Talk:High-fructose corn syrup/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about High-fructose corn syrup. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Reason for Tariffs on Sugar
Does anyone know why the US Government imposed high tariffs on sugar in 1977, which seems to have initiated the move to high fructose corn syrup? Rikkiprince (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a really good write up on the history of sugar tariffs and subsidies by the US government here: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/sc019 Darjeelingtea (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Broken Link
cite-link-27 to http://www.iatp.org/iatp/factsheets.cfm?accountID=258&refID=89968 is a broken link. What is the Wikipedia etiquette for dealing with this? Rikkiprince (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- In this case I was able to fix the link using the miracle of the Wayback Machine. There are several options for dealing with dead links, as detailed at WP:LINKROT. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Jalal DI, Smits G, Johnson RJ, Chonchol M.
Increased fructose associates with elevated blood pressure.
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010 Sep;21(9):1543-9. Epub 2010 Jul 1.
Free PMC Article
http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=20595676
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20595676/?tool=pubmed
http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=20595676
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/20595676/?tool=pubmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Princeton study
Would people please stop adding the Princeton study to the main article. We discuss this study in the health effects article, along with the criticism of it. It is generally not appropriate to use a single study primary source (see WP:MEDRS). The only reason we include this study in the health effects sub-article is because we do it with caution and also include the criticism. Please discuss here if you disagree, rather than reverting. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Image Proposal
I believe that the current image of a tanker is inappropriate for this article, considering that the main image of an article is supposed to display the subject (in this case a syrup). I would like to propose either an image of the syrup itself, such as this, or an image of the formula of glucose and fructose, such as this. These were the best images I could find within the Commons. I will leave some time for protest, after which I will go ahead with replacing the image. Shirudo talk 07:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd go with the chem box. Gandydancer (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The tanker is far more representative of what is important about HFCS. Perhaps a photo of an overweight diabetic patient, as well? 87.74.72.226 (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Nutritional value box broken
Currently the nutritional value box makes the hilarious claim that HFCS is sugar-free. Can someone fix that? "sugar=76 g" is corrected listed in the source code. Somehow the nutritional value template is rendering it incorrectly. Anonymous.translator (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Beating around the bush
It's shocking the *real* reason for the use of HFCS, human greed, is entirely absent from this article. Food corps use HFCS because it is cheaper, thus maximizing profits at the expense of public health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.225.216.224 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
You are quick and to the point about it. Stinginess is a force not to be reckoned with.
- You're correct, and this is actually mentioned a number of times in the article --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is one-sided in favor of HFCS manufacturers. Please provide other viewpoints, such as the studies proving HFCS causes brain damage, diabetes, and liver fat (e.g. Purdue & UCLA studies). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.172.221 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:WEIGHT. The weight of evidence suggests that HFCS is similar in its effects to sugar, so that is what we reflect on the page. According to the reviews, there is NOT any evidence showing any of the things you mention. Primary studies can be flawed, which is why we rely on well-cited reviews and similar high quality secondary sources - see WP:MEDRS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. HFCS is no doubt build from the same constituents as sucrose/table sugar, but in vastly different proportions (higher fructuse, unsurprisingly). Some of the evidence cited in favour of HFCS on this page, especially citation 16 (Samuel VT (February 2011). "Fructose induced lipogenesis: from sugar to fat to insulin resistance". Trends Endocrinol. Metab. 22 (2): 60–65), actually point out that increased fructose consumption (ie more HFCS) does have a measurable effect on lipogenesis and potentially diabetes. To cite it and claiming it disproves links between illness and HFCS is misleading. --Gerhard (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- HFCS used in soft drinks has 55% fructose, vs 50% in sucrose. That is not 'vastly different'. Also, any references need to explicitly talk about HFCS, otherwise it is WP:OR or WP:SYN. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sucrose contains equal amounts of both fructose and glucose, HFCS has a 30% excess of fructose over free glucose (less after remaining disaccerids are broken down). Maybe I should have said 'significantly higher', and I agree that this is a question of taste (no pun intended) as the reference itself speaks of 'nearly equal amounts'. Reference does specifically mention a link between increased usage of HFCS in diet and the action of its main constituent fructose, and links the latter to increased lipogenesis and potentially diabetes, in direct oposition to the claim in the Wikipedia text. I am not submitting original research (WP:OR and WP:SYN), as I am trying to point out that the paper does not state that there is no link between HFCS and diabetis (the claim in Wikipedia), but at most that HFCS is (only) indirectly linked to the aforementioned disease. --Gerhard (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- You could be right. I don't have access to the full-text, so I can't comment. Can you post some excerpts and/or email me the full-text (which is permissable under fair-use)?
Factual error
As it can't be easily modified without throwing off the paragraph, I won't do it quickly (I also don't have a login here so my edits may get whacked). But there is a severe factual error in the article.
It says, "Honey and molasses and common dried fruits have a content of less than 10% fructose sugar." As that is clearly wrong, I checked the source cited and it actually says ">10%" not less than 10%. Honey of course technically has about the same fructose content as HFCS, which is one of the reasons HFCS was designed that way. They are by no means nutritionally or chemically equivalent, but that's not the point -- this is a factual error. If someone wants to add some nuance as to the chemical differences between the fructose in honey and in HFCS, that's fine, but I think it's better to keep to the facts.
It was probably an inadvertent oversight. But I also think it's best not to make a villain of fructose itself, which is found in many healthy fruits and sweeteners, and has a lower glycemic index than most sweeteners. The main concerns about HFCS are not the fructose, which humans are evolved to consume, but both the processing and the sheer quantity of it that we eat these days. (Even so, the corn syrup advocates make a good point with their numbers that it may be the fats and simple carbs like white bread that have contributed the most to the obesity epidemic, rather than HFCS. So their point -- if HFCS is villainized for obesity, then so should be the English muffin -- is at least partly accurate, even if their campaign is misleading in other ways.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.111.6.97 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. Feel free to go ahead and change the article. Your edits won't get reverted as long as you follow the sources. It doesn't matter whether or not you have an account on wikipedia. Perhaps that section should be expanded a bit to summarise what the source says. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Is Government Policy Making Us Fatter?
Is Government Policy Making Us Fatter?
(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.112.13 (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I've redacted the above as it seemed like it might have been copyrighted text pasted from somewhere, and even if it wasn't, Wikipedia is not for essays. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Introduction to learn more about contributing. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
What a joke...
"While the growth of fructose consumption in many developed nations coincides with the increase of prevalence of obesity, medical research to date is inconclusive, with contradictory conclusions presented by various research teams,
This sounds like big tobacco in the 70's and 80's claiming the was inconclusive evidence that cigarettes were a health risk....the corn industry has copied their playbook verbatim and this is just another example 108.172.114.141 (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)