Jump to content

Talk:High-fructose corn syrup/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Clear Bias

HFCS is a cheap preservative, and can make you body very sick!, The bad thing[User talk:71.185.207.72|talk]]) 00:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

agreed. I would recommend going so far as to deleting the majority of this article given how ridiculously non-objective and biased it is in favor of the lobby groups. If any studies funded by the lobby groups are mentioned they should probably all be confined to their own section given they seem like complete pseudoscience. It would be better for this to be a stub than a lobbyist propaganda piece. --Xris0 (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this article needs a complete rewrite. It reads as if it was written by someone working for the corn lobby. I can't even find mention of the recent PNAS paper that establishes a metabolic mechanism for the food-intake increasing effects of fructose, or any of the other mounting evidence that fructose increases food intake (unlike sucrose, which decreases it). — Aldaron • T/C 22:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh THAT'S what you guys meant when it said Clear Bias. I figured it meant bias vs the stuff(so I removed since there was a Bias even in the "scientific" section beforehand, two conflicting biases = balanced report). Um, one thing that could be done to even out was I read somewhere that a chemical in the corn when turned into syrup either called leptin, or which blocks leptin (look it up to get the story straighter) effectively in addition to the bodily slowdown due to normal sugar intake slows/halts the body processing of fats. I.e. you body gets too much corn syrup it actually does make you fat. The corn lobby really has alot to answer for, and making everyone in such states be forced to watch Children of the Corn is a good antidote to this thing. Especially since the other problem, biodiesel actually wastes more oil than it "saves." (production, transportation, and shipping) Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocks leptin. Leptin signals appetite being full, and this corn syrup interferes with it... Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored deleted POV template to health effects section. If the preceding section is also biased, it should also be marked and linked to this page for discussion. — Aldaron • T/C 17:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC) This section still misses the critical point that, compared with sucrose, HFCS, contains much (not "10%") more fructose and no sucrose, and that that is the crucial fact in the context of cited papers and the one mentioned above: fructose is an appetite stimulant while sucrose is an appetite suppressant. This section still follows the corn lobby in failing to make this critical connection. — Aldaron • T/C 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

But HFCS does contain 10% more fructose than sucrose effectively does. Your body can't use sucrose, so it breaks it down into its component monosaccharides (glucose and fructose). The glucose is absorbed by the small intestine, and the fructose is sent to the liver -- just like the fructose in HFCS. Since a molecule of sucrose is broken down into one glucose and one fructose molecule, after it gets through your stomach it is effectively "50% fructose." The HFCS 55 used in most commercial products is 55% fructose. So it effectively has ((55-50)/50) * 100 = 10% more fructose than sucrose. I'm the one who made the two edits on 12/15/2008, and I felt that the resulting section was pretty neutral. There is one summary paragraph; three paragraphs defending each side, with 6 studies cited for the anti-HFCS side and 4 studies cited for the pro-HFCS side... with an additional 2 anti-HFCS links and 2 pro-HFCS links. I address the pro-HFCS criticism of the anti-HFCS studies (that they address fructose specifically rather than HFCS), and the anti-HFCS criticism of the pro-HFCS side (that most of them are funded by the corn industry). What in particular do you take issue with here? Elchip (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It's precisely that difference: the process of breakdown and the regulatory feedback loops in which it participates that's the difference. In lay terms, there are signals that get sent by the sucrose breakdown process that are absent if glucose+fructose are ingested directly. — Aldaron • T/C 18:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Signals that can still be absent if the sucrose is contained in an acidic beverage, like oh say, soda-pop, where average time on shelf and temperature in the acidic solution will break down much of sucrose into unbound fructose and glucose anyway. Or natural fruit juices, especially apple, where the glucose and fructose isn't bound to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.77.201 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! Every 10 years or so, Americans find a new scapegoat for their rampant obsesity. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with their eating behavior or lack of exercise. Instead, the food must be evil. 98.235.79.159 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
If you have a link about this, I'd be more than happy to incorporate it into the article. Elchip (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
HFCS isn't food. It is the most highly processed product ever to to be an added ingredient to processed food. The corn starch is 90% or more coming from GMO corn. That alone will be contaminated with 2 insecticides growing in every part of the corn and/or various herbicides sprayed on corn made immune to herbicide.

In addition to this GMO connection corn starch is processed in three stages by adding various enzymes in a slurry. The enzymes are produced by companies like Novozymes. How do they make enzymes like amylase (the saliva enzyme that starts digesting starches in our mouths)? Genetically modified bacteria or yeast. The GE organisms are crushed to get at the enzymes and the product is ALWAYS contaminated by bacterial endotoxins, DNA fragments, contaminants form the soup the organisms are grown in and the guts of the organisms themselves. No one should ever consume HFCS as it is presently made and marketed. No proper safety testing has ever been done on this product. Can it be solely blamed for American obesity? Not until studies support that conclusion. Can it be partially blamed for American obesity? Probably. The problem is that the large independent clinical studies are not being done because the FDA will not fund them. The only large studies we have are sponsored or done by industry. The small independent studies have shown multiple problems with HFCS consumption, but as long as the industry continues to spout a plethora of studies outnumbering the independent studies the FDA simply goes with "the scientific consensus"... the majority of studies. If the comparative numbers of studies are ever nearly equal, then the FDA will speak to the actual number of study participants, which the industry will always win hands-down. This is an evil cooperation between industry and bribed regulatory/elected officials which must be made criminally punishable and properly pursued by the Justice Department. Until that happens Americans and other nations' peoples will continue to be harmed by these for-profit dangerous products.

discussion of other substances in HFCS

I used to work at a beverage factory, where we used HFCS, and I tasted it straight. Anyone who has ever tasted straight HFCS will definitely know that there are other things in it besides fructose and glucose, it has an odd, rather unpleasant flavor. I'm wondering if anyone knows of any information about what else is in it... it would be interesting to have in the article

69.207.177.222 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If there was anything else in it besides fructose and corn syrup they couldn't call it that. There's also nothing else in friggin' sucrose. They're identical. For that matter fructose and glucose are identical save for slight -positioning- of the identical atoms they have.
HFCS is the most contaminated substance ever allowed to be added to our foods. From the GMO corn contaminated with ingrown pesticides (at least 2), herbicides (never before on or in our foods) along with bacterial or yeast cellular debris (contaminating our foods at an ever increasing percentage since the early 1990s) HFCS must be treated as poison until properly and clinically proved to be safe.
It still tastes like shit. HFCS sweetened beverages have a sickly sweet taste to me that cane sugar does not have. --206.40.229.27 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the amount of processing should be the deciding factor in whether this stuff should be considered natural. Natural and minimally processed foods are generally healthier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.148.34 (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three different enzymes used to break down corn starch in three different stages to get the HFCS we all know and love... All of the cornstarch is not broken down or all of the enzymes are not used... one or the other or a combination of both will be true... During the following two stages there will be more byproducts or contamination that is an economically inescapable part of the process... I am certain that there is a purity threshhold that must be met and outside contaminant levels must be at a certain percentage for the product to be called corn syrup or high fructose corn syrup... There will NEVER be a pure product... the more stages in processing you have to go through the heavier will be the contamination from various sources... It is completely understandable that there should be some other "flavors" in the final product...

Regarding whether the product can be called natural? Naturally not!!! HFCS doesn't exist in nature and is never naturally produced... The FDA doesn't define "natural" but the USDA does; "A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product) may be labeled natural. The label must explain the use of the term natural (such as - no added colorings or artificial ingredients; minimally processed.)" ... HFCS would not qualify under the USDA's definition... Michael Polidori —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.254.79 (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I flaged this article for cleanup and a look at npov. It seems somewhat bias against high fructose corn syrup and it also goes into first person at one point. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view & Wikipedia:Manual of Style --70.240.240.67 13:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC) FRUCTOSE SUCKS!

Medical Effects

I originally added a section on the effects of HFCS to metabolism while reading the Corn Syrup entry. I didn't spot the topic break out at that time. I've since moved that information here. It is added information compiled from 2 medical articles published in 2004. These mark the really solid start of the research for the current growing body of evidence on the effects of HFCS consumption on the metabolism.

I have updated this section with some data from the USDA as well as clarifying the results of the 2004 study. The study in question looked at replacing glucose in the diet with fructose, not sucrose vs. fructose or sucrose vs. HFCS. The authors of the study refer to a "high fructose" meal, not HFCS. The metabolic changes inferred in this study would be the same whether the source of additional fructose was HFCS, honey, or cane/beet sugar. If we can get the HFCS/fructose confusion straightened out on Wikipedia, that might be a significant impact. Getting POV for a moment, people need to worry about table sugar and honey just as much as HFCS. Fructose is fructose, no matter whether it was produced in bees or in tanks. Gwimpey 03:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It is not good to eat much honey - Proverbs 25:27a. King Solomon knew it! They didn't have HFCS back then, of course. This article should have less POV material (and links to such) about the dangers of HFCS (much of which is pure hogwash) and more info on the general overuse of sweetners of all kinds, and the danger such overuse causes to people's health. Also, general NPOV info on HFCS is always appropriate! EthanL 11:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent visit to the US

Seemingly practically everything in the US now has high-fructose corn syrup. I wouldn't like to be trying to avoid it - although after one soft drink in the States, I didn't actually physically feel like drinking more.

Mind you, who knows, maybe the beer had it too.

I know the ketchup did. Bleugh.

Is there a reason that manufacturers haven't tried to push this stuff in Europe? Or is it likely to creep in? (Or even worse, is the "sugar" in for example Coca Cola here, actually HFCS - are they allowed not label it as such?) Or is the GM thing stopping it for now?

zoney ♣ talk 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

well, HFCS isn't listed in nutritional info, its just clssified as a sugar. you have to look at the ingredients to see if high fructose corn syrup is in there (for soda, it probably is). I really wish that most of the food companies would use dextrose instead. dextrose is made from corn, is almost as sweet, and doesn't have any fructose. it's cheaper than using splenda for he diet stuff, and i'd be fine eating stuff sweetened with dextrose (not going overboard with sugar, of course) and feel a little less paranoid when looking through ingredients and avoiding fructose. Oh, and btw, dextrose is what is often used in beer.

I have heard that the reason that HFCS is not seen much in Europe is that Europe heavily subsidizes sugar beet production, just as corn is subsidized in the USA. Nothing to do with nutrition. Some people claim to taste a difference, but there is little if any metabolic difference between sucrose (cane/beet sugar) and HFCS (glucose/dextrose vs. HFCS/cane/beet is another matter). There are additional considerations to the choice of sweetener besides sweetness, such as its effects on consistency of the finished product. It's probably worth noting that many products sweetened with "fruit juice" are actually sweetened with a fruit-derived product very similar to HCFS. I've also seen "glucose-fructose syrup" appear as a euphemism for HFCS on products aimed at the "Whole Foods/Wild Oats" consumer (ie people who think that because it's more expensive, it must be better for you). Gwimpey 04:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: Beer in the US, or anywhere, isn't made with HFCS. Glucose/dextrose and malt sugars only. Use of corn sugars or fructose to make beer makes it taste winey or cidery, which ruins it. Sometimes a small amount of corn glucose is used to finish a small-batch beer in-bottle with natural carbonation. But that is well after the main fermentation, immediately prior to bottling, and the amount is small (< 1 tsp/12 oz) to avoid ruining the flavor. Cernansky 17:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Note also that high fructose corn syrup can be listed differently on ingredient labels in different countries. Here in Canada it's usually listed as "glucose-fructose" (see this page from Agriculture Canada) and I think in the UK it's listed as "glucose fructose syrup". RickScott 18:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aggressive Editing

User 24.27.210.84 has been making a series of edits to the article, making it more favorable to HCFS interests. After a series of changes were reverted, the user persisted and removed several sections from the article, as well as removing the vandalism section from the talk page. I am new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how to handle this hostile user. --McChris 23:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Response: Is this a case of the scorched bottom of the kettle calling the the pot black? The purpose of the edits was to correct the nature of the article from being a blatant position paper against HFCS to a factual article about HFCS (neither pro or con). If your desire is to write a personal diatribe against HFCS, than you should consider writing a separate article although it should still be supported and the criticisms made above have not been answered. You certainly should read the Wikipedia Help pages if you're looking for an FAQ, but since you're obviously using the Wikipedia to insert a position paper against HFCS, you should read the help pages more carefully. The vandalism page that you're referring to (and was only ONE senteance) was removed because it was in fact juvenile vandalism. Also, be advised that just because somebody disagrees with you and changes your article, it most certainly does NOT constitute vandalism - you'll find that in the FAQ as well. If you want to cooperate to make an article that limits bias to the maximum extent possible, by all means, I'm happy to communicate with you on the talk page. Last, but not not least, according to the Wikipedia Help page and I quote, "Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled."

This page gets vandalized basically every day. How do we go about excluding anonymous users on it?
WriterHound 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Nunquam Dormio 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) What is the objection to someone adding a link: High Fructose Makes You Fat: Information on High Fructose Corn Syrup and Obesity? Although, it self-evidently takes a viewpoint, it seems perfectly germane to this topic.

Read WP:EL. Ask yourself how many of the "include" criteria it meets (zero, as far as I can see) and how many of the "links to normally avoid" criteria it meets (1, 2, and 12 at the very least). --Craig Stuntz 18:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apply those criteria to the other external links and see how many survive. For example, is the Steven Milloy article of any great merit? Anyone know what the relevance is of the two links about "ghrelin"? What happened to the link referenced in the main article — "(See External link on HFCS and Obesity)"? Nunquam Dormio 19:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to defend the others. My personal opinion is that almost nothing written by Milloy has any merit on or off of Wikipedia. :) --Craig Stuntz 19:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pro/con HFCS material

I haven't edited here in a while (and I've changed my username). I was responsible for some of the maligned links to sites of questionable nature. That's not because I believe them, but because many people do, in fact, hold those opinions about HFCS. I think some of those links might have been there before I got here, and I just tidied them up, or else I found them to at least indicate that the opinions expressed were not original to the other editors of the article. However, I'm also the one who put in the USDA graph, which definitely suggets that increased consumption of sweeteners, rather than the biochemistry of HFCS, is responsible for any increase in obesity linked to sweeteners. I think that I actually toned down the anti-HFCS tone quite a bit. Personally, I think that much of the anti-HFCS material on the net is poor science. But Wikipedia needs to report on its existence; there's plenty of people out there who hold those positions. Perhaps I went a bit overboard in presenting the rather flaky, anecdotal evidence. If so, that's a first for me! --GeoGreg 22:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Fructose Messes With Your Hormones (from Mens Health Magazine 2005)

Normally, when you eat a food that contains glucose or starch -- or any other carbohydrate -- your body releases insulin, a hormone that does a series of important jobs to regulate your body weight: First, it tries to push the carbs into your muscle cells to be used as energy and facilitates carb storage in the liver for later use. Then it suppresses your appetite -- telling your body, in effect, that you're full and it's time to stop eating. Finally, it stimulates production of another hormone, leptin. Leptin is manufactured in your fat cells and acts as a nutrition traffic cop of sorts. It helps regulate storage of body fat and helps increase your metabolism when needed to keep your weight in check. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin and therefore doesn't increase the production of leptin," says Havel (Peter Havel, Ph.D., a nutrition researcher at the University of California at Davis). This is the most important part of the case against fructose in general and HFCS in particular: Without insulin and leptin, your appetite has no shutoff mechanism. You can drink a six-pack of Mountain Dew or eat a half gallon of frozen yogurt, and your body will hardly acknowledge that you've consumed any calories at all. Eat the equivalent number of calories in the form of a Thanksgiving dinner and you feel stuffed.

Really? I guess I'll cut all apples, pears, and watermelons from my diet as they are all high fructose-containing fruits. Who knew fruit was evil? 98.235.79.159 (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

More on NPOV and cleanup

What is the relevance of the Mens' Health article above to health and metabolism when comparing sucrose with HFCS? Ordinary sucrose is a disaccharide, a glucose molecule linked to a fructose molecule. If I understand right, the two are broken apart early during digestion, and are absorbed into the bloodstream as the monosaccharides. Which is almost exactly the same as HFCS made up of 55% fructose and 45% glucose, the most common formulation according to the second paragraph in the article. Thus, if fructose fails to stimulate insulin release, it would fail almost exactly as much after drinking a soda containing sucrose as it would a soda containing HFCS. I have to agree with one of the commenters that this article seems intended as a screed against HFCS. Apparently, some of the heavily biased stuff has already been deleted. But what remains is choppy, seems intended to make points against HFCS but never gets around to any real facts. Obviously there is a public health controversy about this stuff, and the article should address it. But the POV that HFCS is more unhealthful than ordinary sucrose is not supported by the facts presented here, despite the transparent intent.

The text discussing the graph on sugar consumption in the US is self-contradictory. The sentence "Thus, the proportion of fructose as a component of overall sweetener intake in the United States has increased since the early 1980s" is a direct contradcition of earlier text in the same paragraph and of the accompanying graph.

The section on health controversy does not explain the controversy at all. Instead, it discusses a few disjointed facts which do not get to the point and seem to be misleading: people eat a lot of sugar, fructose in HFCS and in sucrose may be bad, people who drink a lot of sodas tend to be overweight, HFCS is not to be labeled a "natural" product, and HFCS is produced by an industrial process. So what? If HFCS is worse for us than ordinary sucrose, can someone explain why and cite reliable sources?

There are many more problems throughout the article. I looked this up because I've heard about the health controversy and wanted to find out something more reliable than idle gossip and faddish pseudo-health articles. Instead, I just found more idle gossip and faddish pseudo-health claims.

I don't know enought about HFCS to edit the article, but I hope someone with some real facts and no ax to grind will fix it. Best, -SW Scott D. White 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction, unless you actually think that 11:9 fructose and 1:1 fructose are almost exactly the same. HFCS delivers significantly more fructose than does sucrose, and without metabolism of any kind. Please reconsider this simple fact.Vendrov 10:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
But so does an apple, pear, and watermelon. I have yet to hear dietitians recommend we abstain from eating those. Why not? 98.235.79.159 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT (Quoted from a book "Master Your Metabolism", written by Jullian Michaels with Mariska Van Aalst, ISBN 978-0-307-45073-9, Crown Publishers, New York), Natural Test - "Something born in a womb or grown directly in the ground" I am not going to bore you with a bunch of quotes from studies about HFCS, but rather share a nutrition philosophy that is sadly forgotten or unknown on a grand scale in the United States. The absolute best nutrition and therefore health comes from a diet that is unprocessed and unrefined; eating food that is in the form that nature intended it to be in. This philosophy does not include eating "Frankenstein" foods and ingredients that are created in a laboratory. There is no study, no matter how well executed, that will convince me that including this "Franken-crap" in the diet is not detrimental to health. Most studies done on HFCS are funded to some degree by those who have a vested interest in the successful use of this ingredient in the food supply. Government agencies are not a reliable source of information either, as there is so much influence by food industry to deem their products as a healthy part of any diet, or at the very least not harmful. On the issue of GMO's and HFCS, the reality is that in America there is no labeling laws for GMO foods. Unless a product is organic, there is a good possibility that the corn used to make the HFCS is genetically modified. This is why Europe will hesitate to accept HFCS from America. User: sopeterson 20:09, 3 October 2006

"There is no study, no matter how well executed, that will convince me that including this "Franken-crap" in the diet is not detrimental to health." Glad to see you are open minded to science. You have decided that NO evidence will EVER convince you of something? That is a very unfortunate attitide to adopt, and you will never convince anyone with an attitude like that. 76.20.176.60 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Wow! I was not expecting a personal attack. Very interesting. You don't have to agree, but you should respect that someone else may have a different view than you. Way to be open-minded!

Might I suggest that complaints about someone else's lack of open-mindedness might have more weight if what they're failing to be open-minded about is the validity of your personal proud declaration of closed-mindedness :-)? Groyolo 04:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The above "Something to Think About" is neither open or closed mindedness. It is a parphrase from the book "Master Your Metabolism" Grow up - adults are biased. Move on. The facts lie somewhere in between. Do we trust Guinea Pigs more than Rats or do we rat on the testing facility? Bottom line is the financial bottom line. Government subsidies subsidize size. We are what we eat. Food is based on production cost, We eat Government subsidies.

Explain this sentence

"By increasing the fructose content of corn syrup (glucose) through enzymatic processing, the syrup is more comparable to table sugar (sucrose)." Fructose, glucose and sucrose are all different compounds, so what does this sentence even mean? Furthermore, corn syrup is not pure glucose, so this is misleading. Olin 16:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased links?

"HFCS Facts (Industry site)" and "Cargill Foods (Largest provider of HCFS to the food & beverage industry)" are quite obviously biased information, and probably should not be in an encyclopedia entry. Olin 16:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious assertion?

"Use as a replacement for sugar [...] HFCS has a much longer shelf life." Refined sucrose has an effectively unlimited shelf life. Possibly what is meant is that HFCS products have a longer shelf life than sucrose-based products. (Is this true?)

By the way, according to Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, American consumption of sugar has increased even as usage of HFCS has. The wiki article says that HFCS replaces sugar, but you can often find both in the same product. 82.93.133.130 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone get the chart?

I was trying to find the amounts of sugar vs HFCS the "average American" ingests, and they might be here http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/ The problem is that these are tables made for Exel which I don't have. All I really want is to see the numbers... the charts should go by food groups and they may possibly lump all sugars&sweeteners together. I suspect the numbers in the article are somehow from USDA somewhere because they are for 2004, which is the most recent year USDA has complete consumption data.
Possibly the numbers are also here: Bray, George, et al. "Consumption of High-fructose Corn Syrup in Beverages May Play a Role in Epidemic of Obesity," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 79 (2004) 537-43 Gaviidae 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Tiny little thing...

But as far as I know, "It is commonly used to kill Americans as they are stupid enough to consume this outright poison."

sounds a little biased and unfounded, though funny and somewhat interesting, I will edit it out. Oddperson 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Oddperson 05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds not only a little biased, but REALLY biased. ;-) I think such non-technical issues should not be part of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.103.172 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

honey

The article says, "Honey is a mixture of different types of sugars, water, and small amounts of other compounds" Ironically, the embedded link to the wikipedia entry for "honey" directly contradicts that, saying, not merely that it comes from bees, but specifically, "honey stipulates a pure product that does not allow for the addition of any other substance...this includes, but is not limited to, water or other sweeteners"

I think the text here refers to naturally occurring substances, not anything added in a manufacturing process. Frankg 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed! Sounds like more clear bias. Why is there a section of honey even in this part? Alexius (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

HFC

hmm...it is interesting to know that HFC(High Fructose Corn Syrup) was developed in 1957, when the obese rate was 2%, now its 2007 and HFC is listed in many many food labels, and the obese and overweight rate have gon up to what 60%!?!?!?!

--Hmm... it is interesting to know that John Lennon met Paul McCartney in 1957, when the obesity rate was 2%. Now it's 2007, the music of the Beatles is played on many, many radio stations (and on TV, in movies, in covers of their songs, etc., etc...), and the obesity and overweight rates have gone up to perhaps 60%!?!?!?!
--Hmm... it is interesting to know that Sputnik was launched in 1957, when the obesity rate was 2%. Now it's 2007, satellites are used in many, many applications for communication worldwide (I can't watch TV anymore without being fed something that came through a satellite), and the obesity and overweight rates have gone up to perhaps 60%!?!?!?!
Correlation does not imply causation. Clearly, there were many things introduced to our culture in 1957 and are now pervasive. We can't blame any one of them alone for any rise in obesity rates. As has been discussed elsewhere on this page (and in a couple scientific studies on this subject cited in the article), the increase in obesity is likely due to an overall increase in sugar consumption (including high fructose corn syrup) coupled with a rise in consumption rates overall over the past few decades (?ed? but what about the fact that hfcs stimulates the appetite where sucrose does not, this would lead to over eating and obesity, not the cause but the catalyst. ?/ed? ) ... not to mention other lifestyle changes in our culture since that time. 76.118.181.158 21:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
People do not regularly ingest The Beatles or satellites or televisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.229.66 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
...said the cannibal, patting Ringo reassuringly on the shoulder. Rivertorch (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And the obesity rate has also climbed almost as much in countries that do not use HFCS but sucrose instead. How does your conjecture explain that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.138.77.201 (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC) You have All lost your perpective on what we should be considering...the processing behind the foods we eat are in effect causing all our increased health issue in the US. If you remain in the realm of natural food, the foods less processed you will see improvements in your own health . Americans are LAZY at least and FAT at most. We need to rethink our eating habits and stop allowing the media and the food industries to feed us the crap they feed us (making fat profits). Eat healthy and think smarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.16.105 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

CONSPIRACY FOR MONEY

I once heard the FDA alows over 15,000+ chemicals to be put in the U.S. food!! And this HFC alone is listed on even some things you would think wouldnt make you fat, like ketchup, I mean what the hell does ketchup need sugar for?!?! I guess the only persons who care about their health now days are individuals, not the FDA who are supposed to "protect" the people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.129.134.58 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes, the FDA allows 15,000+ chemicals -- some of them are just pervasive in our food supply -- chemicals like sodium chloride (you see that "chloride"? that's chemical-speak for chlorine, a poison gas!!) and sodium bicarbonate (note that both of these contain sodium, an explosive material!! this stuff is so dangerous most fire extinguishers can't put it out... you need a special Class D Fire Extinguisher!!), not to mention the truly horrible DHMO (or dihydrogen monoxide), which can cause death when inhaled in even small quantities and is a major component of acid rain!! The FDA allows big corporations to put such chemicals in our food!!!
And the FDA dares to allow high fructose corn syrup in ketchup, the condiment of choice for all-American foods like the hot dog!! I just didn't realize that the FDA was poisoning my condiments to make me fat! Just to be safe, I'm going to confine my eating habits to safe foods that don't use ketchup... maybe things like the Luther Burger or the hamdog.
Please note: the previous remarks are made in jest; we need to move away from ignorance and chemical phobias (see chemophobia) that have no foundation. Inflated rhetoric gets us nowhere. And to answer the question, "what the h*ll does ketchup need sugar for?!?!" It tastes better that way, or at least most of the people buying it must think so -- otherwise, it wouldn't be there. 76.118.181.158 21:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea, and "sodium chloride" is table salt. Umm, I know you're joking but it's also insensitive. The FDA should doing its part to make sure even if you eat unhealthy, you eat healthier than you would if food production teams had their way. HFCS is in otherwise healthy bread! It has a bad aftertaste and I don't appreciate my bread being turned into the health equivalent of SODA. After all, it was created to protect against stuff like poisoning food, and if the food ruins your health, or even is suspected to do so, FDA is shirking their job. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I love it! Can you share this with the mercury-in-vaccine folks who assume a mercury-containing compound still results in the same physiological effects that elemental mercury does? 98.235.79.159 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's horrible that the FDA is putting high fructose corn syrup in our food, it's hard to believe that the FDA would feed us artificial ingredients that we can't digest correctly (which causes diabities and other health problems), just because it's cheaper that way.

The FDA? Since when did the FDA start manufacturing food? 98.235.79.159 (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Stevia necessary?

The section on Stevia, found within Comparison to other sugars contains no references to HFCS at all. So is it's inclusion really warranted? 65.105.113.194 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC) It's horrible that the FDA is putting high fructose corn syrup in our food, it's hard to believe that the FDA would feed us artificial ingredients that we can't digest correctly, just because it's cheaper that way.

Taking out "Why to avoid HFCS" and "Harmful Effects of HFCS"

These two sections need to be pared down and included in heath effects. Who writes "pretty murky!"? Whoever you are, if you want to put them back in, learn to write appropriate entries. 128.61.137.240 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Health effects

I just did a bunch of work on the health effects section. One thing that I'm not completely happy with is the long list of fructose studies--it seems like there could be just one short paragraph referring the reader to the review article and the wikipedia fructose article. The corresponding section in the fructose article is also a mess, but it is more complete. I think this section should focus on clarifying the issues of overconsumption of sugars in general vs. the sucrose vs. HFCS stuff, and discuss the sucrose vs. HFCS studies.Ccrrccrr 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

FructoseFructose-Sweetened Beverages Linked to Heart Risks

Published: April 22, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/health/23sugar.html?ref=health

i think is relevant. please use this source. 71.99.126.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC).

I think the levels of fructose contained in the average item containing HFCS should be contrasted with the levels of fructose in the average serving of apple, pear, or watermelon. 98.235.79.159 (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the "Enzymes"?

Do traces of the enzymes (alpha-amylase, Glucoamylase, and Glucose isomerase) remain in the product after processing? Am I consuming these enzymes when I eat/drink HFCS? If so, what are the health effects of consuming these enzymes? Are there traces of substances in HFCS other than fructose and glucose? 166.34.144.158 21:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, alpha-amylase is a naturally occuring enzyme in human saliva so you are swallowing it every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.36.40 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the human version. What version do they use in the processing? GM of some non-human species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.97.59 (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction: Sweetener consumption patterns

There are two possibly contradicting statements in the section:

  • "The average American consumed approximately 19.2 kg of HFCS in 2004, versus 20 kg of sugar.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]"
  • "In countries where HFCS is not used or rarely used, the sugar consumption per person can be higher than the USA; for example (2002): USA: 32.4 kg"

I doubt that sugar consumption has dropped from 32.4 kg in 2002 to only 20 kg within two years. Agentbla (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the values by 2005 ESR data (source same as graphic). Agentbla (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There's one more issue there: the caption of the figure. I'll attempt an edit.Ccrrccrr 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

7Up: 100% Natural vs 100% Natural Flavors

The statement "On January 12, 2007, Cadbury Schweppes agreed to stop calling 7 Up "All Natural".[32] Interestingly, they now call it "100% Natural".[33]" is incorrect. If you go to the wiki page for 7Up, or the manufacturer's website you will see that the claim is "100% Natural Flavors", which is substantially different. Would somebody please correct this? (I won't as I'm affiliated with the beverages industry). G12358 14:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Agentbla (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing. I think this article is mostly there, but there is still an overtone of 'anti-HFCS' sentiment that I think should be addressed. I may personally agree with this stance, but its inappropriate in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G12358 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC) The issue isn't valid unless the pro-HFCS sentiment is also erased. You have an unbalanced article that way, and besides which, alot of people don't know that there are health problems with HFCS. Cleanup so it is informative without being "preachy." Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "sugar"

This line bothered me.

"According to the scientific definition of sugar, fructose and glucose are types of sugar, rather than substitutes for sugar, even though in common usage sugar usually refers specifically to sucrose."

Fructose and glucose are "sugars", but are not types of "sugar". John Duncan 01:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Production

The production section contradicts itself several times. (Impressive for a short section!) While I think I can work out the real process from what's written, can someone who actually knows what the process is clean this up. 129.16.97.227 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Uses of HFCS 90

The first paragraph of the article states that "HFCS 90 [is] ... most commonly used in baked goods." Is this accurate?

From http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=1470 (accessed 2007-11-15): "According to Maureen Storey, Ph.D., CFNAP [University of Maryland Center for Food, Nutrition, and Agriculture Policy] director... HFCS-90 is mainly used in the production of HFCS-55, but is seldom directly added to foods and beverages." Mrrhum 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got a source; the article doesn't. I'd assume the article is wrong and change it to match your source. But I don't have any other knowledge about this.Ccrrccrr 03:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the advice. Mrrhum (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

healthfinder.gov

What's the story with the www.healthfinder.gov link? I've never been able to access the article reinstated by Rivertorch, or indeed healthfinder.gov, from my work machine or from my ISP at home. I get a connection reset error, always. Is there some sort of access control on it? 129.16.97.227 (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you can't access it. It loads fine for me. Have you cleared your cache? Rivertorch (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:-/ I don't use braindead browsers. Clearing the cache is not an issue for any reliable browser. (Unlike some of the junk that's passed off as a web browser.) And as I said: Two different machines. Two different ISPs. Identical symoptoms.
Do any .gov sites restrict access to offshore IPs?
129.16.97.227 (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

use of "et al."

Is this being used correctly? I normally see "et. al." or "et al" with a comma preceding (and only used with three or more names). Then below, it is italicized and no period. There is no consistency here. Bobopaedia (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Try looking up et al in Wikipedia. The second period is correct; the first is not.Ccrrccrr (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Overuse and misuse of "et al."

I think the bigger question is whether it's necessary for the phase "et al." to appear some 20 times in a single article. This is a TERRIBLE writing style. People do not speak or write like this. When have you ever heard someone say the words "et al?" Infact, when have you ever seen the phrase "et al." used outside the context of a legal document?

Seeing the phrase "et al." one time is annoying and pedantic. Seeing the phrase used repeatedly, over and over, in almost every sentence, ruins the entire article. We can take it as a given that more than one person worked on a particular study. We don't need to constantly be reminded that other people exist. Let's drop the childish use of "et al." and clean this article up. --67.169.154.47 (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any instances of "et al" being misused in the article. As for its alleged overuse, I don't see that either, but please suggest any viable alternatives. One thing that is not a viable alternative simply to drop "et al". We cannot "take it for granted that more than one person worked on a particular study"; as Wikipedia editors, we use reliable sources to present verifiable, accurate information, and we shouldn't cut corners. Regardless of how many people worked on a given study, all studies have authors and all must be acknowledged in some way. In cases where the authors are numerous, it is standard procedure to use "et al" to denote that there are additional authors beyond the primary ones that are named. Aside from legal documents, the phrase is used every day in science, medicine, academia, journal indexing, library cataloguing, and other fields. Rivertorch (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything "childish" about the use of et al. However, it is used 13 times and makes for poor reading. I'd suggest that a) In the references themselves et al should be replaced with the full list of authors. b) In the article just say "a study found…" instead of "Smith et al found…". Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I can't find anything in the Wikipedia guidelines or Manual of Style about et al. There's a discussion here concerning the full stop, but not usage of the term per se. Anyway, I checked the last 10 Featured Article of the Days, and although a few contained et al. in the references, none contained et al. in the main text. So there seems to be a consensus to restrict et al. to the references, if it is used at all. Unless Smith is particularly esteemed or distrusted, I doubt many readers would benefit from naming Smith in the text anyway. I fully support Rivertorch and ND above, and won't revert et al. trimming again—provided we don't imply a study has fewer authors than it actually does. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Substantial changes

Foodscientist,

I appreciate your significant effort on editing and updating with new articles, etc. However, I decided to revert all your edits. If you look at the top of this page, there is a note that says this is a controversial topic, and suggests discussion before substantial edits. Your edits were definitely substantial and need discussion here. I'm sorry be to throwing out the baby with the bathwater by reverting all of them, but it would be too much work to go through and pick out the useful ones. I suggest going slower, first adding the new information and then after that is discussed and settled, propose here what you think should be deleted. Then we can discuss that before any deletions.

A few examples of what I find problematic:

You replaced a model NPOV statement:

Possible differences in health effects between sucrose and HFCS could arise from the fact that glucose and fructose in sucrose are bound in a disaccharide or from the 10% difference in fructose content.

With:

Though there has been some discussion as HFCS being a sweetener with adverse health effects being different or worse than sugar, however recent medical studies have disproven this.

Medical studies have "found no evidence". That's different from "disproving" something.

It is an undisputed fact that HFCS contains 10% more fructose than sucrose. Yet you deleted mention of this and deleted discussion of studies on fructose.

You've replaced careful full citations with vague references like "A study in the December 1, 2007, issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition". If you don't have time to provide the full citation, providing what information you have can sometimes be valuable, but wiping out careful citations and replacing them with vague ones is not welcome.

And your final blow of wiping out all the articles that you disagree with is quite inappropriate. Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

health effects

Ccrrccrr, I am glad to see that you hilighted the sentence: "Possible differences in health effects between sucrose and HFCS could arise from the fact that glucose and fructose in sucrose are bound in a disaccharide or from the 10% difference in fructose content."

I can make no sense of it at all. I don't know a lot about HFCS and the controversy, but I would hope that a person who is interested in the health effects of HFCS could read up on it without having to do a read up on the chemistry of HFCS just to understand what was being said.

I would suggest an edit (if this is indeed what the original writer was trying to say) along the following lines: "The possible difference in health effects between sucrose and HFCS could come from the difference in chemical make up between them. HFCS 55 (the type most commonly used in soft drinks)is made up of 55% fructose and 45% glucose. By contrast, sucrose is made up of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Further, the fructose and glucose in HFCS 55 are in the form of separate molecules; by contrast, the fructose and glucose that are contained in sucrose are joined together to form a single molecule (called a disaccharide)."

All this may seem obvious to someone who is au fait with the controversy already, but it took me a fair chunk of time to research this to figure out that that was what was being said. HFCS is an issue of interest not just to chemists, but to the general (lay) public, and therefore, I suggest, this article should be readily accessible to them (us). Boxter1977 (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Taste section is US centric

The Taste section needs to be reworked, as many of the beverages compared are only sweetened with HFCS in US markets. Someone tag it if not reworking right now, I don't have the time to even find the tag, sorry. 72.129.1.185 (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a section in taste talking about Jones Soda and inverted cane sugar that I worked on. Perhaps the comparison to inverted cane sugar should be brought into another section, or at least out of the Jones Soda bullet. I'll leave that up to people more familiar with wikipedia etiquette. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.137.228 (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


I'm not really sure how to properly add my edit so perhaps someone can help or better incorporate my information below... The FDA recently [April 2, 2008, possibly?] ruled that high fructose corn syrup is not natural and products containing high fructose corn syrup cannot be labeled as "natural". 66.57.80.121 (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sucrose and HFCS are both transported in about the same way, in a liquid state. Both can be transported as crystals or as liquid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.229.177 (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the Sweetener consumption patterns talks about high sugar prices in both the US and Canada, but proceeds to talk about changes that were made in products to increase HFCS consumption that subsequently occurred. Many of these changes, however, only occurred in the US, not in Canada (e.g. Coke and Pepsi products are flavoured with Sugar in Canada), but this is not made clear in the section. Morphix 21:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphix (talk • contribs)

It's important to understand that HFCS is primarily a issue with the United States only. No other country in the world uses HFCS as ubiquitously as the United States. In this sense, this is very much a U.S.-topic article, unless in the future HFCS becomes ubiquitously used in a different country as well. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is it legal and where is it illegal? I've heard there are some places where food products containing it are banned. There's nothing about that in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.29.119 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Many anonymous posters

I just wanted to point out that there are no less than 20 anonymous posters who have made changes to this page and this page only. I've become concerned about this as a general issue in Wikipedia after hearing a report on how PR firms are using Wikipedia to spread disinfo about their clients' products.Sarah m wash (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, the lobbyists Berman and Company have done anonymous editing on other pages. The IP address of 66.208.14.242 traces to them, see the Whois report. However, a PR firm could easily set up an account with a made-up name and edit away with impunity. It is a weakness of Wikipedia. I think Citizendium is much better as they only allow people to edit under their real names. Until some changes come, the only thing you can do is to revert edits that you think are biased. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Study conclusion confusion

Under the "Health effects" section of this article, when discussing the outcome of the Chi-Tang Ho, et. al. study, it states this:

"However, since this study did not compare reactive carbonyl levels in HFCS-sweetened drinks to those in sucrose or invert sugar sweetened drinks (a diet soft drink was used as a control), it only provides a correlation; that HFCS-sweetened drinks are higher in reactive carbonyls than those sweetened with other caloric sweeteners."

Could someone (perhaps the user who first sourced the article) rewrite this conclusion to make it more clear? As it is, I have a hard time understanding these statements, as the first and second part seem to contradict each other. If a diet soft drink was used as a control, wouldn't the conclusion be that HFCS-sweeted drinks are higher in reactive carbonyls than those sweetened with NON-CALORIC sweeteners? In order to come to the conclusion that it states in the article, it would contradict the first part of the sentence, as the researchers WOULD HAVE compared "reactive carbonyl levels in HFCS-sweetened drinks to those in sucrose or invert sugar sweetened drinks." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.98.161 (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like someone is trying to whitewash this article by second-guessing the conclusions of the articles. This is original research and violates NPOV. As a result I am going to remove as many of these sorts of weakening and second-guessing statements as I can find. Cazort (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I am wondering if there has been future work to this study. Are there are high levels of these carbonyls in everything with HFCS? Or is it just an effect of carbon dioxide on monosaccarides? A simple check of pure HFCS could confirm this. I also wonder if regular corn syrup has carbonyls (it has less processing). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.30.34.229 (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Fine in Moderation"

The HFCS lobby claims that consumption is fine in moderation. They don't say, however, that (in the USA, at least) HFCS is so common in processed foods that the idea of "moderate consumption" is laughable at best. Would it be appropriate to note this in the entry? 98.213.251.93 (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't disagree, but I was trying to be careful to use neutral language and cite my sources. I did link the parody/rebuttal videos. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, definitely should be neutral. I'm just worried about those people (way too many of them) who believe everything they're told, as long as they see it on TV. :) 98.213.251.93 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

References page...sorry!

{{helpme}}

can someone re-add the references section of this page?

Done. --AmaltheaTalk 20:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

New research

I am not a supporter of HFCS and I believe that there still needs to be more unbiased research on this substance. However, for the sake of argument and fairness to the supporters of this chemical, here is a link to the most recent research supporting the use of HFCS.

http://www.hfcsfacts.com/?gclid=CJSZoOePoJgCFQIwxwodnk0HUg

One study does not constitute a logical conclusion, but it does open the doors for more discussion.

205.133.157.216 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Rich

The article already links to the Corn Refiners Association home page. What more do you want? Rivertorch (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mercury Report

The recent mercury report was published press-release style and has a lot of questionable science. But the bottom line is that it was published as an editorial, not scientific research.[1] Since the hysterical nature of the report will probably be making the news arounds for the next few days, it probably should remain in, if for no other reason so it doesn't keep getting added back in when people hear the report and see no mention of it in the article. Ultimately, the mecury section should be removed, as it appears to be an attempt at captializing on health scares, and not founded on solid research or an indication of any level toxicity. WildElf (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Mercury in any form – either as water-soluble inorganic salt, a lipid-soluble organic mercury compound, or as metallic mercury- is an extremely potent neurological toxin. With daily per capita consumption of HFCS in the US averaging about 50 grams and daily mercury intakes from HFCS ranging up to 28 μg, this potential source of mercury may exceed other major sources of mercury especially in high-end consumers of beverages sweetened with HFCS. The section stays. Sewnmouthsecret (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it should stay. A review of WP:OR wouldn't hurt any of us. Rivertorch (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of pop-culture ignorance this article should stray away from. Mercury is NOT toxic at any level in any form. Mercury is only toxic as a gas, methylmercury. As a liquid, mercury is not absorbed by the skin or the digestive track. This is why prior generations are not rife merucry toxicity despite it being much more ubiquitous. This is why there are no reports of anyone, anywhere, suffering from mercury toxicity from eating or drinking food. The problem with this report on Wiki is that you can't source common sense, and this study props up common fears, instead. WildElf (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've contradicted yourself. You say that mercury isn't toxic in any form; however, the gaseous form of mercury is highly toxic, and the gaseous form is, of course, a form. Actually, it's a common form, since mercury is highly volatile. Whether this has any bearing on HFCS is another question entirely, but I think it's important that further revisions to the article not be based on false premises. Incidentally, there's no such thing as the "digestive track". Rivertorch (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Not only does it appear to capitalize on health scares, but the two lead authors could conceivably gain from a decrease in HFCS usage. The second author of the article works for the Carl Hayden Bee Research Center. The lead author works for the United Tribes Technical College. American Indians are a large producer of bee honey. Bee honey is a possible replacement of HFCS as a sweetener, so the unbiasedness of this entire article should be questioned. In my opinion this research should be held in the same light as work sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association. AGeorgas (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section a bit, as nearly half of it was original synthesis (citing general sources on mercury unrelated to HFCS), or written in Wikipedia's voice making claims like "mercury is very dangerous". I've pared it down to a more neutral summary of the currently published reports, which I do agree should stay. --Delirium (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Much improved, thanks. WildElf (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I also have a problem with the mercury scare here. It isn't enough just to put the disclaimer: "The amounts of mercury found was far less than that commonly seen in most fish and seafood." In fact, the amounts of mercury are less than should occur in most vegetable and meat products generally. The reported levels in the Wiki article are 30-350 ppt. Drinking water typically contains mercury levels in this range, so whether you drink soda or water, you're going to be getting this amount of mercury. The average amount of mercury in soil varies from 0.1 to 2.0 ppm, which means that animal and plant products also average between 0.1 and 10 ppb. Fruits can get up to 40 ppb, vegetables, wheat, and barley up to 20 ppb, meat up to 50 ppb, and rice up to 200 ppb. 200 ppb is about the same as levels in a lot of standard canned tuna, while other fish are often in the 50 ppb range.
(Please, PLEASE note the difference in the preceding paragraph between ppm, ppb, and ppt. One ppb = 1000 ppt, 1 ppm = 1000 ppb, and 1 ppm = 1 million ppt. In standard units of ppm, then: state/EPA standards for safe drinking water ≤ 0.001-0.002, typical plant/animal sources fall anywhere between 0.0001 and 0.01. Maximum values: fruit ≤ 0.04, vegetables and grains ≤ 0.02, meat ≤ 0.05, rice ≤ 0.2, fish ≈ 0.05, tuna ≈ 0.2, "mercury-infected" HFCS goods = 0.00003-0.00035. If anything, this is evidence FOR eating HFCS foods, if we're only considering mercury content.)
Translation? Suppose a donut contained contaminated HFCS at the highest level in this study and was about the size of a can of tuna. You'd have to eat about 500 donuts to consume the amount of mercury in that one can of tuna. If the donut's mercury was on the lower end, you'd have to eat 5000 donuts per can of tuna. I'm just going by the numbers given in the Wiki article here; perhaps the source article has better data, and if so, it needs to be provided and explained.
As currently written, this business about mercury in the article is preposterous, and it shows gross ignorance of naturally-occurring levels of mercury. I don't know who is responsible for confusing things -- the reporters or the original study authors -- but whoever thought that anything less than 1 ppb was unusually dangerous should be sentenced to 6 months of hard science classes, with an emphasis on the meanings of units.66.30.15.98 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Far from "preposterous", the paragraph dealing with mercury is factual and adequately sourced. It says that mercury has been found in high-fructose corn syrup, and it goes out of its way—unnecessarily, I think—to make a comparison to the higher levels found in seafood. Crunching numbers and setting up hypothetical scenarios involving selected foods is all very interesting, but I'm not sure it adds a lot to the discussion of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is "factual" and "adequately sourced." As for the seafood concession, yes, it's good -- but to distill my point: according to the numbers in the article, the tested foods have levels of mercury that are similar or lower than most food and drink sources, on average. Not just seafood. ALL FOOD. The study did not consider the contribution of mercury contained in ingredients other than HFCS, which, as I noted, can sometimes be substantial.
I don't know what the official Wikipedia policy to govern this situation is (I'm sure there must be one), but it is possible to be "factual" and also be MISLEADING at the same time. If you say that a certain consumer good contains a poison, but fail to note that the levels of that poison are actually similar to or lower than the levels found in most consumer goods, it's misleading to single that item out.
For example, suppose somebody did a study on women who had abortions and demonstrated that they had blood mercury levels of XXX parts per billion or whatever. Now suppose somebody writes a paragraph in the "Abortion" article noting this study. The paragraph notes that the blood mercury levels are less than those in people who eat fish every day. This could all be factual and adequately-sourced. People reading the abortion article will conclude that abortion somehow might result in mercury poisoning. But then someone comes along and says -- "But, these blood mercury levels are normal, as have been shown by measurements in every lab over the years; everybody has some mercury in their body." According to the logic here, such an observation wouldn't "add a lot to the discussion of the article."
I'm not arguing to eliminate the section on mercury (since its coverage in media sources means there should be an explanatory section in the article). I'm just noting that it doesn't contain enough facts for a reader to understand the stated claims in perspective. For someone who is familiar with studies of mercury in various food sources, a reading of this article would be no cause for concern and wouldn't even be surprising. However, 99.99% of Wikipedia readers will probably not be familiar with those studies, and reading the same passage, they will draw the exact opposite conclusion and think that HFCS's levels of mercury are unusual or extraordinary... otherwise (most people would conclude), why mention them?
An article that means opposite things to expert readers versus lay readers (who are most readers) is vague. That vagueness should be corrected here by giving some more "factual" and "adequately sourced" information. That's all I'm saying.66.30.15.98 (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the actual results of the mercury studies cited. Just putting in the highest amount test sample is pretty much lying with statistics. The IATP is not peer reviewed, and I added that fact. I also added a Duke University Toxicologist's findings on the IATP's report. AGeorgas (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, out goes IATP for lack of peer review, but out goes the one toxicologist for the same reason. Back in goes the original wording, which cannot reasonably be construed as "lying" since it clearly states—reflecting the cited source—"as high as". (The source, incidentally, does not mention the figure .252, so that is presumably original research.) Rivertorch (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the IATP report had to go, but if you want it to that is fine also. Doing a simple average is "research" according to Wikipedia? I find it easier to put in an average than the lowest value and highest value, and less biased than just putting in the highest value. I will add in the actual results with no complicated mathematical calculations. I am also reverting back the first sentence because a set of data where less than half of the samples test positive is not a "common" result. On a personal note as a scientist and engineer it does raise an eyebrow that the cited study does not use an AOAC Official Method to measure mercury. There are certifications for a reason.AGeorgas (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There are different types of averages—mean and median, for instance—so crunching the numbers ourselves is problematic because it requires that we select which method to employ. It's also problematic because it inserts the implication that an average number is in some way significant in the context of mercury contamination in HFCS—something that the study's authors didn't imply. In any case, the range you listed is fine because it comes directly from the published study. As for "common," to the best of my knowledge the word doesn't have any precise scientific meaning, and in everyday usage it doesn't imply presence in a majority of cases. Going by a couple of standard dictionaries, ,"commonly tainted" means simply that in numerous instances there was a trace amount of an undesirable substance found. So the original wording is fine. I am bothered by the reinsertion of the sentence
Eleven of the twenty samples tested did not contain measurable amounts of mercury.
because it's selective and might appear to give undue weight, but I'm willing to let it go if you'll drop your objection to "commonly tainted". (Any compromise we forge here will be a temporary lull, I fear. This article is frequently a battleground.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There are different types of averages, but I have never heard of a median as a type of average--only arithmetic and geometric. I don't see why you are bothered by the eleven out of twenty sentence because it is nearly taken verbatim from the cited article. The first sentence in the implications section states, "Mercury was not detected in eleven out of twenty HFCS samples analyzed (detection limit 0.005 μg mercury/g)." I reverted back to the previous edit. If you want to edit the first sentence of this paragraph again, use the same diction as the article.AGeorgas (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to add that the second author of the article works for the Carl Hayden Bee Research Center. The lead author works for the United Tribes Technical College. American Indians are a large producer of bee honey. Bee honey is a possible replacement of HFCS as a sweetener, so the unbiasedness of this entire article should be questioned. In my opinion this research should be held in the same light as work sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association.AGeorgas (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and Native Americans were the first cultivators of corn, and many still grow corn today. So what? You're coming very close to casting aspersions on the study's authors. Please don't. The study is published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, and it is not up to us to question the authors' motives like that. If you can find a reliable source that questions them, fine. And if you can find a study commissioned by the Corn Refiners Association that is published in a peer-reviewed journal, by all means, let's add it to the article.
I did already explain why I was bothered by the eleven out of twenty sentence—because it is selective and might appear to give undue weight. I also said I was willing to leave it alone, and I did. What you—or your IP—reverted was the "commonly tainted'" wording, and you did so without explaining why, either in an edit summary or here on the talk page. Was that a mistake? Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:High-fructose_corn_syrup/Archive_1&oldid=1092047857"