Talk:High-fructose corn syrup

Other (industrial) Uses

Isn't there other uses for HFCS? I'm probably thinking of molasses, but isn't HFCS at least one part of the process for explosives? That's just one possiblility. I'm certain HFCS must have more uses, and at least some of those should be added to the article for further enrichment.

"(because some of the alcohol produced was to be used in making munitions)" See Boston Molasses Disaster#Cleanup

Removed a statement

I removed the following sentence: [Sucrase] , by which the body regulates the rate of sucrose breakdown. Without this regulation mechanism, the body has less control over the rate of sugar absorption into the bloodstream.

This is a major claim, central to the whole question of whether there is a physiological difference between sucrose and HFCS. As far as I know, this has never been demonstrated. If it has, please include a citation if you re-enter the statement.

Removed another statement

I also removed the statement at the end of the introduction that stated "Most corn grown in the US is genetically modified corn," as it is irrelevant, at least in the introduction. -Sept 5, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.135.141 (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. That sentence was a left-over from when the article said "Over 85% of the corn syrup produced in the United States is a genetically modified product", which isn't true, as discussed below. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Obesity gains

I feel that the article doesn't reflect this article at all. I came to wikipedia to read up on the information, but it seems that this article is biased and disputes this claim.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

to anyone that would update and add information (or make it more easily recognizable) thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.96.236 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the article, you'll see we already include this and our coverage seems to be more balanced than the Princeton news story, ironically. See for yourself - here is the full-text. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok after actually reading the Bocarsley referece sited in this article I corrected some errors in it. The actual study itself can be found at the following link:

http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/HFCS_Rats_10.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.127.33 (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it was correct originally and you introduced errors! The article said that rats did not gain significant weight on 24h HFCS - that is correct. I think you are getting confused with 12h HFCS (under which they did gain weight, and the article already says that). Please read the study carefully, especially the results. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm astonished: That is a seriously fucked up paper. The paper prominently states: "3.3. Female rats with 7 months of HFCS access gain significantly more body weight compared with sucrose-fed controls". (See page source for full quote) This is, ahem, BULLSHIT. LOOK on the previous page, which shows: Female rats with 7 months of 12-h HFCS + 12-h chow access having LESS body weight than those with 12-h sucrose + 12-h chow access. The former also had LESS body fat than the latter! And they had the SAME TG levels (128 mg/dL)! Holy statistical misrepresentation, Batman! Shame on the authors - and on the journal's reviewers! It's clear to me that the Princeton news article, and the study authors' own interpretation of their results, are NOT RELIABLE. --Elvey (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Their abstract and conclusions don't seem to reflect the results they got in the paper. That is why I chose to actually take the results from their paper rather than just relying on their conclusions, and I see you have expanded on that. We really aren't meant to do that in wikipedia, but then if we strictly followed MEDRS we probably shouldn't be quoting this study at all. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I will point out another gross bias in the study. "HFCS was an 8% solution (Nature's Flavors®, Formula 55, v/v dissolved in tap water, 0.24 kcal/mL), and sucrose was given as a 10% solution (Domino® Granulated Pure Cane Sugar, w/v, dissolved in tap water, 0.4 kcal/mL)." They were using flavored HFCS vs unflavored sugar water. 74.70.13.107 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit unlikely they'd do something as ridiculous as that. Are you sure it is flavoured? I can't find any mention of "formula 55" on naturesflavors.com. Just because their company has the word 'flavors' in the title doesn't necessarily mean anything. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. http://www.naturesflavors.com/product_info.php?cPath=8&products_id=1910 . Still they used differing concentrations of HFCS and Sugar which could have easily contributed to the palatability of the drink. They tracked calories and have used the data to jump to conclusions but didn't disclose the actual consumption calories of drink and chow in the paper. 74.70.13.107 (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cancer growth, continued

OK, I'm jumping in late. But, I guess I have to agree with your statement that "It adds a WP:POV to the article that HFCS might cause pancreatic cancer, which isn't matched by the available evidence." I think the sub-section ought to have been named more specifically, like "Cancer Cell Growth" or something. ... Anyway, I think the significance of the study is that the cells reacted very differently to the different sugars and that that was unexpected. It seems to be relevant to the controversies around HFCS (which the article mentioned). Probably there's a better way to integrate this information into the article. Not sure about WP:RECENT, but it seems like an awfully straight-forward trial. Not disputing the reversion really, but just asking everyone where and how this information might properly fit into the article. Thanks. Kace7 (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why it should be added at all - it's about fructose, not HFCS. You may as well add it to the sucrose article. This really does smell of POV to me. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it should be added to the sucrose article too. The relevance to this article would be if HFCS increases fructose consumption overall compared to sugar. I'm not sure if that's the case. Kace7 (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Chemically modified, not genetically modified

I'm reasonably sure that high fructose corn syrup is not GENETICALLY modified. The corn syrup is modified after it is removed from the plant. The genes of the corn plant are not involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.42.167 (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited source states "Eighty-five percent of the corn crop is also genetically modified, and, in the form of high-fructose corn syrup, is found throughout the food system." I've clarified that it is the corn and not the HFCS that is genetically modified. Ideally we'd cite a source that said what percentage of HFCS was made from GM corn, but I doubt anyone knows. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Corn sugar"

In an attempt to sidestep the growing public opposition to HFCS, the US maize industry is attempting to get high-fructose corn syrup labeled as "corn sugar": [1]. This article should reflect that. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the info yesterday to that section and was waiting for reports and reaction to surface so I could cite. I absolutely want to include opposition to HFCS as it is a genetically modified and synthetic compound that wreaks havoc on humans and their environment. --Sfiga (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Price controls

It should be explained in the "production" section the history of why corn syrup became prominent over refined sugar in the United States. The reason is because the united States imposed price controls and tariffs on sugar, pushing the price in the US above worldwide market price, thus creating the market for corn syrup, which unlike sugar cane is grown and packaged in the US. This is very important for the article. 24.207.131.20 (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fructose

I think the article might want to touch on a few issues. First, it is largely fructose which should be credited for some of the long-term metabolic effects of sucrose or HFCS, at least in medical literature. Both HFCS and sucrose contain lots of fructose, but slightly more in HFCS. Second, the fructose in HFCS is delivered in monosaccharide form. How much delay is involved in the sucrase-based processing of sucrose? Finally, the fructose (and glucose) of sucrose is protected from reaction with other compounds (reactions mentioned several times), as their ketone/aldehyde groups are covalently bound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.252.248 (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive Paragraphs

Section 3, titled "Cane and beet sugar" has two somewhat redundant paragraphs (namely, the ones starting "Cane sugar and beet sugar are both..." and "The fact that sucrose is composed of glucose..."). I would suggest merging these two paragraphs to reduce redundancy and repetition. A suggested paragraph follows:

Cane sugar and beet sugar are both relatively pure sucrose. While glucose and fructose, which are the two components of HFCS, are monosaccharides, sucrose is a disaccharide composed of glucose and fructose linked together with a relatively weak glycosidic bond. The fact that sucrose, glucose and fructose are unique, distinct molecules complicates the comparison between cane sugar, beet sugar and HFCS. A molecule of sucrose (with a chemical formula of C₁₂H₂₂O₁₁) can be broken down into a molecule of glucose (C₆H₁₂O₆) plus a molecule of fructose (also C₆H₁₂O₆ — an isomer of glucose) in a weakly acidic environment by a process called inversion. Sucrose is broken down during digestion into fructose and glucose through hydrolysis by the enzyme sucrase. People with sucrase deficiency cannot digest (break down) sucrose and thus exhibit sucrose intolerance.

Macavity (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)