic substances so the introductory information is accurate. PrBeacon (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new title for the comparisons section gives undue weight to cane sugar and honey being natural and pushes the POV that they are more healthy because they are natural. The most neutral POV is the scientific one, which is why it should be reverted. The "common standard" can be swayed by any POV. AGeorgas (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what exactly is your disagreement is with the study summaries? You say many of you disagree with the current study summaries, but you are the first one that has brought up anything about how the summaries are worded. The new citation that you put on the "toxic" sentence violates Wikipedia:SYNTH because it was published after the original CBS article. This citation should not be used to back up the toxic wording. Also, the toxic claim possibly violates Wikipedia:UNDUE because the actual sentence in the CBS article doesn't say critics feel it is a "toxic concoction", but says "a lot of health-conscious people think it’s a toxic chemical concoction". A minority opinion should not be in the first section of the article. So overall, it is hard to justify why the current wording should remain in the first section of the article. The sentence about the corn industry groups is non-NPOV anyway because there are cited journal articles that weren't funded by the CRA while stating HFCS yields the same effects as sugar. Overall, I'm not saying that these two sentences you added should be taken out, but they should definitely be re-written. AGeorgas (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

There are other editors above & in this talkpage's archives who question the study summaries and other bogus claims of research. PrBeacon (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anything this is currently unblanced to the other view, the article is to against HFCS, and also lacks relvent sources to express these ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.194.210 (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving needed

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

Object? Heck, just looking at it now, I urge you to go ahead with it! It looks like it has never been archived. I’m seeing comments from 2005!! — NRen2k5(TALK), 02:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since nobody has objected, I've set up MiszaBot. It's set to move threads older than 6 months. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 00:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

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

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

Removed a statement

I removed the following sentence: [Sucrase] , by which the body regulates the rate of sucrose breakdown.[citation needed] Without this regulation mechanism, the body has less control over the rate of sugar absorption into the bloodstream.[citation needed]

This is a major claim, central to the whole question of whether there is a physiological difference between sucrose and HFCS. As far as I know, this has never been demonstrated. If it has, please include a citation if you re-enter the statement.

ASCI study

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

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

Possible Conflict of interest

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

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

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

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

this article is a joke

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

Whoops, wasn't logged in. That's me.--Xris0 (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed your edit. I haven't reverted it, because this issue is contentious enough that I don't trust myself. I can tell you exactly why I find your edit inappropriate. 1) Referring to past controversy implies that there no longer exists any controversy regarding the health risks of HFCS. Tagging your changes with "This is not opinion anymore" makes it clear that you understand that you were making that implication. While it might be interesting for us to wonder what exactly makes something opinion versus fact, I think that few would argue that the controversy is settled. 2) Referring to a study in the opening, when there is a section to discuss various studies, implies special consideration of the study cited in the opening. In this case, considering the contradictory findings of previous studies, no study, and especially no animal study, deserves that kind of special consideration. Papers are not out of date when they're two years old. 3) The study you refer to is already discussed in the health section. The citation you include, 13, is actually a pubmed link to the abstract of a paper cited in the health section, under citation 41. 24.21.167.199 (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, the paper you cite is not new. It is discussed in the second paragraph of the health effects section. Based on the seemingly random results (sometimes rats on HFCS gain more weight, other times they don't, rats who are on HFCS less time gain more weight than rats on HFCS 100% of the time, etc.) of this study, it is hardly a diffinitve study as you are trying to push. The study was also called into question by the mainstream media, and some of those articles are cited in that paragraph too. If you read the paragraph describing the study you cite, you will see it found that "Fat pads for rats on HFCS 24 hrs/day did not have a statistically different weight than rats on chow only" and "They also reported that the rats on HFCS 24 hrs/day did not gain a statistically significant amount of weight when compared to the rats on sucrose or chow only." So your edit saying the study found that "HFCS is associated with obesity" and "with HFCS specifically causing increased adipose fat and triglyceride levels" is incorrect and misleading. Based on this I'm reverting it back. AGeorgas (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poison

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

Obesity section

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

I'm sure there will always be concerns. I haven't seen how HFCS is particularly dangerous as it is. Aspartame, on the other hand... Oh, and has anyone here seen the TV commercials about HFCS? Maybe the fact that the issue has been brought to the attention of those watching unrelated shows sharing the same ad during the commercial break should be mentioned?--Strabismus (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-fructose_corn_syrup&oldid=369494909"