Talk:High fructose corn syrup and health/Archive 1

Archive 1

Princeton Study

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.215.129 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Papers

An encyclopedia article is not a literature review. We should not have whole subsections (e.g., under #Obesity) dedicated to describing published papers. The goal is to concisely present the facts and conclusions from the papers, not to describe the papers themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

We had an extensive discussion on this a while ago here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

can you find the archive and get the perm.link for it? I assume the result was that where there is no consensus in the field the differing reports are the best that can be done69.72.27.139 (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the amount of information put into these subsections they should not include outside criticisms of these works unless consistently criticized. If the literature is lumped into one article describing research concerning the dangers of HFCS then a following section should be criticism of that research. This helps to separate fact from opinion and keep these articles truly neutral.Qristopher2 (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rohit Kohli

Would someone like to add Rohit Kohli's work, "High Levels of Fructose, Trans Fats Lead to Significant Liver Disease, Says Study" [1] described as from Hepatology.69.72.27.139 (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this a mistake, or do I misunderstand?

The following passage appears in the article:

"According to Ferder, Ferder & Inserra, (2010) fructose consumption and obesity are linked because fructose consumption does not cause an insulin response. This is important because, without an insulin response after consumption of a high-fructose food, there is no suppression of appetite, which is normally induced by hyperinsulinemia after a meal. If satiety or suppression of appetite occurs, then the person will continue eating or overeating as the case may be."

It seems to me the last sentence should read: "If satiety or suppression of appetite does not occur, the person will continue eating or overeating as the case may be." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.217.144 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Given that nearly every medical review article states that there is no conclusive link between HFCS and any disease state in ANY level higher than over eating any other sugar, this article really requires a massive cleanup. I'll work on it when I get a chance. This will be fun debunking a variety of myths promulgated by the big money natural food groups. Sugar is sugar is sugar, and it's all bad for you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree completely. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If the consensus scientific view is that high-fructose corn syrup has the same health effects as sucrose then that should be clearly stated in the lead. I have not seen any sources that natural food groups are attacking the product on the basis of that it has different health effects from sugar. TFD (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not the case though, studies like Borcarsly clearly state that it has worse effects than sugar. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There will always be studies that show things are good for you/bad for you, but what matters is the opinion formed by experts. I do not see that the results of the Bocarsly study has been accepted. TFD (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. I'm going to be WP:BOLD. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree Bocarsly was entered into a peer reviewed journal making it sufficiently accepted by experts. Experts have come out on both sides of the article, just as they have with Bray Federer as well as Tate and Lyle. Criticism or disagreement from a variety of experts on the conclusions of a study does not make the study unaccepted by the wider community. Only if it is sufficiently proven that the study cannot be reproduced with similar results is any research considered "not accepted" once it is put into a peer reviewed journal. Qristopher2 (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That is untrue, not "every medical review article states there is no conclusive link between HFCS and any disease state in any level higher than overeating any other sugar." The prevailing wisdom is that research on HFCS does have reproducible results that demonstrate it can be linked to a greater propensity towards various diseases including diabetes. There are only a few pieces of research done directly on HFCS and sugar which have resulted in a somewhat mixed view of HCDS versus honey versus sugar. However most of the prevailing wisdom comes from indirect sources, research done on other subjects that produce results that consistently define HCFS as worse for you than sugar. Indirect though it may be it is still counter to that claim. Qristopher2 (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out results similar to Bocarsly have been published: Bray in a 2004 issue of American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and Ferder in a 2010 issue of Current Hypertension Report. Furthermore, Ferder states that short term responses are the same explaining the results seen in Stanhope while supporting the long term results seen by Bocarsly and Bray. While not exactly a RS "High fructose corn syrup is NOT food" at www.examiner.com indicates there may be other factors that make high fructose corn syrup a major suspect in obesity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the real difference is the appetite for it. Notice how the studies concerning the effects of a given amount of sugar vs. a given amount of HFCS showed no differences, but the ones offering "all you can eat" showed increased weight gain in the HFCS group. Mbarbier (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Mercury

The section about mercury seems to document a single instance of accidental mercury contamination from an unrelated process rather than any health risk inherent to HFCS itself. This kind of contamination could potentially happen in the manufacture of essentially any foodstuff or other products and would seem to be outside the article's scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me from reading the section that the presence of mercury came from the production process for chemicals used to produce HFCS. So while this is not a direct health risk of HFCS, it could be a health risk of HFCS that is manufactured in this way. 138.16.32.85 (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This content is now part of a Wikipedia dispute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_effects_of_high-fructose_corn_syrup&action=history) Evidence suggests that Americans may be consuming more mercury from hfcs than any other source, and the source of contamination of hfcs in the United States appears to be from 4 plants that use older, obsolete "Mercury Cell" process. A fifth plant in Wisconsin conceded that their "Mercury Cell" process was contaminating hcfc used in other foods with tons of Mercury yearly and stopped using this outdated "Mercury Cell" process to refine HFCS. This is a potentially significant health and safety issue related to HFCS and should to be referenced in this article in some way. Jtankers (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a paper on this: Dufault R, LeBlanc B, Schnoll R, Cornett C, Schweitzer L, Wallinga D, Hightower J, Patrick L, Lukiw WJ. "Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar." Environ Health. 2009 Jan 26;8:2. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-8-2 --216.223.234.97 (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Princeton study - here we go again

The Bocarsly study is already discussed in detail in the article, in a NPOV way (see the Bocarsly section). Note that this study fails MEDRS because it is a primary study, and we should be mainly relying on reviews. However we included this study in the article (along with criticism) due to its high profile. It isn't appropriate to include this study in the lede due to WP:WEIGHT (and even if it was, the current edits saying "the most recent and conclusive research" is definitely not NPOV!)

Sunvox/108.*: please revert your changes, read WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV and discuss any changes here rather than edit warring. If you keep edit warring you are likely to get banned from wikipedia. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please stop edit-warring and discuss changes. TFD (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose on the pharmacokinetics of fructose and acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses in healthy subjects. Le MT, Frye RF, Rivard CJ, Cheng J, McFann KK, Segal MS, Johnson RJ, Johnson JA. Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.

"In conclusion, our findings suggest that there are differences in various acute metabolic and hemodynamic responses between HFCS and sucrose."

This is peer reviewed medically significant research showing that you are wrong and which makes the Borcarsly research worthy of notice in the opening remarks. Just because you do not agree with the results does not make the science any less valid nor should you be allowed to withhold any relevant data from the public. A NPOV includes pros AND cons.

This is a single study. Please read WP:MEDRS and you'll see that we mainly rely on well-cited reviews. It's not that I don't agree (I personally don't give a crap whether or not HFCS is worse than sugar)...the important thing is to follow wikipedia's rules when adding content. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

(While I was typing this, Sciencewatcher posted the above. I'll post it anyway as it explains the same situation in slightly different terms.)

Interesting. It's "primary" evidence, though. We can't report it until an expert has reviewed it in a peer-reviewed systematic review. The very fact that you brought that here, expecting to persuade someone that it should be reported in this article, tells me you haven't grasped the essence of our most fundamental guideline WP:MEDRS. It's a difficult, tedious read, I have to confess, but it explains why you're having the problems you are here. Please take the time to read it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I did read the MEDRS "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse." (the secondary literature being the 2008 AMA review asking for further research) and given the nature of the issue being discussed and the full spectrum of research now in existence (for there is considerably more work I haven't cited) as well as general global epidemiology I do not see how one can fail to add it in a NPOV opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.128.155 (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The current edit war

The new source you've brought here, Ferder et al PMID 489461351, does not address the question of "experimental and clinical evidence suggesting a progressive association between HFCS consumption, obesity, and other injury processes." It simply says that in passing as part of its argument for its novel hypothesis (that metabolic damage associated with HFCS probably is not limited to obesity-pathway mechanisms). It doesn't even cite a source for the claim. You cannot use that to debunk the AMA position. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the last source cited will fulfill your request and is listed in my comments above. I suggest everyone take the time to read it in it's entirety before resuming the editing war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.128.155 (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Which title/author are you referring to? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I see you have again added your changes that fail WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV against consensus. As Anthony Cole pointed out above, you really should read these policies and stop edit warring. You should also be aware of WP:3RR which you are about to break and likely get banned for (both your usernames and your ip address will likely get banned). --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

See my above remarks regarding MEDRS, but as to WEIGHT I would point out that arguing that HFCS is unlike sucrose is NOT the same as saying the "Earth is flat" and therefore does not fail WEIGHT or NPOV. I disagree with you and you disagree with me, but we both have science to support our argument and deserve room in the opening line. I would urge everyone undoing my edits to add their own comments before or after my comments, with countering science and showing the timeliness of the research they cite rather than removing my edits.

Well I see you have undone my change. Obviously I will have to wait 24 hours so as not to violate the 3RR, but I don't see any valid arguments on the talk page that convince me I have violated any rules with my last edit, and I fully intend to re-enter them as often as I can. 108.41.128.155 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)sunvox

Wikipedia is governed by policies and guidelines. We all follow them or get banned. You are demonstrating that you either haven't read or haven't understood or will flout the policies you've been politely pointed to many times. If you continue to push your content onto articles, having been warned that it breaches our guidelines, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority I see you did not respond to my arguments above, and I assume you are a Wikipedia moderator in order to threaten me with banning. Based on my arguments above I believe the last edit I posted does not violate any Wikipedia rules. If you have the ability to ban me and you feel that this post will violate the rules then I would like to appeal this case to someone that has never posted on this page and may be arguably more independent of opinion than are you.Sunvox (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator. You will be blocked, though, if you continue to push content onto articles that violates our content guidelines. I'm sorry, I thought I'd looked at all your comments; can you point me to the argument you're referring to? Just paste the first sentence here and I'll find it. It's bedtime here; I'll get back to you in eight or so hours.

An afterthought. Like sciencewatcher, I couldn't care less whether HFCS is more harmful than other sweeteners, though I'm finding the topic very interesting. It is certainly looking like there might be something to all this. Our point of conflict isn't our opinions about the science, it's over what can go into a Wikipedia article, and what has to wait. We can discuss that. But that discussion will only be worthwhile once you're abreast of WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint on the dispute resolution board as Sciencewatcher is apparently a moderator and has warned me I may be banned. I will, of course, abide by the decision made on the board, and can only hope that if you, Anthony, are a truly a disinterested party that you will reconsider the available research and then write your own version of the facts. By the way my name is Joe, and I hope you have a "Good-night". Perhaps as you suggest it is simply a matter of timing since the building evidence does not bode well for HFCS. Sunvox (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Joe

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Health effects of high-fructose corn syrup". Thank you. Sunvox (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Joe

Studies that have abstracts ending with "in rats", particularly primary studies, shouldn't be used on wikipedia pages unless the page itself is about rats. A brief look at the obesity section alone suggests the need for a minor to major trim of at least the primary studies, and the graph depicting changes in obesity that attempts to link it - implicitly if not explicitly - to HFCS should probably go. We should emphasize studies and findings reported in review articles, and we shouldn't add "BUT IT'S FUNDED BY TEH BIG SUGARZ" in every section. I may have a go at the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was a terrible page. Cherry-picking, use of primary sources to debunk secondary, lots of "in rats" studies cited unnecessarily, I've trimmed it down considerably and eliminated the mercury section - get a review article. Consensus in the medical community seems to be HFCS is no better or worse than any other high-sugar product. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for that WLU. I'm flat out in RL and with Wikidrama. You're my hero. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the cleanup WLU. Now that the health effects article is shorter, perhaps it might make sense to just merge it back into the main HFCS article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That would make sense to me - the general consensus seems to be that it's just another form of calories, with some indications it might be more - but not so many indications we can spend a lot of time on it. It's definitely too short for a standalone article on a fringe idea that is unlikely to expand. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

[QUOTE] Studies that have abstracts ending with "in rats", particularly primary studies, shouldn't be used on wikipedia pages unless the page itself is about rats. [/QUOTE] You will need to furnish refs for this assumption. Rat and other animal studies are commonly done for medical issues and are perfectly acceptable. Please furnish information that states otherwise. Gandydancer (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• [2]
• [3] full text
• [4] full text
• [5] full text
• [6] full text

Cribbed from here. I don't think we're done here folks, but I think a more solid article needs to be built from good-quality, secondary, human-focussed sources rather than cherry-picked rat studies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources provided about high fructose corn syrup. TFD (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do - try reading them (and not just the titles :) --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Two are explicit, three are about fructose more generally (one of which actually excludes HFCS) but there's probably a place for at least some of them. Right now I only have access to the PMC one, I may try integrating this weekend. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Where's the Arbitration request?

I can't find it anywhere, if it was rejected or closed I will reintroduce or appeal it. The fact is most of the sources that show that it isn't "more detrimental to health than other types of sugars" were excluded despite meeting the requirements of WP:MEDS. This is especially true of the Princeton study which was cited by the Princeton news website as a secondary source and is the latest research on the topic.

Also I suppose the fact that I'm adding my voice to this means there is not a consensus of users as I disagree with the assertions of a "tiny minority" of studies and the incorrect use of WP:MEDS. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind found it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:MEDRS again. We primarily use well-cited reviews, which the Princeton study isn't one of. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus" doesn't mean "everyone is happy". We have to be happy within the framework of the policies and guidelines. For instance, aggregating a series of rat studies to claim it says something about humans is a violation of the policy on original research as well as what wikipedia is not (specifically, not a soapbox). Unless there is strong consensus to ignore the rules, we have to abide by them. I'm not going to ignore our rules on representing the scientific consensus so someone can claim fructose is evil.

A press release is not a WP:MEDRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I mentioned it in the dispute resolution but things like the 2009 AMA study ignores WP:MEDRS and the Princeton study is overwhelmingly valid, to suggest a study on rats isn't valid for human effects is to ignore basic scientific experiments, even the researchers said it used to see human effects. As such, claiming WP:Undue or WP:OP in this case is unwarranted.

Also calling the Princeton news site a PR release is debatable and probably true but the 2009 AMA study ignores any pretense of a secondary source and I believe both are equally valid. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WLU, are you aware that 95% of all studies done looking for medical effects on humans are done on rats or mice? I believe that it would be best to drop that line of opposition. Gandydancer (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article I see that WLU has deleted some rat studies just because they were "rat studies". That information should be returned to the article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

And further reading shows that WLU gutted the article with the edit summary "what an astonishingly selective citation of the literature" while s/he had no problem keeping the private one-man article done by a guy with corn industry associations. Gandydancer (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

White's ref is used for " HFCS-containing beverages has been suggested as a contributor to poor health and problems for people with diabetes" as well, so perhaps we should just get rid of that sentence. Regarding rats: what is important is whether or not we have a reliable review which mentions the rat studies. If so we should then say what the review says...it will analyze the primary studies and discuss whether or not it is likely to be a concern for humans. As per wikipedia policies, we should not use primary studies themselves - we need to stick to using well-cited reviews. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo, we cite what can be verified in reliable sources, not The Truth^TM. We don't pick and choose sources based on whether we agree with them (which seems to be your approach to the 2009 AMA article), we pick them based on reliability and secondary-ness. Also, unless there is a source saying "X article is biased and here is why" we shouldn't qualify it and nor should we discount it.

Gandydancer, per WP:MEDRS and WP:PSTS, we don't cite 95% of studies. We cite the 1% of articles that are secondary sources summarizing primary - and this page isn't about the health effects of HFCS on rats. I think placing large amounts of emphasis on health consequences found in rats is undue weight on the idea that HFCS is no more healthy or unhealthy than equal amounts of sugar. That seems to be the scientific consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Once again, rats/mice are used for 95% of studies and are frequently used in Wikipedia articles. You should be aware of that fact and that you are not suggests a lack of knowledge on your part. Also, summaries do take priority over primary studies, however, when well-done they they are commonly and correctly used on Wikipedia to offer conflicting findings. If you believe differently, you need to document your beliefs, which to this point you have not been able to do. Gandydancer (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we should not use poor quality primary animal studies. What we should be doing is look for high quality sources (reviews), not include every low quality one possible. Yobol (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rats and mice are used as hypothesis-generating animals for human studies, which are the studies of actual interest to other humans. The flaws and failings of other articles are irrelevant here, but please feel free to correct any other pages over-reliant on animal research. Per MEDRS, we shoudln't overemphasize rat and mice studies. When we have an abundance of secondary sources to draw upon, there is no need to overemphasize preliminary research in animals. Those secondary sources pretty clearly converge on the idea that there is no concrete reason to believe HFCS is any worse than any other sugar, though this is still a tentative conclusion.

Sciencewatcher, I think the sentence should remain, since it is a specific claim refuted in the article. I'd suggest spending more time looking for research on carbonyls to see if there is anything else out there. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Mercury, redux

I've removed the section on mercury for a third time. This was reported in a primary source and thus does not represent a general problem with HFCS. A secondary, high-quality source should be used if available, we are not the news. If not, then it should not be on the page. The news stories are reports on the single, primary, scienctific article, and thus are not appropriate secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The main article found the primary study to be sufficient for more than a year, but I can search for more references this evening. This is not quackery, and it appears to be more than a minor concern. President Obama himself was involved in legislative efforts to phase out "Mercury Cell" technolog (open congress, 2007, bill 110-s1810, Barack Obama)

Evidence suggests that Americans may be consuming more mercury from hfcs than any other source, and the source of contamination of hfcs in the United States appears to be from 4 plants that use older, obsolete "Mercury Cell" process. A fifth plant in Wisconsin conceded that their "Mercury Cell" process was contaminating hcfc used in other foods with tons of Mercury yearly and stopped using this outdated "Mercury Cell" process to refine HFCS. This is a potentially significant health and safety issue (particularly for children and pregnant women) related to HFCS and should be referenced in this article in some way. Jtankers (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Longevity of an error is not a reason to perpetuate it. That is still a primary source, and further - it is not a general concern over the health effects of HFCS, it is a concern over the specific processing in specific plants. That source is not adequate to indicate that mercury levels in HFCS is a widespread concern. A search on pubmed for HFCS and mercury turns up exactly two articles, both from 2009, this one and a second by the same group. This does not appear to be a widespread concern. Having a mention of what appears to be a localized problem, within a single country, from three years ago, by a single group, seems to be undue weight on what essentially comes down to a single primary study. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can research, annotate and respond in more detail this evening on: level of concern in the US, level of press coverage, world wide impact (legacy mercury cell process widely used world wide), congressional action including by current president, confirmation of mercury contamination by Wisconsin HFCS production plant, and HFCS mercury contamination sourced by the 4 (previously 5) plants found nationwide in foods in significant enough levels that the average American child is estimated to be significantly exceeding US safe mercury consumption levels (nationwide, still at this time) just from consuming foods containing high levels of HFCS, and no peer reviewed counter study. A purpose of Wikipedia is to consicely present the facts and guide readers to further research if they chose. To exclude an issue of this significance I think would be a dis-service to people attempting to research the health and safety of consuming large quantities of HFCS as particularly Americans do. Please also confirm that you do not have any potential conflict of interest, or any association with the Corn Refiners Association or Corn Growers Association of America, Thank you. Jtankers (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

All I care about, since it is an article on the health effects of HFCS, are secondary scholarly sources on the topic. If need be, we can take this to WT:MED or request a comment. The purpose of wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a soapbox to proclaim what individual editors think to be great truths or risks. It is neutral, meaning it represents information with the weight given by the appropriate scholars. We do not "guide" readers since we do not provide advice. The issue is indeed one of significance, and so far I see little evidence of the mercury content of HFCS being a significant piece of interest in the medical literature as a whole.

The conspiracy-mongering implication that only someone with a financial interest in the HFCS industry would express skepticism about the mercury content of HFCS is insulting, laughable, and doesn't deserve further comment. I am not going to ask you if you have any links to the pseudoscientific promotion of chelation of mercury to treat heart disease, cancer or autism because it is just as irrelevant and insulting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please just answer the question yes or no, bias is highly relevant in this issue, and in the last dispute I had with an editor, in 2008 which I won, the editor turned out to be directly employed by the organization that was the subject of the dispute. Thank you.Jtankers (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you really think it an issue, bring it up at the appropriate venue such as WP:COIN. I look forward with great amusement to the response.

Also note that I have brought this up at WT:MED, here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't find this humorous and I would appreciate a little more respect and professionalism in your responses and conduct. Jtankers (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mercury Contamination

To date there has been one responce, in favor of keeping the content in the article (honestly, the argument for non-inclusion does not appear to be strong or and WLU appears to be making conclusions that are not consistent with the well known and widely reported peer reviewed study on the subject based apparently on personal prejudice). Jtankers (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Supporting comment from above: "It seems to me from reading the section that the presence of mercury came from the production process for chemicals used to produce HFCS. So while this is not a direct health risk of HFCS, it could be a health risk of HFCS that is manufactured in this way. 138.16.32.85 (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)"

I would appreciate you referring to policies and guidelines, like I did. I'm not a professional by the way, I'm a volunteer who is intimately familiar with the core content policies such as WP:NPOV. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be several ideas that are being conflated here:

1. that some plants producing HFCS used Hg cell produced chlorine
2. that the above practice still continues
3. that the use of this chlorine contributes significant Hg contamination to the produced HFCS
4. that such Hg-contaminated HFCS forms a significant part of the Hg uptake in consumers
5. that specific, serious, negative health effects arise from that uptake

6-10 that certain writers have stated each of points 1-5

Now, each of these assertions requires different degrees of wp:RS evidence, but number 5 requires wp:MEDRS. Numbers 6-10 could conceivably be supported by primary sources, but would need to be carefully stated.

I doubt anyone would argue against simple assertions that a massive intake of HFCS (or any other sugar) is unhealthy, but Andrew Wakefield's thoroughly-debunked notion that Hg exposure causes autism is one that keeps being dragged back by people unconcerned by accuracy. Of course intake of Hg should be avoided, it has real toxic effects, but autism is not one of them.LeadSongDog come howl! 23:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Bullet/numbered list above

At minimum the news stories should be removed since they are reporting on the initial study. They also don't indicate that this is a widespread concern since it is flat earth news reporting - it appears worrisome to the general public, not to a body of experts. Second, the primary source should be replaced by the secondary source by the same lab.

However, this still rests on a single lab's work, essentially taking a single data set and spinning out a theory that this data set has health consequences. But those consequences are not of HFCS itself, they are of the mercury that was added as part of processing. From what I understand, mercury is used in the cleaning of the machinery and the machines were cleaned improperly. There is still no evidence that HFCS is a widespread source of worry as far as mercury contamination is concerned. And in addition, there is no evidence that this example of mercury contamination causes significant health problems - either as a single incident or as part of the overall intake of mercury by the general population. In terms of the health concerns of HFCS (and mercury intake for that matter) I think this is undue weight placed on an isolated incident. In three years since the second study was published, nothing else has appeared on this topic in the peer-reviewed press. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The secondary source from the same lab might be sufficient, as it references the primary source.

However, The idea that this is not a significant nor widespread concern or that this the result of isolated incident of improper cleaning is not supported by the secondary study conclusions.

Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Widespread (detected in 1 of 3 products tested) "In our own limited testing, we could detect mercury in about one of every three common foods or beverages where HFCS was the first or second labeled ingredient. Many of these foods are heavily marketed to children, who in turn are among those most vulnerable to mercury’s toxic effects"

Historical continuing worldwide contamination (Contamination first acknowledged in 2000) "Mercury contamination of soft drinks or drink mixes made from this caustic soda was acknowledged by the National Association of Clean Water Agencies as early as 2000." and "Even if U.S. chlor-alkali plants discontinue using the mercury-based process, there are other plants worldwide that still do and they export to the United States. American consumers are still likely to eat food products containing HFCS that may be contaminated with mercury from these plants."

Concentration compared to FDA reference dose (greatly exceeds FDA safe reference dose) "one might roughly estimate potential total mercury ingestion via HFCS of up to 28.5ug total mercury/day" (exceeding the FDA reference dose of 0.1ug 0.1ug/kg/day for women of childbearing age and young children by 285 times or 28,500% approximately 5 times for an average 55kg woman).

Significance and scale (bill sponsored by Barack Obama in 2007, 38 tons/year of mercury lost from plants in 2003) In 2007 then-Senator Barack Obama sponsored S. 1818, the “Missing Mercury in Manufacturing Monitoring and Mitigation Act.” which if passed, would phase out the remaining mercury cells in use in the U.S. (in 2003 38 tons of mercury were reported "missing" from American mercury cell plants, an estimated 8 tons into the environment and 30 tons into products) Jtankers (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The secondary study appears to reasonably address the points above, including number 5, estimating average American mercury consumption from HFCS at 285 5 times more that the FDA reference safe mercury consumption amount for women of child bearing age and children. Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Jtankers (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are preferred over primary, because primary sources are easy to misrepresent. And as I said before, I am reluctant to base a significant section on a single primary source, which is then interpreted by a secondary source by the same authors. However, I'll have a look at the IATP document you linked. If you have any other similarly authoritative sources (i.e. not sensationalist news stories), that would be very helpful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I will search this evening Jtankers (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Secondary Study: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup

Related Study: Behavioral and brain affects from mercury including consumption of food with high concentrations of contaminated high fructose corn syrup Mercury Exposure, nutritional deficiencies and metabolic disruptions may affect learning in children

Minor reference: 2 of the last 4 (HFCS producing) mercury cell plants in the United States announced plans to cease operations this fall Olin Prepared Mercury Free Future after 47 years

Minor Reference: Interview with FDA whistle blower, Chlor-Alkali plant self-reports systemic contamination of its products (including HFCS) with mercury then stops using mercury cell process HFCS and Mercury an Interview with FDA Whistleblower

Interesting, but WP is not here to piece evidence together or otherwise investigate in a journalistic way. -- Scray (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just looking for improved references

(coming over from WT:MED) I've searched and find no more reliable sources than the ones already quoted. I think the statement at the end of "Other Issues" is proportional to current evidence. Interesting issue, potentially very important, but better sources would be needed to expand the coverage. -- Scray (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I am satisfied with a statement at the end of "Other Issues" that identifies the issue in some way, with a link to the secondary study and possibly a related study or the interview with the FDA whistle blower, if someone wants to update the article. Jtankers (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

How about something similar to the following at the end of the "Other Issues" section:

Mercury, a known neurotoxin has been found in high fructose corn syrup from plants that use older "mercury cell" technology, including 4 plants in Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia. (Dead link replaced with archive)

That last is a deadlink, but it was archived. It was a blog, not a wp:RS.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternate third reference: study links corn syrup to toxic mercury an inter view with Dr. David Walling a by DemocracyNow news outlet, below:

Mercury, a known neurotoxin has been found in high fructose corn syrup from plants that use older "mercury cell" technology, including 4 plants in Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtankers (talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, all of them boil down to this: there are some people who did a study who think what they found was correct and important. What we need to see is something by credible independent reviewers who think the investigators got it right. We need this because Wikipedia is not competent to perform scientific reviews. We acknowledge that, and instead depend on the published literature. If we don't see published secondary sources that say the investigators got it right, then we don't say so. Frankly, the absence of such independent reviews after three years have elapsed rather screams that there's something wrong with the work. If there wasn't, it should have been cited in this WHO report from 2011, which looks very closely at various forms of Hg contamination in food. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Independent confirming study, a second study by another group directly confirming that the first study got it correct: Mercury exposure, nutritional deficiencies and metabolic disruptions may affect learning in children. The legislation (bill 110-s1818) Barak Obama sponsored in 2007 does this also, not to mention at least one Port Edwards Wisconsin plant confirming that it was contaminating its products with mercury and subsequently phasing out the process.

The WHO report was based 93% on samples from Europe and only 1% from the Americas, primarily from Brazil and Canada (page 634 section 5). In the United States where HFCS is primarily consumed, food and non-fish ingredients were not sampled by the 2011 WHO report "the estimates are for methylmercury exposures from fish only, and no estimates of total mercury exposures were provided." (page 659 section 6.2.2e).

Except for the Corn Refiners Association which is currently being sued for false advertising, the screaming appears to be in favor of the work being correct (interestingly a majority of Americans are concerned HFCS may pose a health hazard and companies are starting to reduce HFCS use in their products). --Jtankers (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you looked a little closer at the list of authors for those papers. You will see that the lead author of the study appears as one of the reviewers. That's about as far from "independent" as it gets.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Other Issues

Proposed Text for end of "Other Issues" section below for comments. Yes, No (please support), Alternate?

HFCS may be a significant source of mercury exposure in the United States, until older "mercury cell" production technology is phased out. --Jtankers (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those look like exposure assessments. There should be a fair amount of scientific literature estimating the largest contributors to mercury burdens. Have you been able to identify them, and if so, what do they say? Biosthmors (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The first reference (corrected link) states that "one might roughly estimate potential total mercury ingestion via HFCS of up to 28.5ug total mercury/day" which would exceed the FDA reference dose of 0.1ug/kg/day for women of childbearing age and young children by approximately 5 times for an average 55kg woman. This only applies to the United States where HFCS is primarily consumed for pricing reasons, and fish and shellfish consumption appears to be the primary concern for mercury exposure for most populations, I can research if that's helpful. --Jtankers (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)"One might roughly estimate" sounds like a SWAG (from who knows who), which isn't exactly what we prefer around here. A peer reviewed exposure assessment would be best. Biosthmors (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That was the quote from the peer reviewed estimate from the secondary study (corrected link) , I can look up the primary study to get more scientific numbers, but I understand secondary studies are preferred as they are harder to mis-interpret. --Jtankers (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Ah, sorry, I don't like clicking on websites I'm unfamiliar with. Can you link me to the PMID or doi? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The secondary study link is directly to a PDF document. The primary study this refers to is doi:10.1186/1476-069X-8-2. The other supporting primary study is doi:10.1186/1744-9081-5-44. --Jtankers (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

So I've looked over this source some. And here's the relevant primary study:[7]. In my mind, the question now becomes where is a real exposure assessment? Mercury intakes aren't necessarily absorbed. A real source would have to estimate the form of mercury, exposure routes, etc. If you want to cite PMID 19171026 as raising potential concerns over neurotoxicity due to mercury in HFCS, it seems like that could be OK, but what should really be done, in my opinion, is to identify all the reviews that have cited PMID 19171026 to see what they say. Otherwise we run the risk of cherry-picking one review. Biosthmors (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand the researchers were not able to determine the form of mercury. The evidence only appears sufficient to support concerns of a potentially significant (though being phased out) additional source of mercury exposure in the United States, but not enough to conclude harm at this point. (Enough to support a minor phrase in the "Other Issues" section, but probably not much more than that.) --Jtankers (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If we just update the references in the current text at the end of "Other Issues" it should meet those requirements well enough perhaps:

Mercury, a known neurotoxin has been found in high fructose corn syrup from plants that use older "mercury cell" technology, including 4 plants in Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia.

--Jtankers (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Detection does not necessarily mean there is a health issue. This prose does not relate the exposure to the potential for health risk. Biosthmors (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this is reasonable. Biosthmors (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think that is an improvement. --Jtankers (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. As is, it could be imbalanced. I haven't located all the reviews/exposure assessments that cite the primary study. A sentence of epidemiological data might also help contextualize the concern. Biosthmors (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

MEDMOS

The style guide for medical articles commonly includes "Society and culture" as a section for articles. I don't see the problem with discussing some social aspects about media, public concern, etc. regarding mercury contamination. As long as biomedical claims are sourced to WP:MEDRS, and a "Society and culture" section respects that, I don't see a problem with an encyclopedic summary of "Society and culture" health concerns as they relate to mercury contamination in HFCS. Biosthmors (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if there is enough information on public concern for an entire section, I thought the "Other Issues" section appears to be sufficient for secondary concerns like mercury contamination. --Jtankers (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely?

Most of the studies linking fructose consumption to higher blood triglycerides have been in rodents through mechanisms different from those in humans, and therefore it is unlikely that high-fructose diets would have comparable effects in humans.

Maybe instead of "it is unlikely" we could say something like "there is no reason to suspect/expect"? In theory by coindence there could be a comparable effect in humans via a different unknown mechanism, but the test in rodents doesn't give us any evidence for or against that due to knowing the same mechanism found in rodents doesn't work that way in humans. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I just read through that review, and that sentence is mostly wrong. First of all, studies do show increased triglyceride levels in humans after consuming fructose. However the effect only becomes apparent above 50-100g/day. The animal studies all used huge amounts of fructose (more than any human would eat). Someone needs to rewrite this sentence based on the 'Conclusions' section of the review, which says that "there is no direct evidence linking obesity to the consumption of physiological amounts of fructose in humans (≤ 100g/day). A moderate dose (≤ 50g/day) of added fructose has no deleterious effect on fasting and postprandial triglycerides, glucose control and insulin resistance".

Also, why is this in 'primary studies' when there are reviews and meta-analyses? --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I wrote that section, it's quite possible I did not summarize the source accurately. Feel free to adjust it accordingly. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul to regain thesis of article

I updated this article last week in order to include important information from the USDA and AMA regarding HFCS and added sugars as a whole, which directly relates to this article. These were removed although appropriately cited.

Upon further inspection, this entire article had been hacked apart by biased writers so as to have no focus at all, and so as to not present any useful or relevant data. I have gone through and updated the article so that it presents an objective view of research on the health effects of HFCS. I have cited sources, and included both viewpoints on any controversial issues.

The information in this article is now in line with what an average user would be looking for if searching this topic. The information has been verified to be accurate, and it is objective. Regarding Princeton, I've put it back in because it is accredited, important and historically newsworthy. Censoring it is NOT appropriate. However, I have also cited the response from the Corn Growers Association, and sourced their opinions and complaints with the research.

If this article is hacked up by biased writers seeking to make their viewpoint a dominant one, I will take this article to arbitration and ask that it be locked for editing as-is. However, any grammatical corrections are appreciated. NOTE: deleting everything you don't like IS NOT a grammatical correction.Davey1107 (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced does not mean it is worth including. You should follow WP:MEDRS: "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information". Your edits create doubt about whether the health effects of HFCS are worse than those for sugar, without providing any serious secondary sources. I suggest also that you read through the discussions above, since this topic continues to be raised. TFD (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It is wise to doubt most medical information as it changes all the time as new information comes in. When information is well-sourced it certainly is important to include as long as it is made clear that it is not the dominant line of current thinking.Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:MEDREV: "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. For a short time afterwards, the findings will be so new that they will not be reflected in any review articles or other secondary sources. If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted." TFD (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. The sources cited - the USDA, the AMA and the Mayo Clinic - represent current policy and thinking on the health effects of HFCS. In regards to your specific concerns:

1. What the US government says about the health effects of HFCS and added sugars has EVERY right to be presented in an article on the health effects of HFCS 2. There are doubts within the scientific community as to whether HFCS are worse than sugar. An article on health effects should present these doubts, not censor them. 3. As Gandydancer said, opposing viewpoints should be included. In the revisions I will mark the Princeton study as denoted that it is not thought the results reflect on the human population.

FURTHER CUTS: Per wikipedia guidelines, if you have problems with this information, please discuss it here before deleting my changes. Disagreeing with one sentence and cutting the whole thing is NOT wiki policy. Current government guidelines regarding healthy diet and HFCS WILL be staying in this article. Please cite specific examples of anything with my sections you find objectionable, and I will look at them objectively in relation to wikipedia policy and standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey1107 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 October 2012

The USDA, the AMA and the Mayo Clinic have made no comments about the health effects of HFCS. Even your edit says, "Currently, U.S. governmental agencies (the USDA, HHS), The American Medical Association and health organization such as The Mayo clinic do not differentiate between HFCS and other caloric sweeteners". And no one has said that the Princeton study means that HFCS has negative effects on human health. See also WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. TFD (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all of those organization have commented on health effects of HFCS. What you are referring to is effects worse/better than other sugar sources. My edits, as you point out, clarify this policy amongst all three...the AMA, USDA and Mayo Clinic. However, all three have weighed in on the adverse health effects of HFCS as a general added sugar. This article is "Health and HFCS" not "Is HFCS worse?" The current revisions also point out that the medical establishment doesn't look at Princeton as something that currently affects policy, but they have asked for more research and that needs to be stated. Your argument is that I can't say "exposure to radium causes cancer" in an article on health effects of radium because I haven't included info on whether its worse than exposure to plutonium. Current research says that HFCS is bad for you, that it should be avoided, and that there are many, many negative health effects from over-consumption. It does not matter that the AMA doesn't cite it as worse than sugar...they cite it as bad, and that's information that belongs to an article about HFCS and Health. As stated, I've started arbitration on this. The first step is to get some objective non-involved parties to weigh on on my additions. I will give a lot of weight to what they say...things they believe should be included will be left in. Davey1107 (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Also, when you delete my entire contribution two seconds after I post it, you make it obvious you are not seriously reviewing this objectively. I made several changes to the language per advice in previous comments. Please take a moment to go read Wikipedia policy regarding disputes. It is against policy to blanket undo work because you don't like it. If there are problems with the current revision, please leave a note here in this forum, quote the specific sentences you object to, and state why they are illegitimate. This will be considered by the arbitration volunteers. Again, recommendations that follow guidelines and show courtesy will be considered. "Edit war maneuvers" will not.Davey1107 (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the sucrose article, it has a big section on health effects which starts off by saying the health effects are "relevant to other chemical forms of sugar, not just sucrose". So perhaps we should probably create a new article "health effects of sugar" and move all of this stuff in there. Then we can have shorter sections in the sucrose and HFCS articles specifically for any health effects from those particular sugars. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between "health effects of sugar" (people get fat) and "health effects of HFCS". This page is about the latter. It should emphasize a) health effects of HFCS specifically apart from other sugars (of which there appear to be few) and b) its effect as a contributor to obesity (which should be discussed as similar if not identical to other sugars and should be phrased that way - and briefly so). The scientific community does not appear to view HFCS as having unique health risks beyond those found in all sugars. The page should not be a coatrack for general concerns regarding the consumption of sugar. If the health effects are mostly due to increased consumption because of their use in soda, that's a relatively brief point and does not deserve the kind of emphasis that makes it look like HFCS is an unusual evil.

Again, this page should emphasize health effects of HFCS that are unique to that substance and not found in other sugars. It does not appear to have any. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you say, but the problem is that we don't have any 'health effect of sugars' page at the moment. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hm...the info on sucrose should be moved to sugar (if it's not already there, since sugar has its own health effects section) unless it has specific risks beyond those found in the consumption of excess sugar in general. Perhaps the best thing might be to create the "health effects of sugar" page and redirect this one to a subsection. It would solve two problems - the redundant and inappropriate section on sucrose and the existence of this as a separate page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't actually looked at the sugar article. It seems its health effects section is mostly a duplicate of the one in the sucrose article. Yes, I think we at least need to rip out the sugar health effects from both the sucrose article and this one, and just put a link to the health effects section in the sugar article (leaving just the specific health effects of HFCS and sucrose in those articles). --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

MERCURY NEUTRALITY

A modification was made on December 17th to make the article more neutral, but the change appears to make the article content at odds with known facts.

The reference does not appear to support the added phrase "but in 2011 the Corn Refiners Association reported that “no mercury or mercury-based technology is used in the production of high fructose corn syrup in North America.[ref]”", and the content does not appear to be supported by known facts.

Perhaps the phrase could be replaced with something similar to ". The Corn Refiners Association concludes that HFCS is not contaminated with mercury and consuming HFCS is safe and equivalent to consuming sugar[ref]". Jtankers (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should we cite them at all? The article should follow WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS depending upon the sentence in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Biosthmors. Since the article is about HFCS and health, any claims about health effects need MEDRS sourcing. TFD (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged the trade group with {{npsn}} for the non-health claim. Biosthmors (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's in the Dufault ref (the first one). I've added some more detail. --sciencewatcher (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Kinda odd to cite a 2009 source to support "hasn't been confirmed by a third party" in regards to a claim published in 2011, or am I missing something? Biosthmors (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Dunno...I had literally a few mins last night...feel free to read the source and fix. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, seeing as nobody else is going to bother fixing this, I've looked into it more. The corn refiners' study was from 2009, not 2011. I've also added more info. I wish people would actually read the refs to discover the facts rather than just assuming that someone is pov pushing or making things up (which wasn't the case here). Really, it only takes a few mins to actually read the study and see what's going on and fix the article.

As for MEDRS, the Dufault ref is a review so it satisfies MEDRS. The quote I added from the corn refiners' association is WP:RS but not MEDRS. If you think it should be removed, feel free to remove it. The info about the study funded by the corn refiners association which found no mercury is mentioned in the Dufault review. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what the limit of detection was in CRA funded study and if it is comparable to methods currently used/published on. Thanks for your edits. I'm kinda busy and I have other priorities here in case you thought I thought you were pov pushing or making things up. I assumed you were too. Biosthmors (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I think both the mercury studies are probably at the bottom end of MEDRS. If it wasn't for the Dufault review, I don't think we would even be mentioning it in the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work, but I wonder if the article might be more balanced if the last sentence were removed? "They conclude "Dr. Hyman tries to capitalize on fears generated by bad research and overblown claims. The mercury report he pointed to was based on outdated, incomplete and otherwise questionable information." Jtankers (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above regarding that quote. Feel free to remove it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about, Jtankers? Jtankers post starting this thread is simply an utterly wrong, blatantly false accusation. Sciencewatcher, what were you thinking, removing it? The quotation he says has no support in the cited work is a direct quote from the cited work. Here's another source for the quote: The http://vueweekly.com/front/story/well_well_well_mercury_confusion/ says, "The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) was quick to get in touch with Vue Weekly, respectfully requesting the removal of the "false claim that high fructose corn syrup contains mercury." They say that "no mercury or mercury-based technology is used in the production of high fructose corn syrup in North America.".--Elvey (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, feel free to add it again. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Evley, no one is denying that the quote was made, however the quote originates from 2009, not 2011 and there are credibility concerns with what the quote claims. Please read your own reference article for details on some of the credibility concerns. (Basically a 2009 peer reviewed study found mercury in some HFCS and many products containing HFCS; CRA appears to have responded by denying the study's conclusions and commissioning a non-peer reviewed counter study finding opposite conclusions. The VueWeekly article you provided addresses the conflicting results with the quote "We can only assume the samples were collected from plants not using mercury grade chlor-alkali") Jtankers (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

sciencewatcher:(PS: If they're still using the technology, it'll be public knowledge, and the CRA has opened itself up to enormous legal liability. You can't legally use mercury-based technology like this without registering its use with the government. Any factory worker could easily anonymously blow the whistle if it was being done in secret. In comparison, who cares who did testing to what trace level, or how independent they are. --Elvey (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC))

Actually "Current standards permit the use of mercury cell chlor-alkali chemicals in food manufacturing."(ref http://vueweekly.com/front/story/well_well_well_mercury_confusion/) Jtankers (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Assuming they do, how is that relevant to what I say? I don't see it. Even if the technology is still legal, using it in secret is still illegal. They'd still be in trouble if found using it - not as much trouble, though. --Elvey (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you just reverted to the prev version. I'd suggest leaving in the edits I added in addition to the quote from the corn refiner's association (unless you have any specific objections to them). --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, do you see why I put back my edit? See yellow highlight above for my objections/reasons that you seem to have missed. By the way, I did ask, "Sciencewatcher, what were you thinking, removing it?" I refer to this edit of yours. --Elvey (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That isn't really a very good source. It's not a quote - it's a sentence on the sweetsurprise.com website, not a quote from anyone. The edit I made was to add a MEDRS source. Please actually read wikipedia guidelines, and secondly please be civil and assume good faith.--sciencewatcher (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The content added by Elvey could probably be improved for accuracy and proper references I think.

First, the year 2009, not 2011 appears to be the date the CRA began stating that mercury is not used in HFCS production. According to an article dated dated May 18, 2009:

"According to Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiner’s Association, as of May 8, 2009, “No mercury or mercury-based technology is used in the production of high fructose corn syrup in North America.”"(ref http://contaminants.legalview.com/msn/congress-moves-to-end-mercury-contamination-in-us/1170946/)

However, the credibility of that claim is questioned by the same article Elvey provided. The VueWeekly.com February 2010 article states "we really have no way of being certain that it [mercury] is no longer being used in the production of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), short of taking the CRA's word for it".(ref http://vueweekly.com/front/story/well_well_well_mercury_confusion/).

Should the CRA position be included, and if so, should it be written similar to this?:

but in 2011.... According to Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiner’s Association, as of May 8, 2009, No mercury or mercury-based technology is used in the production of high fructose corn syrup in North America. However this claim has not been verified by an independent third party. Jtankers (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

http://contaminants.legalview.com/msn/congress-moves-to-end-mercury-contamination-in-us/1170946 is content-free aside from a link to blacklisted examiner.com, hence unusable (unless you get an exception and use the examiner.com link directly, which is a waste of time, IMO, but if you do, fine,) The references I used are proper. http://www.sweetsurprise.com/2011/06/08/5-reasonshighfructosecornsyrupwillkillyou does NOT violate policy. I'm not OK with the last sentence becasue the statement it's based on, "The CRA’s statement that no mercury-based technology is used in the production of HFCS is based on research conducted by Dr. Stopford" is wrong. So the whole line of reasoning it's part of is nonsense. The statement is based on the CRA simply reporting what technology its members say they use. We should just say the CRA said it, not that it's true. If you really really want to add something like "However x claims that this claim is based on lab research and y claims that this research has not been verified by an independent third party.", I won't like it, but I'll live with it.--Elvey (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And JTankers: you must not use style references on a TALK PAGE like mine or this one. PLEASE STOP. They don't work. Use bare URLs or simple link syntax.--Elvey (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. Are you saying the samples for the study were of HFCS produced after the CRA said that mercury was no longer used? If that's the case, then please make a clear case for it, and please add it to the article; that would be important to include. I'll be surprised and impressed if it can be shown that the study indicated that the CRA was lying!!

RE:PS. The fall 2008 samples don't appear consistent with CRA January 2009 assertions of no mercury in HFCS production for several years. The time line is:

2005 FDA finds mercury in almost one half of HFCS tested.

2008 (Fall) Mercury found in almost one third of products listing HFCS as a first or second ingredient.

2009 (January) Two studies based on the 2005 and 2008 samples are published. CRA responds “Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years”.(ref http://vueweekly.com/front/story/well_well_well_mercury_confusion/, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2009/01/perspective_mercury_in_hfcs.html)

2009 (March) CRA commissioned study finds no mercury in HFCS. Study was not peer reviewed and only sampled 22 unidentified plants. (ref http://www.iatp.org/files/421_2_105632.pdf)

2009 (October) A third study is published detailing possible health affects from consuming food containing mercury. (ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773803/)

2012 (December) Scheduled closing of two of the last four mercury cell chlor-alkali plants in the US. (refs http://www.icis.com/blogs/green-chemicals/2010/12/dwinding-mercury-cell-chlor-al.html and http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/mercurycell.pdf)

I don't think there is enough evidence to support the CRA claim that mercury is no longer used in HFCS production (particularly with two mercury cell chlor-alkali plants still active in the US as of 2013), but I'm not sure that the credibility issue should be addressed unless the CRA position is included. Jtankers (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed rephrasing:

The possibility that significant consumption of products containing high fructose corn syrup with detectable levels of mercury could result in neurotoxicity was raised by studies in 2009.ref name=Dufault>Dufault R, Schnoll R, Lukiw WJ, Leblanc B, Cornett C, Patrick L, Wallinga D, Gilbert SG, Crider R (2009 Oct 27). "Mercury exposure, nutritional deficiencies and metabolic disruptions may affect learning in children". Behav Brain Funct. 5: 44. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-5-44. PMC 2773803. PMID 19860886. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)</ref>ref>Wallinga D, Sorensen J, Mottl P, Yablon B (January 2009). "Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup" (PDF). Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Retrieved 2012-09-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (self-published)</ref>ref>http://vueweekly.com/front/story/well_well_well_mercury_confusion/</ref>

However As of 2013 no chlor-alkali plants in the United States still use phased out older "mercury cell" technology linked to mercury contamination of HFCS, except for two chlor-alkali plants in Ohio and West Virginia run by ASHTA Chemicals and PPG Industries. ref>http://www.chronical.augusta.com/news/business/local-business/2012-07-15/olin-prepares-mercury-free-future-after-47-years</ref> ref>http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0017-0116</ref> ref> http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=58216&BzID=1548&to=rl&Nav=1&LangID=1&s=0&Category=1094</ref>

However mercury cell technology is still widely used outside of the United States and there are no restrictions on importing mercury-grade caustic soda for use in HFCS production. ref>http://vueweekly.com/front/story/well_well_well_mercury_confusion/</ref> ref>http://www.eurochlor.org/media/9074/3-4-1-unep_global_mercury_programme_-_the_chlor-alkali_sector_partnership.pdf</ref> Jtankers (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Tweaked above to make refs visible. What's the source for the two-plants-as-of-2013? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

4 mercury cell plants in the US in 2009, referenced in the 2009 Missing Mercury study and also this 2009 letter to congress from the 3 affected companies: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0017-0116). Olin stopped using mercury in its 2 plants by the end of 2012 according to this reference: http://www.chronical.augusta.com/news/business/local-business/2012-07-15/olin-prepares-mercury-free-future-after-47-years, leaving the US with just two remaining mercury cell plants in 2013. Jtankers (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a source that says it will definitely happen by 2013. Some forecasts, plans, bargaining positions, but not direct statements.LeadSongDog come howl! 06:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The best I could find is an Oct 2012 statement from Olin setting the following month, November 2012 as the company's projected date to complete its exit from mercury production by shutting down its Georgia plant the prior month and starting up mercury free processes in Ohio the next month. I updated the references above. Jtankers (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That should be sufficient for the Olin plants in the U.S., but the others? What about outside the U.S.?LeadSongDog come howl! 03:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

HFCS is primarily produced and consumed in the US due to artificially high sugar prices in the US. However outside the US there appear to be about 50 chlor-alkali plants still using mercury cell technology, down from about 100 plants in 2003. According to the VueWeekly article "although old technology is being phased out, there are no restrictions on importing mercury-grade caustic soda [into the US]. And while imports have gone up, the consumer has no way of knowing which of their foods have been processed with mercury-grade caustic soda, whether from outdated domestic factories or imported". I updated the proposed text. (refs http://vueweekly.com/front/story/well_well_well_mercury_confusion/, http://www.garfieldfoundation.org/resources/docs/ZMWG6_Chlor%20alkali_FS0111_04.pdf, http://www.eurochlor.org/media/9074/3-4-1-unep_global_mercury_programme_-_the_chlor-alkali_sector_partnership.pdf). Jtankers (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If statements from the Corn Growers Association are to be included (as was done in a recent revision), we should probably make clear that the statements are inconsistent with the 2009 studies. Also the Corn Growers Association started disputing the 2009 studies immediately in 2009 (not in 2011 as the recent revision appears to imply).

Also, there were 4 plants in the US using mercury cell technology through most of 2012. Perhaps "as of the start of 2013" or "by the end of 2012" is more accurate than just "2012" or "2013".Jtankers (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the issues above and the article now reads "... The Corn Refiners Association disputes the studies conclusions and states that “no mercury or mercury-based technology is used in the production of high fructose corn syrup in North America.”[16] By then end of 2012, most chlor-alkali plants ..." Jtankers (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Jtankers. There is no inconsistency. The WashPo perspective you quote from even says so. It says: "Still, while the studies found mercury in many products tested, it wasn't absolutely clear where that mercury came from. HFCS just seemed like the most likely culprit." So while it's the likely source, concluding that the results are inconsistent with the CRA study was, well, an erroneous conclusion. --Elvey (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This is still problematic. If the only source asserting that Hg-grade NaOH is allowed in HFCS production is an early-2010 article in Vue, in which the author speculates (based on an unsupported presumption that the CRA was lying or incompetent) that it might still be in use, that simply is not good enough.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Vue article appears to be the most accessible article on the link between mercury contamination of food and mercury cell chlor-alkali plants. The article is well supported by independent studies, a former FDA inspector, letters to congress from the remaining mercury cell based chlor-alkali plants in the US, admission of past mercury contamination from a Wisconsin chlor-alkali plant and at least two attempts by congress to phase out mercury cell plants linked to mercury contamination of food products in the US.

The counter argument from the CRA is supported apparently only by a single CRA funded closed study that only sampled a sub-set of un-named plants. It seems reasonable to include the fact that the CRA disputes the mercury contamination claims, but the article should probably also provide enough information and references to help an investigative reader determine which claims appear to be more strongly supported and credible. Jtankers (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Lumped references in this Talk page

A lot of contributions here have references which would be best displayed in the relevant section, but instead were causing a red "reflist missing" message. I list them all, lumped together, here; authors may wish to insert {{reflist-talk|close=1|title=}} at the end of their sourced contributions. If contributions above yours have references but no reflist, they will be included in the list; a reflist-talk before the section as well will resolve them, as in this section I have added, which will include a lot of references from different sections until they are sorted out.

Lumped references from all sections above

Pol098 (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

HFCS, sugar, USA

The impression was given in the article, and is often given in US-based publications, that HFCS is worse than cane or beet sugar (sucrose). This isn't so; careful reading of even the reference given in the article shows this. The reason for the emphasis on HFCS is that it is cheap and widely available in the US, hence is the most widely-used sweetener; sugar, Cuba's main crop, is less usual. In other countries sugar is more common. When eaten, sugar is hydrolysed in the body into about 50% glucose, 50% sucrose, similar to most HFCSes (there are numerical differences depending on the grade of HFCS, but the fructose/glucose ratio is similar, there is no qualitative difference). The source above mentions the 50/50 composition of sucrose, and recommends artificial sweeteners, not sugar, instead of HFCS.

In an international encyclopaedia the emphasis on HFCS in US-sourced publications gives the false impression that sugar is a better alternative. In fact, HFCS and all sweeteners which are basically sucrose (white sugar, unrefined sugar, honey, etc.) are very similar metabolically.

The detailed biochemistry which explains why fructose and glucose are so different as nutrients is explained in a 90' lecture by Robert Lustig. There may be differences of opinion on the detrimental effects of fructose, but this lecture (and the publications behind it) goes into great detail on the metabolic pathways. According to Lustig, the serious effect of fructose is not so much obesity as such, but metabolic syndrome (fatty liver, etc., including obesity). And, whatever fructose does, its effect as HFCS and sugar is the same.

Pol098 (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

A quote from the article on fructose:"…sucrose is a disaccharide that digests to 50% fructose and 50% glucose, whereas the high-fructose corn syrup most commonly used in soft drinks is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. The difference between the two lies in the fact that HFCS contains little sucrose, the fructose and glucose being independent moieties." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.64.85 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The real danger of HFCS seems to be its low cost, whatever measure US legislation took in the 1970s to raise the prize of sucrose, probably to limit sugar consumption, was counteracted by the cheap HFCS. There is a diagram in the article for HFCS that shows clearly how the decrease in consumption of sucrose was compensated by the increase in consumption of HFCS. Most remarkable is the similarity between the line for HFCS and the total consumption from the mid 1980s onward. Additionally the above mentioned report for the American Society for Clinical Nutrition finds that two thirds of HFCS consumption can be attributed to beverages and that weight gain is rather likely to appear by ingestion of beverages than of solid food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.74.131 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Fructose study

Doesn't seem relevant because [1] it's just about pure fructose (not HFCS) and [2] it's a single study. So it fails WP:MEDRS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH quite badly as far as I can see. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Still not good. Primary studies, excessive weight, and mostly discussing fructose rather than HFCS. We should be mostly sticking to reviews as per MEDRS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As more than 50% of HFCS is fructose, discussion of the health effects of fructose is highly relevant. The 2008 study is quite clearly focussed on HFCS, but mostly concentrating on fructose as the component which contributes to metabolic syndrome. An analogy would be tobacco; omitting studies on the effects of tar, or considering excessive weight being given to tar, would be ridiculous (tobacco contains carcinoogenic tar and addictive nicotine). The nature of the studies is relevant; a study with 23 authors from over a dozen respected universities and institutes carries more weight than one by the owner of sweeteners-shop.com. Also, another study has been added since 31 March.

What do others think? Pol098 (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Pol098 is correct. Also, while WP prefers reviews, this study is perfectly acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with sciencewatcher. The implied topic is the health effects of hfcs relative to sugar. The cigaret analogy is not apt, but even if it were we would not use sources about tar, we would use sources about cigarets that discuss tar. A better comparison would be light cigarets where we would explain the health effects of light cigarets relative to normal cigarets. And primary studies should never be used when providing information about health effects. TFD (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Pol's argument is compelling. TFD's claim re primary studies is refuted, not supported by what I just read at WP:MEDRS. We don't have any secondary sources covering the fructose issue, but if we did, then this study would be inappropriate per WP:MEDRS also, the primary source should not be cited in support of conclusions re fatty liver and endotoxinemia unless those conclusions are clearly made by the authors. I haven't checked the source to see. The tobacco analogy is apt; tar is in tobacco smoke, and sources about tar would be fine. What do 'light cigarets' <sic> have to do with anything? For now, I'm restoring the edit pending further information. --Elvey (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with sciencewatcher and TFD. If there is no discussion of this subject in secondary sources, then it shouldn't be included for WP:WEIGHT purposes. We are not a repository for all the conclusions of every primary study ever conducted; we discuss the significant studies as discussed in secondary sources. If/when the results of the primary study are placed in context by a secondary review, we can include them at that point. Yobol (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"We" who? We can include primary studies in several other situations explicitly permitted by WP:MEDRS. Don't like it? Then try and change WP:MEDRS. Disagree? Then quote from WP:MEDRS (or WP:WEIGHT) to support your argument. I don't think you can. --Elvey (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The current proposal, which appears to be the addition of a select few primary studies clearly violates WP:WEIGHT. A search on Pubmed for "Fructose" returns over 1500 articles about fructose; clearly we do not and cannot include every single study about fructose in this article. Arbitrarily choosing three primary studies to highlight in this article places an undue weight on those studies and against the other 1500 other studies we have ignored. In order to properly place the weight to important studies (are they important to the topic in the scientific field at large? Have they been ignored? Have they been reproduced? etc...), we rely on secondary studies such as high quality reviews to tell us which areas and studies are important. This is why secondary sources are so crucial to properly establishing WP:WEIGHT, in addition to being in compliance with WP:MEDRS and WP:PSTS. Yobol (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • • AS I SAID,"Disagree? Then quote from WP:MEDRS (or WP:WEIGHT) to support your argument. I don't think you can." It seems you can't. Put up or shut up, as they say. From WP:MEDRS : "Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above (see: Wikipedia:No original research). When citing primary sources, particular care must be taken to adhere to Wikipedia's undue weight policy. Secondary sources should be used to determine due weight."

If you found a good relevant secondary source for info on fructose' impact on health, by all means, please swap it and its conclusions into the article.--Elvey (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be completely missing the point. There are some occasions when you can use a primary source, but this isn't one of them. The only rule that can't be ignored in wikipedia is NPOV, and you are breaking it with these edits. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You want me to take your or TFD's word for it (re. sources)? Why would I? I hear the point, I just don't see any reason to believe it. To put it differently, would you take my word for it on the topic? Why would I trust TFD, who just said that "primary studies should never be used when providing information about health effects," which is, you must admit, contradicted by my quote above from MEDRS. If you won't quote from policy to support your argument, I won't give it much weight. --Elvey (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV? Please explain the relevance.

::Actually, how 'bout we replace this with a {{:See:Fructose#Potential_health_effects}} and a summary sentence, moving anything not already there, there?--Elvey (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there are many very good secondary sources on fructose's effect on health. However those would go in the fructose article, not here (see WP:SYNTH). If you disagree you're welcome to post on one of the admin noticeboards, but I can pretty much guarantee you'll just be wasting your time. Given your history of pov pushing and sockpuppeting, I think you really need to rethink your approach to wikipedia. You shouldn't be editing wikipedia to make it say what YOU think is right. Instead you should be rethinking your own views on subjects such as HFCS by looking at the reliable secondary sources. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And what do you think my views of HFCS are? You seem to be pretty much agreeing with my suggestion, (" how 'bout we replace this..."). --Elvey (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If you found a good relevant secondary source for info on fructose' impact on health, in particular on different kinds of fat, by all means, please put it and its conclusions into into Fructose#Potential_health_effects and remove most of the fructose discussion from this article. But it's intellectually dishonest to delete stuff one don't like and lie about policy in an attempt to defend the deletion.

Elvey, see WP:MEDREV: "Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. For a short time afterwards, the findings will be so new that they will not be reflected in any review articles or other secondary sources. If the findings involve phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or isolated cells or tissue, then these findings are probably only indirectly relevant to understanding human health; in these cases, they should be entirely omitted."

When scientific studies are conducted, there are two things that may lead to rogue findings - methology and probability. A study showing that people consuming HFCS are less healthy than people consuming sugar may be flawed because the group consuming HFCS were less healthy to begin with. Not being scientists ourselves, we can only determine if the methology is correct by reading subsequent literature reviewing the study. Also, even studies carried out meticulously with large populations will routinely through out incorrect stats. Scientists can only determine if the findings are correct if the studies have been repeated with consistent results.

The article appears to suggest that the obesity epidemic is fueled by an increase in the availability of sweetened drinks rather than that they contain HFCS. Ironically, over on the aspartame pages, editors are presenting primary studies showing that replacing HFCS with aspartame leads to weight gain, while this study says the opposite.

Incidentally, "cigaret" is an accepted spelling.

TFD (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Re point 1:I don't see the relevance of your overly long quote from WP:MEDREV: what do the findings involve: phase I or phase II clinical trials, small studies, studies that did not directly measure clinically important results, laboratory work with animal models, or isolated cells or tissue? I didn't know that; is 'methology' an accepted spelling too?

Re point 2:As I said, 'If you found a good relevant secondary source for info on fructose' impact on health, in particular on different kinds of fat, by all means, please swap it and its conclusions into the article.' Or better yet put it into Fructose#Potential_health_effects and remove most of the fructose discussion from this article. But it's intellectually dishonest to delete stuff one don't like and lie about policy in an attempt to defend the deletion.

Re point 3:Content I restored is of a study comparing HFCS with aspartame w.r.t. weight gain? What are you talking about? What study? Besides, it's not unlikely for controlled-quantity diet studies to produce very different results from uncontrolled-quantity diet studies. If nutrition wasn't extremely complicated, we'd have a lot more answers by now... We're still largely in the dark, IMO.

Re point 4: I didn't know that; is 'methology' an accepted spelling too?--Elvey (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Which and how many of the references in this article are to primary sources, I wonder.--Elvey (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Mercury outside the US

Re. "Mercury cell technology is still widely used outside of the United States and there are no restrictions on importing mercury-grade caustic soda for use in HFCS production.[15][20]" If, outside the US, sugar is always cheaper than HFCS, then it's unlikely that a significant amount of HFCS is used instead of sugar outside the US. I suppose I could copy the sources for this info from the HFCS article, but I think it makes more sense to just remove this sentence. Any thoughts before I remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 06:01, 7 April 2013

No objections on removing the sentence. (The sentence could have been more clearly written as "However there are no restrictions on importing Mercury grade caustic soda into the United States for use in HFCS production".) However the paragraph is probably better served by just removing the sentence as you suggest. Jtankers (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, all this talk about byproducts makes me wonder how much hexane is really left in the finished product when canola oil is sold.--Elvey (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

What happened to some of the research papers?

Why were these references removed?

Bocarsly ME, Powell ES, Avena NM, Hoebel BG (February 2010). "High-fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels". Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior 97 (1): 101–6. doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2010.02.012. PMID 20219526

Hilary Parker (March 22, 2010). "A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain". Princeton University.--216.31.124.141 (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

They do not meet the standards set out in WP:MEDRS for medical articles. TFD (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean that they do not meet them. The first is primary, and the second is not independent of the first. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have corrected my posting. TFD (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Food for thought

All natural apple juice has more calories than coke and its sugar consists of up to 70 % of fructose. Most fruits and therefore their juices contain more fructose than glucose, often in ratios exceeding those of HFCS. Only prunes, abricots and the like are higher in glucose than fructose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.51.60 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what changes you think should be made to the article. The fact is that people do not stock up their fridges with 99-cent half gallons of apple juice and drink it as their main source of liquids. The poison is in the dose. TFD (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Reads like a magazine

The second half of the "United States guidelines regarding sugar consumption" reads like something out of a magazine article. Specifically, from "Barry Popkin" onward. It also seems strange to devote half of that section to one person's opinion on the topic. Nosewings (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)