This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
In Japan, brown sugar made entirely from sugar beets is sold in retail stores. [1] It resembles Sucanat, but with the distinctive aroma of beets. And according to sugar beet, in Germany, unrefined sugar beet syrup "is used as a spread for sandwiches, as well as for sweetening sauces, cakes and desserts." Thus it appears this sentence is factually inaccurate (no retail brown sugar) and POV (beet molasses is not palatable to humans). Though I suppose it depends on your definition of molasses; these products are apparently made from the unrefined beet juice and not from the byproduct of refining white sugar. Still, it seems somewhat misleading at best. Dforest 03:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
All evidence I've found on the web states that, at least in the west, brown sugar is completely refined white sugar, with molasses added. (Wholly separate from so-called "raw" sugar like turbinado). Is there anyone around with a mild amount of sugar-production authority who can fix this poor article? If no one objects, I'll strike the conflicting parts in a month. JMD 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This article appears to have been vandalized on Sept 1 by 220.227.192.95, and no one has noticed or cared. It just looks like random sections were deleted and nothing significant has been added since. I'm just going to go ahead and revert it to the previous edit by GraemeLeggett... as soon as I figure out how. Sorry, I'm new at this.--driver8
I changed the wording sightly, both to reflect a more worldwide view, and to tone down the stated effects of using beet molasses. The taste of beet brown sugar is different, but not particularly strong. As noted before, the beet molasses used are sold as a spread for bread and pancakes and the like, as "sugar syrup". Although the production process is different from the one on sugar beet. Also note that brown sugar is often used precisely because it has a slightly different flavour. Shinobu 10:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to edit by bad proza into something clear and readable. ;-) Shinobu 17:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If you live in an area that gets a lot of snow (like Buffalo) you know all about "brown sugar", the snow on the streets and walkways. It is dirty, wet snow that perfectly resembles brown sugar the sweetener. Maybe this reference could be added to the brown sugar page? 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)lennml89@buffalostate.edu
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed; obsolete proposal, lacks rationale, lacks support. Moonraker12 ( talk) 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
There are several sites for brown sugar:
This is a little bit confusing. Wouldn't it be better to make one site about these subjects? Fritsz ( talk) 09:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
White sugar comes in many different crystal sizes... so since brown sugar is made from refined white sugar plus added molasses, is this necessarily true? Is there a standard size for brown sugar crystals? DemiReticent ( talk) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright, what is "golden brown sugar"? This is mentioned in the picture. The types of brown sugar mentioned in the article are the ones I am familiar with, that is, light and dark. I have have never heard of "golden brown sugar" is this a regional term for light brown sugar? Either the picture caption should use the same terminology as the article, or, if golden brown sugar is a real term, the article ought explain it. -- Ericjs ( talk) 03:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I started to add a citation for light vs. dark brown sugar in recipes ( http://www.imperialsugar.com/sugar-101/sugar-facts), but then realized the Imperial Sugar paragraph matches the Wikipedia article word-for-word. It seems possible that Wikipedia is their (uncited) source, but is there a practical way of knowing which came first?
Also, the statement doesn't really seem related to Production. Does it warrant a new section (e.g., Usage)? SimonFlummox ( talk) 00:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Two sentences currently read, "For domestic purposes one can create the exact equivalent of brown sugar by mixing white sugar with molasses. Suitable proportions would be about one tablespoon of molasses to each cup of sugar (one-sixteenth or 6.25% of the total volume)." I'm sorry, but one tablespoon of molasses to each cup of white sugar seems to result in seventeen parts, not sixteen! The math can easily be corrected so the parenthetical phrase reads, "(one-seventeenth or about 5.9% of the total volume)", or "(one-sixteenth or 6.25% of the white-sugar volume)". However, is there a citation for this somewhere that indicates mathematically correct percentages specifically based on volume? I've found a few book references with those exact numbers, but it is unclear to me if they are copies of wikipedia, or if they are third party sources, and they do not seem to claim them as specifically based on volume and instead are ambiguous. So, it seems there are some errors in uncited volumetric ratio numbers and/or text. Any thoughts regarding corrections? Gzuufy ( talk) 19:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archived: this was carried out already, on 27 January 2013. Moonraker12 ( talk) 15:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that Natural brown sugar should be merged into this article, because of the reason that they are extremely similar topics. Frozen4322 : Chat 03:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
In my view including "Natural brown sugar" in the "Brown sugar" article makes sense - but I can see why some would hesitate. In some ways having separate articles makes good sense too. The problem is that they sound like sort of the same thing but they are different in ways that some consider very important. Those people are a little touchy about equating "natural" and "unnatural" brown sugars in any way. Solution? The section in "Brown sugar" called "Natural brown sugar" must be prominent (its own separate section and up near the top - not shoved to the bottom) and the distinction between "natural" and the common "brown sugar" I buy at my local grocer has to be clear in the text. (This distinction should also be stated - redundantly - in the "Natural brown sugar" section.) Both of these stipulations are easy. Merge the articles. Ben ( talk) 15:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
>> Couldn't disagree more. "Brown sugar" besides being a famous song title is typically a commercial scam by the sugar industry as the subject relates to health. If you want to combine the various topics then "unrefined sugar" or something very close to that reflects what is unique about these natural foods vs the manufactured and nutritionally empty brown sugar on the store shelves. If you are going to categorize topics just by color then you might want to start with each of the different colors of iPods. Unrefined sugars are distinctly unique foods from the highly processed and nutritionally empty products simply identified as sugar. Additionally you ignore the cultural aspects of the societies that they come from by clumping them together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicMry ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Since I didn't know that sucanat is a form of brown sugar, would I have been able to find the information I was seeking if the topics were combined? I had no idea where it comes from. Zip'n crunch ( talk) 23:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The referenced New York Times article for this sentence "there is no nutritional basis to support brown sugar as a healthier alternative to refined sugars despite the negligible amounts of minerals in brown sugar not found in white sugar.", does not make the claim that what is referred to in the article as natural brown sugar has negligible health benefits. A resource may exist, but this New York Times article is talking about typical brown sugar where molasses is added back to refined sugar, not the working definition of natural brown sugar as presented in the beginning of the article. I would speculate that the composition of natural brown sugar, particularly the minerals within, is subject to the conditions in which the sugar cane was grown, and thus one type of natural brown sugar is not chemically analogous to another. Any health benefits ascribed to natural brown sugar are then particular, and not universal. 42.3.2.153 ( talk) 02:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Also the referenced article for this sentence "Any minerals present in brown sugar come from the molasses added to the white sugar. Some molasses is a source of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and iron; one tablespoon provides up to 20% of the daily value of each of those nutrients." is not the best page for those numbers. There are better numbers here. But it becomes clear from the information in that table that the better resource would be the actual ESHA database from which those values in that table are derived. 42.3.2.153 ( talk) 02:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
>> The reference claiming molasses contain up to 20%DV on certain minerals per tablespoon is currently unavailable/removed.
>>Looking up brown sugar gives us up to 18% daily intake on calcium, but at a serving size of 220g. [1] The way the article reads right now makes it very easy to confuse the referenced %DV (Molasses) with the subject of the article (brown sugar). Using the same source for molasses we see high mineral content but from a serving size of 337g [2]. The "...table spoon contains ~20%" seems exceptionally high.
>>Blackstrap molasses (the item referenced from REF`17) points to an obsolete page from NutritionData and is currently unrepresented in their DB.
>>Thoughts on eliminating the blurb expanding the %DV contents of molasses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.173.3 ( talk) 02:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
References
On the main page there are two pictures, labeled as showing "clarified" and "unclarified" brown sugar. They do appear to show different textures, however what "clarified" means in this context is, if you will pardon the pun, unclear. What is the difference? How do they "clarify" brown sugar? The article needs to say something about it, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.169 ( talk) 05:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hit & Run tagging in January 2014 ( this edit); Merged and unmerged (twice) in March 2014 (with these edits) per comments here. Archived now. Moonraker12 ( talk) 21:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
In spite of a merge proposal being left on this article and Molasses Sugar, one editor has taken it upon him or herself to merge the articles. He or she claims that there is an old discussion supporting the merge. This is not true. There is an old discussion about a merge with an entirely different article that has been carried out.
Although I accept that there may be a good case for a merge, it is not up that one editor any more than it is up to me, to decide that the merge should go ahead. The original tagger failed to leave a justification here, and there has certainly been no discussion and consequently no consensus for such a merge. 85.255.232.131 ( talk) 08:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Archived. Moonraker12 ( talk) 21:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Just tried to access an article for Turbinado sugar and got redirected to a fairly generic and useless article on "brown sugar". While all these sugars may be brown-ish in color and no doubt have similar chemical properties, that fact is probably not as relevant to the broadly understood user base as the fact that in the real world average grocery store there are several different types of sugar. People are likely seeking information to differentiate between them and will search use the name provided on the packaging. Think there should be, at minimum a section header for each common name of the various brown sugars and realistically, separate articles -- they must have different innovation and manufacturing histories anyway. JBVaughan ( talk) 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Parts of the "culinary considerations" section read like a how-to, mostly as if it were instructing the reader how to mix molasses and sugar, its equivalencies, and such. Does that seem like the case? Radioactivated ( talk) 12:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
In Japan, brown sugar made entirely from sugar beets is sold in retail stores. [1] It resembles Sucanat, but with the distinctive aroma of beets. And according to sugar beet, in Germany, unrefined sugar beet syrup "is used as a spread for sandwiches, as well as for sweetening sauces, cakes and desserts." Thus it appears this sentence is factually inaccurate (no retail brown sugar) and POV (beet molasses is not palatable to humans). Though I suppose it depends on your definition of molasses; these products are apparently made from the unrefined beet juice and not from the byproduct of refining white sugar. Still, it seems somewhat misleading at best. Dforest 03:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
All evidence I've found on the web states that, at least in the west, brown sugar is completely refined white sugar, with molasses added. (Wholly separate from so-called "raw" sugar like turbinado). Is there anyone around with a mild amount of sugar-production authority who can fix this poor article? If no one objects, I'll strike the conflicting parts in a month. JMD 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This article appears to have been vandalized on Sept 1 by 220.227.192.95, and no one has noticed or cared. It just looks like random sections were deleted and nothing significant has been added since. I'm just going to go ahead and revert it to the previous edit by GraemeLeggett... as soon as I figure out how. Sorry, I'm new at this.--driver8
I changed the wording sightly, both to reflect a more worldwide view, and to tone down the stated effects of using beet molasses. The taste of beet brown sugar is different, but not particularly strong. As noted before, the beet molasses used are sold as a spread for bread and pancakes and the like, as "sugar syrup". Although the production process is different from the one on sugar beet. Also note that brown sugar is often used precisely because it has a slightly different flavour. Shinobu 10:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to edit by bad proza into something clear and readable. ;-) Shinobu 17:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If you live in an area that gets a lot of snow (like Buffalo) you know all about "brown sugar", the snow on the streets and walkways. It is dirty, wet snow that perfectly resembles brown sugar the sweetener. Maybe this reference could be added to the brown sugar page? 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)lennml89@buffalostate.edu
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed; obsolete proposal, lacks rationale, lacks support. Moonraker12 ( talk) 15:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
There are several sites for brown sugar:
This is a little bit confusing. Wouldn't it be better to make one site about these subjects? Fritsz ( talk) 09:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
White sugar comes in many different crystal sizes... so since brown sugar is made from refined white sugar plus added molasses, is this necessarily true? Is there a standard size for brown sugar crystals? DemiReticent ( talk) 20:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright, what is "golden brown sugar"? This is mentioned in the picture. The types of brown sugar mentioned in the article are the ones I am familiar with, that is, light and dark. I have have never heard of "golden brown sugar" is this a regional term for light brown sugar? Either the picture caption should use the same terminology as the article, or, if golden brown sugar is a real term, the article ought explain it. -- Ericjs ( talk) 03:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I started to add a citation for light vs. dark brown sugar in recipes ( http://www.imperialsugar.com/sugar-101/sugar-facts), but then realized the Imperial Sugar paragraph matches the Wikipedia article word-for-word. It seems possible that Wikipedia is their (uncited) source, but is there a practical way of knowing which came first?
Also, the statement doesn't really seem related to Production. Does it warrant a new section (e.g., Usage)? SimonFlummox ( talk) 00:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Two sentences currently read, "For domestic purposes one can create the exact equivalent of brown sugar by mixing white sugar with molasses. Suitable proportions would be about one tablespoon of molasses to each cup of sugar (one-sixteenth or 6.25% of the total volume)." I'm sorry, but one tablespoon of molasses to each cup of white sugar seems to result in seventeen parts, not sixteen! The math can easily be corrected so the parenthetical phrase reads, "(one-seventeenth or about 5.9% of the total volume)", or "(one-sixteenth or 6.25% of the white-sugar volume)". However, is there a citation for this somewhere that indicates mathematically correct percentages specifically based on volume? I've found a few book references with those exact numbers, but it is unclear to me if they are copies of wikipedia, or if they are third party sources, and they do not seem to claim them as specifically based on volume and instead are ambiguous. So, it seems there are some errors in uncited volumetric ratio numbers and/or text. Any thoughts regarding corrections? Gzuufy ( talk) 19:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archived: this was carried out already, on 27 January 2013. Moonraker12 ( talk) 15:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that Natural brown sugar should be merged into this article, because of the reason that they are extremely similar topics. Frozen4322 : Chat 03:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
In my view including "Natural brown sugar" in the "Brown sugar" article makes sense - but I can see why some would hesitate. In some ways having separate articles makes good sense too. The problem is that they sound like sort of the same thing but they are different in ways that some consider very important. Those people are a little touchy about equating "natural" and "unnatural" brown sugars in any way. Solution? The section in "Brown sugar" called "Natural brown sugar" must be prominent (its own separate section and up near the top - not shoved to the bottom) and the distinction between "natural" and the common "brown sugar" I buy at my local grocer has to be clear in the text. (This distinction should also be stated - redundantly - in the "Natural brown sugar" section.) Both of these stipulations are easy. Merge the articles. Ben ( talk) 15:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
>> Couldn't disagree more. "Brown sugar" besides being a famous song title is typically a commercial scam by the sugar industry as the subject relates to health. If you want to combine the various topics then "unrefined sugar" or something very close to that reflects what is unique about these natural foods vs the manufactured and nutritionally empty brown sugar on the store shelves. If you are going to categorize topics just by color then you might want to start with each of the different colors of iPods. Unrefined sugars are distinctly unique foods from the highly processed and nutritionally empty products simply identified as sugar. Additionally you ignore the cultural aspects of the societies that they come from by clumping them together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicMry ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Since I didn't know that sucanat is a form of brown sugar, would I have been able to find the information I was seeking if the topics were combined? I had no idea where it comes from. Zip'n crunch ( talk) 23:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The referenced New York Times article for this sentence "there is no nutritional basis to support brown sugar as a healthier alternative to refined sugars despite the negligible amounts of minerals in brown sugar not found in white sugar.", does not make the claim that what is referred to in the article as natural brown sugar has negligible health benefits. A resource may exist, but this New York Times article is talking about typical brown sugar where molasses is added back to refined sugar, not the working definition of natural brown sugar as presented in the beginning of the article. I would speculate that the composition of natural brown sugar, particularly the minerals within, is subject to the conditions in which the sugar cane was grown, and thus one type of natural brown sugar is not chemically analogous to another. Any health benefits ascribed to natural brown sugar are then particular, and not universal. 42.3.2.153 ( talk) 02:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Also the referenced article for this sentence "Any minerals present in brown sugar come from the molasses added to the white sugar. Some molasses is a source of calcium, magnesium, potassium, and iron; one tablespoon provides up to 20% of the daily value of each of those nutrients." is not the best page for those numbers. There are better numbers here. But it becomes clear from the information in that table that the better resource would be the actual ESHA database from which those values in that table are derived. 42.3.2.153 ( talk) 02:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
>> The reference claiming molasses contain up to 20%DV on certain minerals per tablespoon is currently unavailable/removed.
>>Looking up brown sugar gives us up to 18% daily intake on calcium, but at a serving size of 220g. [1] The way the article reads right now makes it very easy to confuse the referenced %DV (Molasses) with the subject of the article (brown sugar). Using the same source for molasses we see high mineral content but from a serving size of 337g [2]. The "...table spoon contains ~20%" seems exceptionally high.
>>Blackstrap molasses (the item referenced from REF`17) points to an obsolete page from NutritionData and is currently unrepresented in their DB.
>>Thoughts on eliminating the blurb expanding the %DV contents of molasses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.173.3 ( talk) 02:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
References
On the main page there are two pictures, labeled as showing "clarified" and "unclarified" brown sugar. They do appear to show different textures, however what "clarified" means in this context is, if you will pardon the pun, unclear. What is the difference? How do they "clarify" brown sugar? The article needs to say something about it, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.164.169 ( talk) 05:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hit & Run tagging in January 2014 ( this edit); Merged and unmerged (twice) in March 2014 (with these edits) per comments here. Archived now. Moonraker12 ( talk) 21:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
In spite of a merge proposal being left on this article and Molasses Sugar, one editor has taken it upon him or herself to merge the articles. He or she claims that there is an old discussion supporting the merge. This is not true. There is an old discussion about a merge with an entirely different article that has been carried out.
Although I accept that there may be a good case for a merge, it is not up that one editor any more than it is up to me, to decide that the merge should go ahead. The original tagger failed to leave a justification here, and there has certainly been no discussion and consequently no consensus for such a merge. 85.255.232.131 ( talk) 08:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Archived. Moonraker12 ( talk) 21:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Just tried to access an article for Turbinado sugar and got redirected to a fairly generic and useless article on "brown sugar". While all these sugars may be brown-ish in color and no doubt have similar chemical properties, that fact is probably not as relevant to the broadly understood user base as the fact that in the real world average grocery store there are several different types of sugar. People are likely seeking information to differentiate between them and will search use the name provided on the packaging. Think there should be, at minimum a section header for each common name of the various brown sugars and realistically, separate articles -- they must have different innovation and manufacturing histories anyway. JBVaughan ( talk) 23:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Parts of the "culinary considerations" section read like a how-to, mostly as if it were instructing the reader how to mix molasses and sugar, its equivalencies, and such. Does that seem like the case? Radioactivated ( talk) 12:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)