Talk:High-fructose corn syrup

Outdated primary research vs. reviews

This disputed content was reverted because a) the source is 14 years old - see WP:MEDDATE and b) it is primary research, not a WP:MEDRS review. It is not a matter only of peer-review because animal experiments (the disputed study used monkeys) and early-stage hypothesis testing mentioned in the article are too preliminary for the encyclopedia, WP:MEDREV. Other sources in the section on Obesity and metabolic syndrome are systematic reviews of human studies - the standard to imply disease mechanisms and effects. Zefr (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The other source added is a study in rats - unacceptable per WP:MEDANIMAL. Zefr (talk)

Ok, so what do you think of this article: The bitter side of high fructose cornsyrup (HFCS) - the global obesity pandemic? It's recent, it's peer-reviewed. It states obesity, metabolic disorders and cardiovascular diseases are related to its consumption. It notes HFCS increases ghrelin secretion which regulates hunger (i.e. it makes you hungrier). It probably says some other interesting things, if I were to keep looking. This article was the first that popped up in the new Wikipedia Library database. I'm also on the lookout for a source that notes fructose is only processed by the liver and it has a limit it can process before converting to lipids (fat). Leitmotiv (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The Journal of Education Health and Sport, with a nonexistent impact factor, as a source for metabolic syndrome? We have to choose rigorous reviews for such a topic (JEHS is obviously not). I recommend you focus on the Cochrane library for your search. Zefr (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Fructose and cardiometabolic markers

This revert was justified because the added content is synthesis about the potential cardiometabolic effects of fructose, WP:SYNTH, rather than drawing on the actual conclusions of the study: "this systematic review and meta-analysis of nutritional isoenergetic intervention trials found no evidence of a significant effect on the cardiometabolic markers investigated." The prior statement added to the article, "stimulation of insulin and leptin and less suppression of ghrelin" as compared to regular fructose consumption, which could lead to weight gain and obesity," is not a conclusion that could be reached from the meta-analysis of human studies - it is speculation and synthesis from lab studies. A further sentence added was, "One report specifically states "specific actions to reduce fructose consumption, including reformulation of industrial foods, would be desirable" is synthesis, extending from the general research on overconsumption of sugar-ladened food products, but this is not a specific review of HFCS-manufactured products and their potential effects on cardiovascular markers and obesity, for which there is no evidence in the literature. As stated in the article, the point remains that excessive calorie intake from any sweetened foods and beverages is the problem leading to increased risk of diseases and obesity, not the use of HFCS in food manufacturing. The choice of whether to use these products is up to the consumer. Zefr (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Zefr: Thanks for your patience as I am figuring out how to edit nutritional science and medicinal information in general. I'm learning stuff here and I appreciate it. Very good to know about SYNTH. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 European Food Safety Authority paper + Malabsorption

There is a publication from the EFSA from Feb 28 2022 that found - the effects of free fructose and free glucose (as monosaccharides) on body weight, liver fat, measures of glucose tolerance, blood lipids and blood pressure did not appear to be different. This is based on 49 Randomized Controlled Trials that were included in the analysis. I wanted to add it as a more recent citation to the current statement on lack of evidence for difference between sucrose and fructose under the High-fructose_corn_syrup#Obesity and metabolic syndrome section but was not sure whether this publication qualifies as meta-analysis / research. The current statement in the article reads - The role of fructose in metabolic syndrome has been the subject of controversy, but as of 2022, there is no scientific evidence that fructose or HFCS has any impact on cardiometabolic markers when substituted for sucrose - but the provided citations are a book from 2010 and a meta-analysis originally published in 2020.

Additionally it might be useful to have a simple statement on HFCS being advised against for people with Fructose malabsorption#Unfavorable_foods_(i.e._more_fructose_than_glucose). I am not sure where to put this though. Citation. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

EFSA added. It's certainly not primary. Need some time to figure out where to put tolerance. Artoria2e5 🌉 06:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The whole EFSA report is here (conclusions). It's not clear that the edit made is useful in making the article easier for the common user to understand. The information on China doesn't add anything useful, WP:UNDUE. Zefr (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

This revert was justified because 1. the Chinese content and sources are trivial (and inaccessible) for the English encyclopedia, WP:UNDUE; and 2. the content added about fructose vs. sucrose does not clarify the understanding for the common user about HFCS (see discussion under 4.1 Dietary sources in the EFSA report); also see WP:MEDMOS - writing for the wrong audience. The EFSA report was intended to focus on the European use of a different manufacturing ingredient - "isoglucose", not HFCS (American "corn syrup"), as stated in section 4.1, stating: "In the EU, where glucose–fructose syrups are consumed three times less frequently than in the United States (kg/capita), they are not necessarily produced from corn, and are referred to as ‘isoglucose’".

The first two conclusions of the EFSA report were: 1."An upper limit or a safe level of intake for either total, added or free sugars could not be established." 2. "The health effects of added vs. free sugars could not be compared."

The EFSA report is both mostly offtopic for this article and did not have clear conclusions to add to this article. Zefr (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• If the European names are due & included, I do not see why the Chinese stuff is somehow undue. As the sections have established, China is a major supplier of high-fructose syrups to neighboring countries.
• We need something else to do the "as of 2022" then. Any suggestions?
• We do not have an independent "isoglucose" article. Its health effects are to be discussed together, unless we do a (very pointless IMO) split.

Artoria2e5 🌉 09:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

HFCS 90 by liquid chromatography

Can someone explain to me how industry separates glucose from fructose using liquid chromatography when producing high-fructose corn syrup.

I've seen some sources say it is ion-exchange chromatography, but as you know both glucose and fructose are mostly neutral molecules.

I've seen this quoted: "The chemical properties of glucose and fructose that influence their solubility in ionic liquids include their molecular size and shape, hydrogen bonding capability, and the presence of hydroxyl (-OH) groups. While glucose and fructose have similar molecular weights, their structural differences – such as the presence of a pyranose ring in glucose and a furanose ring in fructose – can affect their interactions with the ionic liquid, leading to different solubilities."

I've seen talk of using simulated moving bed chromatography, but I want to know what the stationary phase and what the separation method is being used.

vossman (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I posted an answer here, if anyone wants to translate to Wikipedia that would be great. I am sick of having my edits deleted, so I stopped 10 years ago.

https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/173012/how-does-industry-separates-glucose-from-fructose-using-liquid-chromatography-wh

vossman (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)