Talk:High-fructose corn syrup/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Recent study

I found a study that links higher type 2 diabetes rates to HFCS availability across the globe. This is a correlation, not causation, but I believe it is worth noting in the health section.

130.49.147.52 (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Moved here by ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We should be mostly sticking to secondary sources (and mainly reviews), as per WP:MEDRS. Also, the health section in this article should just be a summary of the 'health effects of HFCS' article anyway. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Factual error on naming of HFCS in the countries of the EU

According to german law syrups have to be named after the monosaccharide of highest quantity. Fructose syrup consists of fructose and less than 5 % other saccharides, glucose syrup consists of glucose and less than 5 % other saccharides. Syrup with mainly glucose and more than 5 % fructose is called glucose-fructose syrup, syrup with mainly fructose and more than 5 % glucose is called fructose-glucose syrup. HFCS 90 and HFCS 55 therefore would be referred to as fructose-glucose syrups, only HFCS 42 would qualify as glucose-fructose syrup. Factually none of them is to be found in domestic products as beet sugar is subsidised in germany and syrups usually are made from wheat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.64.85 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Impossible Total in Chart

I noted that it is not clear what the "Total" is referring to. Certainly not the sum of the six listed substances. I think it might be the sum without sugar. If so this should be stated (or even better replaced with a line that actually covers all substances incl. sugar). The title for the chart is "Total sugar consumption ...". The File comment and content suggests "Total sweetener consumption". The original source (USDA) seems to use the term "sweetener" for sugar and also other high-calorific fructose/glucose substances. Lay person's usage is imho rather sweetener = *artifical* (low-calorific) sweetener, cf. Sweetener. I don't know if there is an unambigous summary term for the high-calorific substances shown in the picture. If so, rather that should probably be used in the chart's title. Cheers. --178.195.79.188 (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference 23

Any statement derived from using the website www.sweetsurprise.com as a reference should be deleted unless a credible reference is made. This is a website owned and operated by the Corn Refiners Association and offers no actual evidence or any independent studies from unbiased researchers to support their claims. Case in point if these "studies" were actually done and confirmed the corn industries insistence that HFCS is no different than sugar then the FDA would not have rejected their proposal to label it as sugar. As it is their is no evidence it is exactly the same as sugar and some evidence it is more harmful in ways then just weight gain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.196.247 (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a ref from sweetsurprise - have a look. Anyway it needs fixed, as the link is broken. Please go ahead and replace it with the original reference. You can use the pmid template. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Bias?

I'm astonished that HFCS is stigmatized for being highly processed. Apart from honey and maple syrup no sweetener is supplied by nature in a ready-for-use state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.71.154 (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

HFCS

This article is about HFCS and its effects; therefore including statements about excessive sugar intake that results in obesity does not belong in this wikipedia article. Saying that obesity results from an overconsumption of 'sugared' drinks, gives the reader a false impression that sugar is the sole reason for obesity, especially when the article is regarding High Fructose Corn Syrup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghanim10 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sghanim, please read WP:MEDRS. Press releases are not acceptable sources for medical information, and primary sources should generally be avoided. Also you don't need to say 'according to ... (PhD)'s study', as it was a review. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks just saw this will update accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sghanim10 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's still a primary study. You can use it for saying they're 'critics', but you can't use it to say that HFCS causes obesity - you need a review for that. Also the study shows that rats fed sucrose had more weight gain than with HFCS, so the study doesn't actually show that HFCS is worse than sugar (which you seem to be implying). The quote you have given severely misrepresents the experiment, which is precisely why we have WP:MEDRS (which I urge you to read). --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

HFCS and skin problems

I heard that not only High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) causes obesity, it can also cause skin problems like acne and skin rashes in some people. That means that they can be allergic or sensitive to HFCS. I read about this stuff online and I know its true. I use to drink a lot of soda drinks (like Pepsi or Coke) until I cut them out of my diet and notice a difference in my skin. My skin problems went away and my skin like my face and upper back doesn't get as oily anymore since I stopped drinking them. I'm not allergic to food but I have a sensitivity to High Fructose Corn Syrup. I know this may be the case with a lot of people out there that drinks a lot of soda. Some of our foods here in the United States also have HFCS in them as well.

I agree with you guys that HFCS is worse than sugar, way worse than white sugar or brown sugar. OHWiki (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

HFCS also spikes up are insulin and wears down are system overtime. OHWiki (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert of intro

@Kingofaces43: I changed the intro from:

However, this trend seems to be changing, as USDA data show that HFCS consumption since 2002 has actually decreased, while cane and beet sugar consumption has held steady or increased.

From its peak in 1999 to 2013, per-capita consumption of HFCS in the United States has decreased 32%, while the per-capita consumption of refined sugar has increased 2% in the same time period.

This was reverted with the message "Previous version was more concise. First source doesn't appear to be reliable (advocacy group, not peer-reviewed)."

The new version only uses 7 letters than the old version; that does not seem like much more. I don't know why the older version chooses 2002 as the base year, but it seems rather arbitrary. In the new version, I'm trying to "show not tell" by using numbers instead of vague phrases like "held steady or increased". The old version also sounds illogical, referring to the HFCS being "predominant" as "this trend", whereas to me it sounds like a static fact measured at some (unspecified) point in time (not a trend, which takes place over a duration of time). I'm using the same source as the previous version - USDA, which is a government agency. Is that what you are referring to as a non-peer-reviewed advocacy group? -- Beland (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I goofed a little and didn't realize the "It is commonly used in" line was not your content, but previous content just moved up from further below. I thought you were adding all that. The source I meant was this [1]. Sorry for that confusion. That makes this a rather mundane discussion now thankfully and I wouldn't have full scale revert if I hadn't made that mistake. So excluding the bit I removed in my second edit and discussing what you actually added:

When I say concise, I don't mean just the number of characters, but avoiding jargon and unneeded explanation. In this case, keeping things as simple as possible while still being accurate. Having a simple sentence, especially in a lede, just saying that consumption has decreased since year X is ideal. When I saw your edit, it first looked like numbers being added we didn't really need, but I see why you added the peak in 1999 bit now that I look at the data. I'm not one for splitting hairs over saying it was a true decrease since 1999 or 2002 just because of the 2002 blip, so how about changing the current sentence to "Since its peak in 1999 HFCS consumption has decreased (with the edited reference you made)." I'm not sure we really need the refined sugar piece in this article, and the proposed sentence can be changed if the decrease stops. Generally, it's better to leave percentages, etc. that will often change for a source to describe rather than doing it here. Does that seem like a good approach? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43:If we want to simplify sentence structure a bit, I would go for:

From its peak in 1999, by 2013 per-capita usage of HFCS in the United States had decreased 32%, while refined sugar increased 2%.

or combine with the previous sentence:

HFCS is the predominant sweetener used in processed foods and beverages in the United States,(ref) though by 2013 deliveries per capita had declined 32% from the 1999 peak.(ref)

If I just saw "has decreased" in the article text, the first question I would ask is "as of when?" and I'd add the year in. The next question I'd ask is, "Since you bring it up, do you mean declined negligibly or precipitously or somewhere in between?" I think the number there is helpful to qualify what's happening without using any subjective words. -- Beland (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(And updates are always necessary, for example what if HFCS consumption started increasing again? -- Beland (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC))

I am sorry but can you please WP:GLOBALIZE if not the entire article then at least the lede? This article is not titled "Consumption of HFCS in the United States", and for me, a European, consumption trends in one North American country are utterly irrelevant to what should constitute key information on this substance. So, can you move discussion on consumption trends to further down? Thanks. kashmiri ^TALK 22:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, especially since the "predominant" claim as it turns out is not supported by its citation. -- Beland (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Error in chart

Hi, the chart at [2] seems to be in error -- it does not show the Total consumption correctly (the original data XLS shows it rising steadily of the time span). Can it be fixed? quota (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)