This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
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
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 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
There seem to be several ideas that are being conflated here:
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)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtankers ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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 [8] [9], until older " mercury cell" production technology is phased out. [10] [11] -- Jtankers ( talk) 14:58, 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. [12] [13] [14] [15]
-- Jtankers ( talk) 00:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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)
Proposed rephrasing:
{{
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>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)
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)
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
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) (self-published)
Pol098 ( talk) 09:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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 [1] 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.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Pol098 ( talk) 09:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
::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)
Which and how many of the references in this article are to primary sources, I wonder.-- Elvey ( talk) 03:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
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
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 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
There seem to be several ideas that are being conflated here:
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)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtankers ( talk • contribs) 06:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
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 [8] [9], until older " mercury cell" production technology is phased out. [10] [11] -- Jtankers ( talk) 14:58, 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. [12] [13] [14] [15]
-- Jtankers ( talk) 00:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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
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)
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)
Proposed rephrasing:
{{
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>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)
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)
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
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) (self-published)
Pol098 ( talk) 09:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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 [1] 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.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Pol098 ( talk) 09:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
::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)
Which and how many of the references in this article are to primary sources, I wonder.-- Elvey ( talk) 03:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)