Talk:High-fructose corn syrup/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

comment

I am, of course, aware that this topic is controversial, but the topic of bias is fairly raised by this article (specifically the health section). Forgive the frankness, but the debate has strong parallels to the effects of smoking debate. Much of the pro-HFCS sources cited employ carefully chosen words apparently intended to lead the reader to arrive at an unsubstantiated conclusion. HCFCs: HFCS is not *uniquely* obesity-promoting; HFCS is not *predictive* of US or global obesity. Smoking: not sole cause of lung cancer; not conclusively shown to be cause of lung cancer.

Further, the substance supporters are often closely-tied to the industry and receive substantial money from the industry.

“For example, [sugar industry’s attorneys] allege that corn refiners have paid researchers James Rippe and John S. White more than $10 million to advocate on their behalf. … White and Rippe have never hidden their connection to the Corn Refiners Association, CRA attorneys state in court filings.”

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/consumer_news/Sugar-corn_syrup_court_fight_reveals_inner_workings.html?c=r

Although reference to White’s article are within a paragraph which begins by noting the position of the Corn Refiners Association, it appears in such a way that it implies impartial research. It would be hard to consider that article impartial.

Further, the Samuel article at FN47 is cited as if it disputes a link between HFCS and type 2 diabetes. In fact, that article posits exactly such a link through hepatic insulin resistance.

The AMA reference at FN45 is an overstatement: “Studies by the American Medical Association suggest ‘it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose’, but welcome further independent research on the subject.” It is only one study and, actually, it is not a study but a literature search (done 7 years ago with much of the research appearing in the last few years). The misstatement of the AMA reference is misleading and unfairly seeks to co-opt the imprimatur of the AMA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadraticfunction (talk • contribs) 03:29, 26 May 2014‎ (UTC)

High Fructose Corn Syrup Renamed

Hi Sciencewatcher,

High fructose corn syrup was renamed to fructose by corporations to confuse the American consumer because more people were discovering the negative health effects of the HFCS. And yes I am aware that fructose is a monosaccharide. If you're getting your information from CNN, FOX, etc. I would recommend switching immediately from there and reading more credible information.

Don't believe me? The CRA (Corn Refiners Association), a trade association in Washington said this:

"A third product, HFCS-90, is sometimes used in natural and ‘light’ foods, where very little is needed to provide sweetness. Syrups with 90% fructose will not state high fructose corn syrup on the label [anymore], they will state ‘fructose’ or ‘fructose syrup’".

I have even more evidence. Go to this link -> http://www.generalmills.com/Brands/Cereals/chex/brand-product-list. Find the Vanilla cereal. You'll see a picture of the cereal, saying No High Fructose Corn Syrup on the front but the ingredients list says fructose. It's all a bunch of health crap making people think they're eating healthy food but they aren't. In the meantime, CEO's are rolling in money from public ignorance.

130.15.206.68 (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL, I assumed you were getting your info from Fox news. Anyway, if it's just the HFCS-90 that is sometimes called 'fructose', then that doesn't really apply to the majority of HFCS, so it's probably better to mention it somewhere in the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

worked this over

I worked this over today. there was a lot of content about health based on primary sources that violated MEDRS. A bunch of content had grown up in this article about health, that overlapped with content in the sub-article on "HFCS and health". This happens a lot. I first took all that content out of this article and put it into the other one, then blended them, and then realized that the article wasn't very long, so I moved it all back here and redirected that article to here. the MEDRS sources are pretty clear that as far as we know, HFCS per se doesn't cause metabolic disease - we just eat too much (and too much sweet stuff generally) and don't exercise enough. all the content about dicarbonyls was PRIMARY and UNDUE. I found a 2013 review that mentioned that work and built some content based on it. The stuff about mercury... 2 papers on that in 2009 and a lot of fuss in the media but no (!) reviews on the topic, nothing at CDC about it, nothing at FDA about it. That means it was either a lot of fuss over nothing, or there is a Great Conspiracy To Kill Us All. This is wikipedia, so we go with the former, not the latter. I found an explanation for the lack of concern in a quote from the FDA in a WebMD article, which is as close as I could come to a MEDRS source on this.

The content about the history of HFCS was WP:OR and wrong - somebody had tried to cobble together PRIMARY sources to write their own history. Same thing on the production process. I found secondary sources for both things, and built the content around them, keeping the primary sources as adjuncts to the secondary sources where they were helpful.

when i was done, i rewrote the lead. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

note: i am dropping a note at WT:MED about this rewrite so other editors from project med can review this. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

α-dicarbonyls and other reactive compounds

I see there are a few studies showing this. However you should find a review that summarizes the studies and use it instead. If you click on "cited by" in google scholar, you can see if there are any reviews citing it. Or search using the word "review" along with HFCS and dicarbonyls.

Also, you'll need to remove the synthesis. Basically any study that doesn't specifically mention HFCS should be removed. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look for reviews myself, and it appears that HFCS has similar levels of dicarbonyls to bread and other foods, so it seems to be POV pushing to add those primary studies to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

major whoops; corrected misdirected links, incl link to dicarbonyl review.

as for fructose, many of the studies conducted to study hfcs, and cited throughout the article, are about the fructose. It is pretty much the main reason for investigating hcfs. The food scientists study fructose intensively precisely because hfcs contains so much of it. They certainly consider their studies relevant. As for other foods with dicarbonyls I highly doubt bread is a whole ≥0.1%; absorption is slower from solid foods than from liquids, putting less stress on antioxidant defences (and the absence of fructose also decreases methylglyoxal stress); lastly, adding relevant info is not pov, even if it's relevant to something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.108.179 (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

HFCS has similar fructose to sucrose (55% vs 50%), so it's misleading to imply that it is any worse than other sugars without evidence. All the evidence suggests it's just as bad as other sugars, but not any significantly worse.

As for dicarbonyls, I would suggest you actually read the reviews which state that bread has higher levels than HFCS. I haven't given a link, because you really should have based your edits on these reviews in the first place, and it would be a good learning experience for you to search for them. It took me all of 30 seconds to find one on google scholar. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I see you are still re-adding your content which violated wikipedia policies (synthesis and primary studies). Using primary studies isn't completely verboten, but when the reviews disagree with your primary studies that's a definite no-no (the reviews say that other foods like bread have higher dicarbonyl levels than HFCS, which you haven't mentioned -- that's WP:NPOV). Also, you can't use studies on "fructose" to say that HFCS is bad...again that is WP:NPOV. Please discuss here rather than reverting again. If you're confused about any policies I'm happy to advise. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sucrose doesn't 'have' fructose, it releases fructose... an extra step that lowers peak concentration and peak oxidative stress on enterocytes and hepatocytes, meaning antioxidant defences cope better.
...
As for the sheer patronizing presumption of refusing to provide evidence for your view, then telling me about what a 'good learning experience' it would be to look for your evidence myself, and starting edit summaries with 'No,' as if you get to decide what goes in the article and what doesn't... and ending by saying you're 'happy to advise' me... I am staggered
85.211.103.87 (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Try googling "hfcs dicarbonyl" and click on the first result (White) and take a look at table 1. PS, I don't have any "view" on HFCS (or even care one iota about it, in fact). Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. I'm not the only one reverting your edits when you break wikipedia policies. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That thing by White? I've seen it in search results, but wouldn't touch it. He publishes heaps of pro-fructose/pro-HFCS apology.
And he is flaky. The title first of all presupposes that the opposing view is 'misconceptions', and those who hold this opposing view are just wrong. Then it builds up a ridiculous image of the opposing view, just to draw the reader in. Nobody thinks HFCS is 'uniquely'(=solely) responsible for dicarbonyls, or AGEs or obesity. But he builds up this ridiculous strawman just to knock it down easily. Once one reads the article, it turns out 'uniquely' only means 'more than average'. Ha! Fool on us. He goes so far as to say HFCS 'should be considered a safe and innocuous sweetener'. Nobody even considers sucrose 'innocuous'. He claims the paper is a review, but NCBI doesn't acknowledge it as such.

All that is peanuts, however, next to his proven links to the HFCS industry, and industry advocacy. President and founder of WHITE Technical Research, a consulting firm for the food and beverage industry since 1994 (21 years and counting), worked in the industry for 13 years, affiliated with:

the Institute of Food Technologists (an industry group who have the gall to claim: 'HFCS has come under fire by special interests', 'an innocuous ingredient. A mythology of misconception surrounds HFCS that has lately been embraced by researchers and health professionals' (emphasis mine))

the Calorie Control Council (who describe themselves as: "established in 1966, is an international association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry" (emphasis mine) and promote fructose and HFCS on their site)

and (surprise surprise) the Corn Refiners Assocation.

With such a conflict of interest, anything he says/publishes on HFCS must be taken with a biiiiiiiiiiiiig pinch of salt.

(in any case, the data in the paper, even when taken at face value, doesn't support the idea of total DCs being greater in those other foodstuffs you mentioned. They have more methylglyoxal, but HFCS has far more 3-DG, and thus considerably more DCs overall. I used a different and more comprehensive review instead) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.103.87 (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: I didn't mean to attack you personally, though what you said really had come across as patronising to me.
85.211.103.87 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you might have confused ug with mg. The primary studies you referenced both seem to show 1mg, not 1g, so therefore it is much lower than for the other foods (unless I've misinterpreted it). Also, you can't really use these, as they are primary studies. And the review you reference doesn't mention HFCS, so you're engaging in WP:SYNTH. Although the White paper might not be the best reference, it seems to be the only one we have, and it definitely trumps your existing primary sources and WP:SYNTH. We already use a number of White references in the article. I'm pretty sure it's an acceptable source, but we can get input from more editors and/or the reliable sources noticeboard if you disagree. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't being patronising, I was trying to help you understand how wikipedia works -- you simply can't use primary sources for stuff like this. I'm happy to help you out in understanding wikipedia policies and finding good references, but you have to make an effort as well. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A 'secondary' source is supposed to provide a second layer of scrutiny, to decrease bias... which part of 'White has financial conflict of interest, multiple links to industry interest groups including Corn Refiners' Association' didn't I spell out? He'll 'review' his primary sources indeed...

and the scientific databases where people find papers don't usually present the author's Interests in an easily visible way; there may be an inconspicuous tab reading 'Interests', or there may not be an obvious link at all. Most people don't think to look for this information. They didn't know he was effectively a paid-up corn syrup shill. (excluding the possibility that those who added the links were shills... there is precedent of shills editing the article)

If you don't want to sound patronising, don't say things like 'I'm happy to help you out in understanding , but you have to make an effort as well'

... as if you're superior or something

As for the numbers, look again. the values are 293 ug/ml and 1130 ug/ml. So 293 ug/ml becomes 0.293 mg/ml = 0.293 g/l. The same will go for the other number.

The source I used for 3-DG in the other foodstuffs mentions everything I needed it to. 85.211.103.87 (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, it is 0.293g/L. However the review you reference actually says "concentrations up to 410 mg/L in fruit juices" (not "negligible to 42 mg/l" as you added to the article). Anyway, all of that is irrelevant. You can't do WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, you can't review articles yourself and pick apart their results, and having declared funding isn't a reason to exclude White (we include refs like that all the time on wikipedia). We (myself and the editors here) are well aware of White's funding from the HFCS industry. That doesn't necessarily mean his results can't be used here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you are right; I accidentally mis-cited the upper end of the range, the multitude of numbers became confused momentarily.
I don't see why you're talking about me 'reviewing' or 'picking apart' articles as I only cited them; also I don't think you can know that the other editors were aware White is bankrolled by the industry, and has decades-long links with industry interest groups, incl. Corn Refiners Association. This is far more than an issue of a one-off declared funding.
Running a consultancy for these HFCS industry groups, he has a continuous financial interest in presenting HFCS from a certain angle, and not impartially. When the review self-declaredly (right from the title) tries to whitewash HFCS and make it appear 'innocuous', the comparisons he draws between HFCS and other foods really should be treated with suspicion.
I understand what you're saying about drawing data on the same thing from a secondary source preferentially to a primary one. However, the review you cited doesn't have the data needed to draw that conclusion, that (total) dicarbonyls in those other foods you mentioned in the article are higher than in HFCS([[1]]. The comparison based on methylglyoxal would tell one that those foods have more of it than HFCS does. But the data on those other foods' 3-DG content is missing. HFCS has by far more 3-DG than it does MG, so a comparison between total dicarbonyls in HFCS and in other foods based on MG data wouldn't be meaningful.
85.211.103.87 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're doing your original research, which is verboten here. Your opinion on White doesn't matter (and neither does mine). We can have an opinion on the quality of White's paper, but not in the way you are doing. You can't accuse authors of being "biased" or similar.

Regarding the review I used, all I did was summarise the conclusions given in the review itself. That is about all we are allowed to do on wikipedia, whether you like it or not. (We can also delve into the details of the review itself, with certain restrictions -- see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

JS White and the HFCS Industry

The JS White ([2]) issue is a serious one and needs more attention than it is getting here. A blatant conflict of interest is not something to pooh-pooh with a wave of a hand. Something needs to be done about how this is presented. Maybe a link to an internal JS White Wikipedia page at the very least or wording that makes it clear to the reader that he is receiving funding from the industry that his work defends—something that is frequently required elsewhere. Whatever the case, he is obviously not a neutral source and it is inappropriate to present him next to sources without commercial interests. Exactly what is going on with this article? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Bees

in this dif Nitrobutane (editing as an IP address) restored a bunch of content built on primary sources. The current section High_fructose_corn_syrup#Beekeeping mentions that and is sourced to a review article, which says that HFCS is being considered as a candidate causal agent for CCD. We don't know if it is or not at this stage. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Going to hopefully address this flurry of activity in other sections later tonight, but I see no reason to add additional bee information here than what Jytdog mentioned (see WP:COATRACK). We already have other articles on colony collapse disorder where detailed information would actually belong. That being said, most recent reviews don't actively discuss HFCS with any significant weight, so it's not likely to stick much in most places. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've linked the main article on this subject, Imidacloprid effects on bees in the beekeeping section. This link to more information should suffice, in lieu of the one-page essay another editor tried to add. Mamyles (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Colony collapse disorder is a better target. Thanks for the correction! Mamyles (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog and Archiving of Active Discussions

[3]. Here we see Jytdog (talk · contribs) archiving an active discussion. This is a thread I was adding to earlier today. Absolutely uncool. Exactly why was this buried? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

my apologies. I didn't notice the recent comment. unarchived. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of medical consensus

Nitrobutane (editing as IP) you removed this summary of three recent reviews:

It is unlikely that there is any connection; the increase in metabolic disease is likely due to people eating too much, and eating too many sweetened foods of any kind, and not exercising enough.

References

I believe my summary accurately reflects these sources in plain English, per WP:MEDMOS. Please provide your summary of these sources in plain English; we need to include this in the lead. If anybody has a more current review, we can use that as well. (I included the most recent consumer reports statement for two reasons: a) it is a decent popular summary of the science; b) they are famously pro-consumer and if anybody thinks the reviews in the literature are somehow tainted, they have this to look at as well. It is not gold standard MEDRS and I will ditch it if anybody objects. ) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

there is a more recent source that we should include here, that says the same thing: Rippe JM, Angelopoulos TJ. Sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, and fructose, their metabolism and potential health effects: what do we really know? Adv Nutr. 2013 Mar 1;4(2):236-45. PMID 23493540 PMC 3649104. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

By 'unencyclopaedic' I meant the word 'people': “people eating too much, and eating too many sweetened...” etc etc. This is too much like speaking directly to the reader. Probably the author didn't use these words precisely; if someone in turn wrote it on their blog, it would sound like imprecation. So it looks odd in a wiki article lead. 'Overeating, overconsumption of sweetened foods and lack of exercise' would look better. Looking at the studies behind the statement:
Third source first, it is a little simplistic, with its lumping together of all sweet foodstuffs and sweeteners, whether based on fructose, sucrose, maltose, anything (“calories are calories”). Now, metabolic differences between individual monosaccharides are well known. The article does accurately reflect the sentiment in some quarters that HFCS concerns are 'too current'. And it's not anti-consumer either.
The fourth source claims the sucrose and HFCS are absorbed identically in the gastrointestinal tract, ignoring the way simple sugars are absorbed directly by the mucous membranes, meaning lining of the mouth, oesophagus, stomach, as well as the small intestine (skipping the sucrase step). This creates higher peak fructose and, together with the dicarbonyls, will oxidatively stress out the hepatocytes, overwhelming their antoxidant defences to a greater extent.
The first source didn't differentiate between HFCS and sucrose at all, made no attempt to do so. Certainly it shows that sugars in excess generally promote metabolic syndrome etc, but doesn't support the idea that it's “unlikely that there is any connection” between metabolic syndrome and HFCS specifically.
Looking at the second source's abstract, the sentence
“The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. ”
jumps out. To say that they provide better 'stability' and 'freshness' than sucrose, knowing that reducing sugars (especially fructose) are aggressive glycating agents, is just inexplicable; they will proceed to attack the proteins via the well-known Maillard reaction, and create a great amount of AGEs, which will certainly provide 'flavor enhancement' and increase the 'color' (and the rate of glycoxidation/lipoxidation increasing also - stability indeed).
So while the second source you cited, in its own way casts doubt on the difference between sucrose and HFCS re: obesity, there are several other chronic conditions that HFCS in processed foods contributes to.
Now this 2010 review here [4] talks about dietary AGEs (dAGEs), their creation from reducing sugars and proteins etc, and their links to chronic diseases:

“dAGEs are absorbed and contribute significantly to the body’s AGE pool (14–16).

Consumption of AGE-rich diets by mice is associated with elevated circulating and tissue AGEs and conditions such as atherosclerosis (17) and kidney disease (18). On the other hand, restriction of dAGEs prevents vascular and kidney dysfunction (18,19), diabetes type 1 or type 2 (20), improves insulin sensitivity (21,22), and accelerates wound healing (23). Low dAGE intake has also been shown to lengthen lifespan to the same extent as does energy restriction in mice (16). Studies in healthy human beings show that dAGEs directly correlate with circulating AGEs, such as CML and MG, as well as with markers of oxidative stress (24). Moreover, restriction of dAGEs in patients with diabetes (25) or kidney disease (26,27) as well as in healthy subjects (28) also reduces markers of oxidative stress and inflammation.”

There are several other reviews in a similar vein, linking dAGEs to such chronic conditions. PS: I haven't used that account on this article even once, so why talk about it, much less announce it to other editors.85.211.108.65 (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Health effects section

Could use some work. Starting with the history of concern belongs someplace else. This section needs to start with the current understanding.

For example WHO recommends simple sugars in the diet be less than 10%.[5]. The last paragraph of "obesity and metabolic disorders" should be the first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me; content needs to focus on HFCS however which WHO and other authorities do not treat differently than other sugars, as far as I have seen. The emphasis of this page before Monday was that it was some special evil. Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree... if the section (of this article which is about HFCS after all) started off talking about HFCS specifically, then moved onto a more general guidance on sugars in general, this would have better flow and be a sensible layout; but the other way round would be kind of jarring. Like the language 'special evil' is jarring.85.211.108.65 (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This article in Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr, 2015, explains why HFCS is thought to be particularly problematic. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Stating that all simple sugar is problomatic first. And than discussing what evidence there is that HFCS is more so can than occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, you really want to cite a biomedical article called "Carbohydrate intake and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: fructose as a weapon of mass destruction" published in a very low quality journal in a WP article? (not MEDLINE indexed, no impact factor) They do cite some high quality recent reviews that we don't, that discuss the evidence, like PMID 24569542. That is the kind of thing we should use in WP. Jytdog (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily suggesting that for the article, but posting in response to your post above, where you wondered why HFCS is singled out.

As for the paper you linked to, it was part funded by the Calorie Control Council. This is run by a PR firm, the Kellen Company/Kellen Communications, which represents food and biotechnology companies. I've only spent a few minutes on this, but I see Kellen elsewhere defending fructose, e.g. their press release here. It would be good to avoid or at least flag anything with industry involvement.

Regarding impact factors, I wonder whether someone knowledgeable would write about this for MEDRS. Several editors have said it's meaningless, so it would be helpful to have a brief explanation. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 14:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Starting with a statement on recommended consumption of all simple sugars, saying they're all problematic, sounds too much like a disclaimer. It might make sense on the Health effects of the 'Monosaccharide' or 'Sugar'(meaning any simple sugar) article; it will look odd on an article about a specific type of sweetener.

PS: Sarah (SV): sponsored by the Calorie Control Council..? whoa... I've seen their site - they claim fructose and HFCS as 'reduced-calorie sweeteners', and claim health benefits for fructose over other sugars. With financial backers like these, what 'high quality' can we expect indeed! 85.211.108.65 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with these articles is that we have industry involvement in the research in every direction: sugar industry v high-fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners versus natural. Ideally we should look for uninvolved academic sources and present things as they do. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 15:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that MEDRS specifically says that funding of a source is not relevant. Employment of authors in peer reviewed studies is not even that important; a SPS on some company's own website, would be out of bounds, yes. That said, I am happy to discuss sources that are acceptable enough to everyone. I agree that we should find the most recent, highest quality reviews (best journals, deepest examination of evidence) that we can find. We may also want to rely more on major medical bodies and their dietary guidelines (e.g WHO, AMA, NIH, etc). Which leads to Doc James' suggestion to lead with the simple sugars thing - part of what good articles do, is contextualize things. That is what major medical bodies do as well - from a health perspective, the most important issue is reducing overall simple sugar intake of all kinds (including things sweetened with HFCS). Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If MEDRS does say that about funding, it needs to be changed, because funding clearly matters a great deal in a situation like this. I spent some time today looking around Pubmed, and with no exceptions (admittedly after only a short time), I was able to predict which fructose studies had been funded by industry. If funding makes no difference, I wouldn't be able to do that so easily. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The handwavy generalization is offtopic. Let's concentrate on the actual work of finding sources we all agree are high quality and if we can't agree, we'll get community input. MEDRS is what it is, today. If you want to get the bar against voiding a source due to its funding tossed out, that is a discussion for WT:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: "handwavy generalization," I'd appreciate it if you would express yourself differently. As for MEDRS, it mentions funding once (again, a section on that would be helpful), and it's not clear what it means. It says don't reject "study type" because of concerns about "inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." I'm not sure what's meant by rejecting a study type, and of course we often do prefer not to use sources that themselves rely on poor sourcing. Regardless, for this article we should avoid or flag industry sources. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 16:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always interpreted that to mean, that if you have a recent secondary source that authored by academics but funded by X (take your pick Pfizer or some patient advocacy group or GoOrganics.com or Syngenta) that funding does not come into the assessment analysis. I am not opposed to including content like "A 2014 review funded by X found that....". That is best done when it is evenly applied. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I generally consider the funded by X statement on Wikipedia to be undue weight in most cases unless that particular organization is being discussed in depth already. There's the common red herring out there that funding source must bias the study from people not familiar with how industry-funded academic research is done and the expectations of the researchers. If there is something wrong with the study itself (which is what's really intended with the funding source argument) we wait for other sources to mention the problem with the design, interpretations, etc. like we do for any other study. Otherwise, we're in no position as editors to determine the validity of the study itself. If the authors work for a non-academic group of interest at the time of publication, that's a very different story in terms of WP:INDEPENDENT, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. If someone really wants to talk about outcomes of industry-funded studies (and why the nefarious researchers got paid off for results argument doesn't hold much water for most cases) that's a meta-discussion for elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There's the common red herring out there that funding source must bias the study from people not familiar with how scientific research is done. Editors may be unfamiliar with a recent comment from The Lancet's current editor-in-chief, who said

"much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest...".

Increased skepticism and further discussion (at MEDRS talk?) are warranted. petrarchan47คุก 00:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

"much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. . ." Yup, that's why graduate students are taught early on in their career to be skeptical of all primary literature especially (secondary too to slightly lesser degree) and check what matters: experiment design, analyses, conclusions etc. for themselves. Issues like you mentioned that come about from unintentional flaws or more serious issues can be usually picked out from the methodology by experts in the field (which is largely the point of publication in the first place that most non-scientists don't get). Either way, definitely a discussion for elsewhere at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, this discussion needs to continue elsewhere, and I am wondering if you could suggest a better venue - would it be the MEDRS talk page, or Project Medicine talk?

Since you brought it up here, I'll mention that Horton spoke to the point you've just raised:

Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

petrarchan47คุก 08:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Petra and SV are spot on...and I'll add to Petra's comment that there are often unknown & unaccounted for variables, which invalidate so many studies. BTW, high fructose corn syrup does not occur in nature in any significance. It is a manufacturing artifact enzymatically created by industry. All simple sugars outside the context of natural foods are massive contributors to ill health and chronic degenerative disease. Sugar and refined white flour are dangerous twins.--Pekay2 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow how far off topic has this discussion gone. Yes, some research funded by industry is not up to quality and may have a conflict of interest. High quality research is possible even if funded by industry, or by advocacy groups. The key is do the researchers disclose this conflict of interest in their publication. We have moved away from health section to talking about research and what counts as appropriate research, not just for this article but for all med articles. If there is a problem with a specific source someone can take it to the reliable source board. Talking about the dangers of refined white flour and non-natural foods being massive contributors to ill health and chronic degenerative disease is not on topic. VViking_TalkEdits 02:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Going back to the original discussion: I believe it stands to reason in a health section about HFCS, which according to the FDA and WHO do not differentiate between HFCS and other simple sugars, the part on how much of intake is healthy could go at the start. VViking_TalkEdits 02:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Viewmont Viking:I don't think I grasp what you are saying, could you please rephrase? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi LeadSongDog, I believe the suggestion is to start the health section with sugar in general, including the WHO recommendation that free sugars be reduced to under 10 percent of total energy intake, and preferably under five percent. Then move into a discussion about HFCS in particular. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarah (SV) Thank you Sarah you summed up what I wanted to say, very well. VViking_TalkEdits 18:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

page protection

i have requested page protection to drive discussion. all hell has broken loose here. Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And I see that you couldn't resist taking some cheap shots at your fellow edits there as well. Stay classy, Jytdog. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

not a cheap shot. the article is now protected. I hope we can use this time to talk through the issues. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The compromise statement is in the same tone as the original statement, which was talking about the different types of mercury and their relative dangers. And it was a pointless statement, there's no reason in the first place to assume that it is methylmercury.

And yes, it was a cheap shot. When you continuously hack and slash with dozens of edits and have your OWN way with the article, that's fine, but once you run into serious resistance, that's 'all hell breaking loose'.85.211.108.65 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss content; let's use this time well. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

PP is now lifted. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sugar ratios

I have no idea how to start a new thread, but the obesity and metabolic disorders section is not impartial in the slightest. Someone please fix it - when you say, "In subsequent interviews, two of the study's authors stated the article was distorted to place emphasis solely on HFCS when the actual issue was the overconsumption of any type of sugar." This contradicts the fact the ratios of glucose to sucrose are thrown off at the least by introducing HFCS. They may have been trying to advertise that point, which is also true, but it does not take away from the findings of lipogenesis when consuming fructose, and a higher ratio definitely contributes in some small part. They made no reference to the difference between sucrose and fructose-glucose, which has the whole intracellular sucrase enzyme that hydrolyzes the glycosidic bond, thereby using energy. Why is none of this currently on the page? There is no mention to the different methods by which fructose and glucose go through glycolysis as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.175 (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems extremely technical, likely too technical for this article. Perhaps a link somewhere to Fructolysis would be close to what you're looking for? My take from what you're saying is that fructose takes an extra intermediary step to metabolize (Fructose 1-phosphate before Dihydroxyacetone phosphate), therefore taking more energy to process than glucose or sucrose, so in fact contributes less to obesity. Do you have a WP:MEDRS reliable source for your paragraph? Mamyles (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

More importantly -- IP, would you please tell us what source that complies with WP:MEDRS discusses these issues? That would help us figure out what you are talking about. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Mercury Removed from Lead, Reliance on WebMD

So, today I rewrote the section on the controversy regarding mercury contamination and mentioned the public controversy in the lead. However, this rewrite, which relied on a secondary sourced (The Washington Post) was removed for a brief mention that entirely relies on Web MD. You can see this edit here: [6]. What gives? Meanwhile I've tagged the article for NPOV issues. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the confusion stems from me directly linking to the primary sources mentioned in the article as well. This was for the convenience of the reader, and I thought I made it clear that they were linked for convenience, but maybe not. So, to be clear, they were in fact not used in the mercury contamination write up—it simply summarizes the secondary source, The Washington Post, warts and all. I've removed the links to avoid additional confusion. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS. WaPo is not useful. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

WaPo is not being used to provide medical advice here. It's reporting on what is being said between these parties and the fact that a controversy existed. There's history here, which is being reported on. That's far more useful han WebMD—a site of notorious crackpottery. We don't need a medical source to report on the fact that a controversy existed in the public and why. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

the content is about health. that is why you care about it, right? Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There's more to these articles than simply "health". There's a web of issues surrounding ethics, sociology, and other interests, usually less about health and more about money. This is one such situation. Mercury contamination has a long history that WP:RS certainly applies to. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The context to anything about mercury (i.e. weight) is always going to come back to health in this case. MEDRS is pretty much always going to come into play no matter what perspective someone is approaching this one from. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Embedded editor clique, got it. Moving on. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that deep back-and-forth quotes between one study and industry would go into too much detail, and the MEDRS sources currently used are sufficient to get the full story. The information about methylmercury is particularly helpful to readers. Mamyles (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Bloodofox please explain your deletion of sourced content here. If you don't like WebMED, please provide a better health-based source. I looked for a long time and I could not find a better one. I would be very open to a better one. WaPo is popular media and is not OK. Please work toward strongly sourced content. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny, the content I added was entirely sourced as well. And the above explains it pretty well. In this case, WaPo is entirely appropriate as reporting on this falls well outside of the guidelines of MEDRS, in my opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't answer me directly above - please explain why the concern about mercury is not at its base about health. Sure there are issues about ethics money etc.. but please explain why you care about it at all. This really is the heart of the matter and is something we can talk about and use dispute resolution for if we fail to agree. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

proposed wording

Proposed compromise wording: Although inorganic mercury is less dangerous than methylmercury, both forms are are a threat to human health.85.211.108.65 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a MEDRS source that says that levels of inorganic mercury involved here were a danger to human health. I looked for one and couldn't find one. I will be interested if you (or anybody) can. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The recent addition, "However, the mercury was not methylmercury, the form of mercury that is of most concern to human health" is based on the WebMD source and seems to be our best content based on the current source. It's basically what the current source says. I don't see anything to dispute at this time since it's an accurate summary of the source. Unless someone is going to bring in a better source than WebMD (it's ok for content like this) it doesn't seem like there's anything to discuss. The proposed version by 85 is not what the source says and would be considered original research, so it seems we're left with the most recent addition that's currently reverted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, what this is about is media coverage. The section addresses a controversy, which is highly notable given that the public disenchantment with this particular product. However, for whatever reason, this is being blocked here in favor of solely WebMD coverage in the name of blocking WP:RS. It's a bizarre situation only really possible when an echo chamber exists between a group of embedded editors with all the time in the world to defend their position. One of the downsides of Wikipedia but not likely to be permanent in the long run. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not contributors. Thanks. At base this is about health, and needs MEDRS sources. Is this the core of our disagreement? Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The core of the disagreement appears to be whether or not this must be purely treated via MEDRS or with WP:RS requirements given the scope of the controversy and the public fallout. I argue that this is beyond the scope of MEDRS; this isn't a strictly medical or health issue by any means and we require a secondary source beyond that scope to properly handle this controversy. At present, it's essentially just swept under the carpet. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I will say this one more time - stop commenting on contributors ("sweeping under the carpet" is an accusation of bad faith editing). The next time you do this, I will simply stop responding to you and we will need to work through some more formal process that will slow things down. OK, would you please provide here the content you would want to see, and the sourcing for it? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've provided it above, thanks. And given your goofy antics here—at this point everything from removing NPOV tags because they're "lame" during active disputes to "accidentally" archiving active talk page threads that I've commented on earlier in the day—maybe it's best that you just do that. Given that you're eager to resort to tactics like that, maybe you should take a break for a while. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

bloodofox, I just realized that based on what you wrote above, and especially on this dif, where you link to this dif by 85.211.108.65, it appears that you have been editing here under a username and an as an IP. I actually thought you were several people. if that is the case, this would be This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK. You are appear to be the only person supporting the position you have been taking here. That changes everything Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (striking interpretation of dif. appears that "this edit" was meant to point to my dif. SOCK concerns remain Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)) (some further redacting to better acknowledge the ambiguity Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)) (strike Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC))

Uh, no. I'm going to assume that this was just another childish tactic on your part and will move on. Meanwhile, you're welcome to strike all of you're accusations of sock puppetry wherever they may appear and apologize for wasting my time. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't help noticing this... 'accusation of bad faith editing' indeed... lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.108.65 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We are done. I did assume that the IP/Nitrobutane and you were different people. That was AGF. Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (strike Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC))

Of course this needs to be sourced with WP:MEDRS. The claim that there is mercury in HFCS is a health claim, and will mislead readers if not properly qualified. No sense in having people panic if the type of mercury is not nearly as potent as what consumers are familiar with.

Coverage can be sourced with Washington Post, but that source isn't even needed since WebMD already includes all of the relevant information there. The WaPo article adds nothing as a source. Mamyles (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:RS, a secondary/more reliable source would be good to add.. not WebMD on its own. 85.211.108.65 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

All the WaPo article says is that there was a study and summarized the abstract, which is less information than WebMD. Therefore, I maintain the assertion that it adds nothing as a source. However, including it as a second source for fact that there were studies in 2009 would not cause much harm, if other editors think it is especially helpful. Mamyles (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@85.211.108.65, Bloodofox, Kingofaces43, and Jytdog: What do you all think about adding the statement "However, the mercury was not methylmercury, the form of mercury that is of most concern to human health" after stating that there were studies in 2009 showing that there is mercury in HFCS. This is taken from the WebMD source. I think that a statement similar to this is essential for understanding, since most consumers are familiar only with the health effects of methylmercury. The statement helps describe the study and the potential impacts for consumers. Mamyles (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• support that - really essential information. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• I would also support "However, the mercury was not shown to be methylmercury..." which is perhaps more accurate. Mamyles (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
• I support the bolded part. What are we planning for content about mercury beforehand though? The bolded piece if fine per WP:MEDRS with WebMD, but things can get a little hairy in terms of MEDRS if we're going to mention primary studies without the context of a review or similar source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The content about mercury is already there. We do need to address that mercury was found in HFCS, as it is an important topic that will bring readers here. I don't think we'd get consensus to remove the primary study from the article, anyway. Unless one of us can find a MEDRS secondary study/review, the best way to handle it is to provide a secondary source, WebMD, that includes this bolded content that was said by the FDA. Mamyles (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for edit request 1 of 2

Does everyone agree to revert these three diffs to restore the summary sentence in the lead about current consensus on health effects, and restore the sentence about "However, the mercury was not methylmercury, the form of mercury that is of most concern to human health." to the body? (I anticipate that the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox will disagree but that or those editor(s) is or are the only one(s) arguing for that, which is now clear.) Please do support or oppose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (some further redacting to better acknowledge the ambiguity Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)) (strike Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC))

Not a sock puppet. Strike the above accusation through and apologize. Saw this a few days later. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The content mirrors almost exactly what is in the source. The content could change if we have other sources to cite, but for the time being, there is no reason to keep the content removed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's already known you'll just agree with Jytdog every single time85.211.108.65 (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• The mercury material is partly unsourced and partly based on WebMD. [7] Also, re: "However, the mercury was not methylmercury, the form of mercury that is of most concern to human health," what is the source for that? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The source for that is WebMD, in the same article that discusses the study. Specifically, it's a paraphrasing of the following:

An FDA spokesperson tells WebMD that the FDA takes mercury contamination in food very seriously and that methylmercury is the form of mercury that's of the greatest concern. Dietary exposure to methylmercury comes almost exclusively from fish, and the new research on mercury in high fructose corn syrup doesn't provide enough information or analysis because it focuses on total mercury levels and the potential levels of exposure are extremely low, the spokesperson notes.

Mamyles (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for edit request 2 of 2

Does everyone agree to revert this dif to remove links to the various specific dicarbonyl compounds and to remove the editorializing editorial comment there? (I anticipate that the IP/Nitrobutane/bloodofox will disagree but that or those editor(s) is or are the only one(s) arguing for that, which is now clear.) Please do support or oppose. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (some further redacting to better acknowledge the ambiguity Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)) (strike Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC))

Not a sock puppet. Strike the above accusation through and apologize. Saw this a few days later. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Context is needed on dose for any chemical for a toxicology perspective to avoid either scare tactics or making something sound less toxic than it is. This is a case of the former. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You agree with him no matter what he says.85.211.108.65 (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment No need for editorializing IP. I don't see any problem with the change over all. Though perhaps the tone could use some work where discussing Mercury.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What tone change would you suggest, serialjoe? If you could make a concrete proposal that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2015

Serialjoepsycho, have you looked at what reverting that diff would actually do? It would restore content that was clearly misrepresenting its source, and which I left the invisible comment about. Anyone who follows the link I gave in that comment will see that the source was misrepresented. Jytdog carefully and deliberately worded the poll in a misleading way, omitting these consequences of the undo, as well as suggesting the flaky accusations of sockpuppetry were proven, and nobody apart from the puppetmaster would oppose Jytdog. The sudden and immediate support he got from Kingofaces43 on both 'polls' is no mistake - they have known each other from the start and colluded on this issue specifically. Concerns of collusion with Kingofaces43 and off-wiki canvassing in general have been raised previously. There are more concerns on talk, of his participating in email canvassing.

And Jytdog already has rejected the compromise addition of a phrase that states that both forms of mercury are hazardous to human health (even though it's true); he earlier favored the phrasing that implied only methylmercury is hazardous he doesn't look very open to compromise to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.108.65 (talk • contribs)

• The proposed wording in the version to be reverted to ("comparable to the levels found in bread," etc) would have to be attributed because it's almost a quote (though see below), and to alert the reader to the industry funding (source). Also, does the text reflect the source?

Source (and table 1): "Methylglyoxal levels in carbonated soft drinks are comparable to those reported for bread, instant coffee, and alcoholic beverages. Considerably higher levels are found in fermented or thermally processed foods such as toast, brewed coffee, soybean paste and sauce, and cheeses."

Proposed edit: "HFCS contains reactive dicarbonyl compounds that are created during the processing steps, these compounds are comparable to the levels found in bread, instant coffee, and alcoholic beverages, and significantly lower than those found in toast, brewed coffee, soybean paste and sauce, and cheeses."

Given the health concerns and the money at stake, would it not be better to base the health section on independent MEDRS sources? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 01:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

all this stuff about dicarbonyls is content that the now-indeffed IP has been POV-pushing for about a month now. There is no discussion of this in MEDRS sources that I found, outside of the one source that I just left in the article, that mentions them in the context of AGEs. I just removed their OR invisible edit comment, and the source that SV is objecting to, and left content based on the MEDRS source. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, could you say what the significance was of the difference between your proposed text ("reactive dicarbonyl compounds that are created during the processing steps ... are comparable to the levels found in bread ...") and the source text ("[m]ethylglyoxal levels in carbonated soft drinks are comparable to those reported for bread ...")? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at the topmost section of this page. The emphasis on the dicarbonyl was the IP's very special own issue. There is almost no discussion of it in MEDRS sources. If you find some MEDRS sources that treat this as The Very Serious Issue that the IP held it to be, I am all ears. The source that is there, treats it with passing reference; it is just kindness to leave any discussion of it all. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Admin board actions

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bloodofox Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI filed by IP Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Strong-arm_tactics_by_Jytdog Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing why either of these should be here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

they are actions that inform other editors here what is happening. Both are directly relevant to activity here. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Outcome of ANI is that IP is blocked. That should lower the temperature here. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So Jytdog (talk · contribs) accuses me of sock puppetry while I'm gone for a handful of days, posts about it here, and then doesn't note here or anywhere else on this page that I am, in fact, not using a sock puppet of any sort. Nice! Apparently typical Jytdog tactics here—this is the guy who reverted the NPOV tag from the article space for being "lame" and archived an active thread that I had just contributed to as a "mistake". Enough is enough with the childish tactics—strike out all of the accusations, apologize, learn from it, and move on. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

yes my suspicion was not borne out at SPI. Please comment on content, not contributor, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Comment on contributor..." isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card when you've fucked up. I was obviously not a sock puppet. However, even before you could get your results back you ran with it and referred to me as a sock puppet not only here but elsewhere. Now go back and strike out all the accusations wherever you've left them. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

i fixed the statements that were stated as facts; my statements should have acknowledged the uncertainty of whether you were a sock or not, when i wrote them. my apologies. but whatever i did, is no excuse for your generalizing personal attacks here or elsewhere on this page. please comment on content, not contributor. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (strike Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC))

Go back and strike out all the false accusations, here and elsewhere. Not just part of them, all of them. That includes this "/" nonsense. Boo-hooing about non-existent personal attacks when you've been making false claims about me here and elsewhere isn't doing you any favors and certainly doesn't make you look better. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

to end your drama I will strike. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "drama"? Wtf is wrong with you? I also note that you struck out your apology for making false accusations about me here and elsewhere. Cute. Real mature. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Alternative names?

I noticed that this section is blank and has been so for several previous versions of this article. Is someone planning to add something here or should it be removed? Unharmedbastion (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out (downside to only editing specific sections at a time). I removed it for now, but if someone wants to add content there, it might very well be fair game to add it back. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing about fructose malabsorption?

I think fructose malabsorption would be relevant here, especially because it is underdiagnosed, and is more common than diabetes mellitus. 74.96.172.110 (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

mentioned. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Part about Insulin cycle ambiguous and hard to sort out the facts.

"altered metabolism of fructose when compared to glucose may be a factor in increasing obesity rates since, as compared to glucose, fructose may be more readily converted to fat and the sugar causes less of a rise in insulin and leptin, both of which increase feelings of satiety."

It appears this sentence may refer to fructose as sugar. Or the aurthor tried to fit too many concepts into one sentence. The triggering of the insulin cycle is what turns carbs into stored body fat and is the key mechanism to obesity. It would be good if this concept could be expanded and clarified with HFCS compared to Cane Sugar. This sentence only touches on Satiety in the same confusing manner. Satiety is only a smaller part of the obesity equation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.23.17 (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Princeton study

I am just an interested layperson who was searching for information about HFCS. I haven't found much info, but I did see this 2010 article, which I noticed was not mentioned in your article: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ Has anyone tried to duplicate the results of this study? Lisapaloma (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a press release about a research paper (this one: PMID 20219526) published in 2010; the research paper is a primary source. Our Wikipedia article is based on secondary sources (reviews published in the biomedical literature) that take research papers like the Princeton one into account. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, this study has been fairly extensively discussed in the past here (check through the archives), with people trying to add it. If you actually read the study itself you'll see that their press release grossly misrepresented the results, and even the abstract of the study itself is highly misleading...the study didn't actually show what they said it showed. This is a great example of why we don't use press releases or primary studies in wikipedia. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Full article is available as PMC3522469--50.251.15.57 (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Mercury

>>However, the mercury was not methylmercury, the form of mercury that is of most concern to human health.<<

the last statement of this section (above) references a WebMD article, which does not make this claim anywhere in it. the WebMD article references 2 studies: http://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-8-2 http://www.iatp.org/files/421_2_105026.pdf

neither of these studies makes the claim that the mercury found was not methylmercury. (they also did not claim that it WAS. the Environmental Health study specifically said it wasn't possible to know because of limited access to testable samples.)

>>Two papers published in 2009 found that there were traces of inorganic mercury in some foods.<<

additionally, the prior sentence (above) was also not supported by either study (they didn't state whether the mercury detected was organic or inorganic).Colbey84 (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Naming in the EU

Maybe the article under the EU section should contain a mention that in the EU the labels: "‘glucosefructose syrup’ or ‘fructose-glucose syrup’... reflect whether the glucose component or the fructose component is in greater proportion." (Article 2) Tojenanic (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

References

New editor (2016)

Hey guys! I am a student planning on making some edits to this article as an assignment for a class. I am excited to participate and am looking forward to working with others to edit this page. Some changes I have in mind are further exploring the taste difference between HFCS and other sweeteners. For this subject, I possibly plan on creating a small, new section to add on to the existing information given. Feel free to contact me through Wikipedia with ideas or any helpful tips! Thanks!Eonixphay (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to wikipedia. Just make sure you follow all the wikipedia policies, and it should be fine. If anyone reverts your edits, just discuss them calmly here on the talk page rather than reverting back. Everything you add must be referenced. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome! I like how the "Other" section has been re-organized, especially nice work there. I did revert a couple things.

Specifically, I've added back the "manufacturing contaminants" section as readers are likely to seek information about the concerns addressed there. While you're right that the concerns are not of impact to health, it is relevant and helpful to say so in this article.

I've also de-emphasized a couple primary studies in the health section. Primary health studies are not definitive or particularly relevant sources for health information, and we generally prefer secondary or review sources that are independent from the study authors. Please see WP:MEDRS if you're interested in learning more about medical information sourcing. Thanks again for your work! Mamyles (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I felt the "Other" section needed to be added to provide a place to put information that did not fit well into existing sections. I understand why you reverted the deletion of the "manufacturing contaminants" section, thank you for explaining why you did so. I only made one edit to the health section, but I do not see that any changes have been made to mine in particular. I appreciate you providing me with more information about medical information sourcing, however. Thank you again for your response, explanation, and additional information. Eonixphay (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified I

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on High-fructose corn syrup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.isosugar.org/Members%20documents/2012/MECAS%2812%2904%20-%20Alternative%20Sweeteners%20in%20a%20Higher%20Sugar%20Price%20Environment%20-%20English.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629002034/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002076071_coke29.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002076071_coke29.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Links are ok. --Zefr (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

New editor (2017)

Hi everyone, I will be attempting to make a few edits to the article. I'm new to this and very open to any suggestions from the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2U123 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please make sure that any edits you make are summarizing a "reliable source" and please cite the source. For content about health, a "reliable source" is defined in WP:MEDRS, and for everything else, it is defined in WP:RS. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified II

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on High-fructose corn syrup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711092430/http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html to http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071027080246/http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041109/news_1b9mexcoke.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041109/news_1b9mexcoke.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Countries that do not use high fructose corn syrup

I'm doing some studies on high fructose corn syrup and the use in other countries. I would like to expand this area of the article to include these regulations and reasoning behind limitations of use or banning the use of high fructose corn syrup. I'm open to any thoughts or ideas that you all might have on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J2U123 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding copyright content to this encyclopedia. Everything you add here needs to be written in your own words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Error in Public Relations section

The statement: "Companies such as PepsiCo and Heinz have also released products that use sucrose (table sugar) in lieu of HFCS, although they still sell the original HFCS-sweetened versions as well" - is false. It gives the impression that PepsiCo and Heinz, as listed, used HFCS in their "original" versions. The word original should be removed, since it makes the entire statement untrue. The original versions of their products used sugar - not HFCS. The wording is subtle, but certainly gives the impression that HFCS was the original sweetener. These are no "releases" of new products, but rather "re-releases" of old products.

The statement should be reworded as follows: "Companies such as PepsiCo and Heinz have also re-released products that use table sugar (sucrose) instead of HFCS, although they continue to sell the HFCS-sweetened versions as well." 98.194.39.86 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two parts of your comment that would benefit from a secondary source(s): 1) that sucrose-sweetened products from both PepsiCo and Heinz are being "re-released" as reformulated old products currently or in recent history (some 2016 evidence by Forbes for Pepsi doing this is here,) and 2) that HFCS is actually the preferred (cheaper, easier to formulate, consumer-preferred, calorically equivalent) sweetener by manufacturers. I'll make the recommended adjustment to the sentence and add the Forbes ref. Further sources would help. --Zefr (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Mercury

Thatwhoiswise wants to add this content and sources in the section under Manufacturing contaminants:

However, two papers published in 2009 found that there were traces of inorganic mercury in some foods, and In 2010, researchers from the Canadian government led by Dr. Karen Ridout found detectable amount of mercury in corn syrup.

References

There is already a statement acknowledging that trace mercury was found in HFCS samples using this source. But as discussed in the remainder of the paragraph, other analyses and the FDA declare HFCS is safe, inferring decisive evidence for significant mercury contamination is absent. Previous discussions with Thatwhoiswise here indicate this is an ongoing persistent issue with the user, possibly revealing WP:SOAP. --Zefr (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

In this previous revert, I misnamed the reference which correctly should be the limited, 3-sample pilot study by Dufault et al. --Zefr (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

The sentence you were referring to states that “a chemical previously used left traces of mercury” You then follow up with a study that finds no mercury. The study is also supported by a press release, and not a peer review article. I wanted to add studies sources for three additional studies (one performed in 2010, after the Duke Study) that have found mercury that are supported by peer reviewed articles. But you won’t allow it, now why is that? Can you please explain? Thatwhoiswise (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The revision you made here including two references cited in the box above, is redundant with what is already stated and cited in the section on Manufacturing contaminants using the Dufault article. Wallinga is a coauthor of the 2009 Dufault article which does discuss samples that revealed mercury in some, but not all, samples: "The samples were found to contain levels of mercury ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup." (also see Table 1). The point about low levels of mercury in some HFCS products is made, and another Wallinga source doesn't add anything further. The comment by Rideout on the Dufault study is not a "peer-reviewed" source, as you say, but rather an editor-approved note posted after publication of the Dufault article which we already cite for mercury content. Again, nothing new is added. Further relevant is the comment here by Arthur Dungan disputing the Dufault study that mercury is not likely to yield from HFCS processing. As far as HFCS is concerned, we're addressing a non-issue, as neither the FDA nor the CDC mentions HFCS as a mercury risk. --Zefr (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Your statement about how mercury is made "A chemical used to separate corn starch from the kernel, lye, was previously used in a process that left residual traces of inorganic mercury in isolated commercial samples of HFCS and manufactured foods including HFCS as an ingredient" is both written in a confusing and misleading manner and not supported by the citation nor science. More so you leave in text denying the presence of mercury in HFCS supported by just a press release. Yet anytime I tried to add text about the mercury content of HFCS you are quick to revert it. My citation comes from peer reviewed Scientific journals’' as well as comments made on peer review work. These sources are admissible under Wikipedia's guidelines for Identifying reliable sources, a comment counts as "correspondence" on a peer reviewed Scientific journals’', and is generally considered a respectable source. However, ’Popular press’ is considered a biased source even when issued by the public relations department of a university or national laboratory. Why won't you allow within the article any any study that find mercury in HFCS even when supported by peer review work. However, you would allow a study to be presented that find no mercury even though it only citation is from a press release. Why is my peer-reviewed source excluded, but your press release is allowed to stay?Thatwhoiswise (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm as motivated as you are to have a clearly presented article, so go ahead and make edits in the text as you feel needed. Concerning references, the Dufault article (published in Environmental Health, a peer-reviewed journal which you added on March 2) presents data giving evidence of mercury in some HFCS samples taken from a pre-2009 processing method that appears to be no longer used. So if you're going to provide current evidence of mercury contamination in HFCS, you need references that contest conclusions by the FDA and CDC who dismiss this issue as having no 2017 evidence for concern. Also, please review WP:CON: other editors supporting your view with WP:SCIRS sources would be needed to persuade changes. --Zefr (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought we came to a consensus "make edits in the text as you feel needed". I addressed the FDA in my last edits. Please review your FDA citation it makes not mention of mercury. I still would like to know why is my contributions to this article which are backed by citations from Scientific journals’' not allowed but yours backed by ’Popular press’' allowed. The most recent study that I posted that found mercury was the 2010 study. It cited with a comment on a peer review journal, a comment counts as a "correspondence" on a peer reviewed work. Scientific journals’ yet you won't allow it. But you would allow a study "Duke Study" that came before that in 2009 even though its only cited with ’Popular press’'. Please explain? Thatwhoiswise (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I interpreted no improvement from your edits. "Consensus" means agreement from other editors for what you wish to add. The sources you are using add no encyclopedic value beyond what was in the prior version. And now, you are reinserting content previously identified as WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and soapbox-editing per WP:SOAP. For mercury risk, the FDA declares HFCS as safe; mercury is no concern (same for the CDC). If you check recent literature by searching PubMed, there is no evidence that current HFCS manufacturing practices lead to the presence of mercury. The section is accurate and concise as it is. Please move on to editing something else -- enough discussion and time have been spent on this issue. --Zefr (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. The context of the article should be neutral’' according to the Wikipedia guideline this means "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". My contribution to HFCS article presented different studies that have both found traces of mercury and studies that have found no traces mercury. However, you removed the majority of my contribution the only part you left is the Duke Study which found no mercury. You left this part even though a) It's not the most recent study b) It supported by citation that is ’Popular press’' and not Scientific journals’' C) It was done on behalf of the Corn Refiners Association which might present a bias in the study itself. This is certainly not being that neutral’'. Can you please justify why the only study you would allow in this article is neither the most recent nor supported by a proper citation Scientific journals’'? Don't you want the HFCS article and thus Wikipedia to contain information that is both accurate, up to date and neutral’' (free of all bias) Thatwhoiswise (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with That who is on this one. The article reads for heavy defense of HFCS, but little criticism, it feels very one sided, to the point where I read the article looking for info and am actually feeling against it because it feels so heavily defended with no criticism in place. For starters I do not agree that the FDA or CDC finalize the argument. This is the "English" Wiki, not the "USA" wiki and the FDA doesn't carry much wait. Even more so when you consider that the "GRAS" designation is a joke the world over. I'm not saying that i disagree with the premise of Zefr's argument, only its not much of an argument if you just delete the other side of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.175.97 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I found the summary of the Dufault report insufficient, and the Corn Refiners Association entirely self-serving, providing NO evidence to the contrary. I thought the best way out was to summarize the report (WHEN the samples were taken, and the levels), and to quote CRA directly. eg I would regard 2005 data as fairly current as of 2009. (Unfortunately there seem to be NO later measurements of mercury, positive or negative. ). Alanf777 (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My, my. Deleted without talk? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zefr "Superceded by FDA safety review". Then surely the Dufault report and the CRA's "lies, damned lies" should just be deleted. However, if they are IN the article they should be accurate and unbiased. CRA is neither "They would say that, wouldn't they" ? Since CRA's response is "fact free" (is that now allowed in wiki too?) I felt the best way to rebut them (without editorialization on my part) was with specific Dufault data. CRA says mercury has been phased out? Not in the EU 17% in 2017 .. so almost certainly not in the US. ps : Like it or not, Dufault is still widely quoted. Alanf777 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Superceded by FDA safety review" : "The FDA’s response to Dufault’s study hasn’t changed since she first presented it to her superiors in 2005: The agency refuses to investigate the HFCS-mercury link. FDA press officer Michael L. Herndon told me via email this week that “there will be no testing based on” the research. .... Don’t Test, Don’t Find : ... Maddeningly, the agency now refuses even to test for mercury in high-fructose corn syrup — much less act decisively to banish it. https://grist.org/article/sweetness-and-blight/ Alanf777 (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

One more thing (paging Columbo) -- here's Dufault's response to the CRA "Total mercury in high fructose corn syrup. ... This change in manufacturing practices has not been verified by a third party with nothing to gain outside of the corn industry and there are no regulations in place to prevent the future use of mercury cell chlor-alkali products in the HFCS manufacturing process. In any case, the data released by Dufault et al remain the only publicly available peer reviewed data. The Corn Refiners Association does not appear to dispute the fact that for many years, HFCS consumers were exposed to low levels of mercury in their diet from this product. HFCS is now ubiquitous in processed foods and significantly consumed by people all over the world." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773803/ Alanf777 (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

As of Oct 2016 Mercury Grade Caustic Soda is still offered for sale in the USA, and is categorized by the FDA as GRAS -- Generally Regarded as Safe. https://www.westlake.com/sites/default/files/Liquid%20Caustic%20Soda-Mercury%20Grade%20PS%20Summary%20Ed1.pdf with an Hg concentration of 0.0001% or 100 ug/g Alanf777 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)