Talk:Corn Refiners Association

POV
The article appears to address one issue and to cast the subject association in a negative light. The entire section on HFCS should be moved to a separate article about that substance. 189.135.233.165 (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The article only adresses one issue as as far as I can tell the advertisements are the only thing the CRA have done that has garnered much media attention. That being said, nothing is stopping you from searching for additional information and expanding the article to include information on other things the CRA have done. The entire section on HFCS commercials should definetely not be moved as the commericials were financed and created by the CRA, and the only things contained in that section are peoples resposes to said commercials. Freikorp (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I originally created this article as a stub. For whatever reasons, most of the coverage that this association has received is negative.  Here's the totality of google news archive search: .  Most of the news coverage that I see depicts this organization advocating unilaterally on behalf of refined corn products, mainly high fructose corn syrup.  Many sources describe criticism of the group on these grounds.  The overall picture I see from the coverage is that the group appears to advocate for the safety and health of refined corn products, and shows no evidence of conducting balanced, impartial scientific reviews.  It is depicted in all media sources as an advocacy group rather than a legitimate impartial research group.  I don't think there is any problem with POV in the article.  Sometimes WP:NPOV leads to an article that people perceive as negative, but that's an interpretation of the readers.  If you can find specific WP:Weasel Words or other problems with POV wording or poorly sourced facts, by all means, improve it, but I just looked over the article and I think this is just a case of an organization that is digging itself a hole (esp. with the most recent article: ) Cazort (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Corn Refiners Association members
The Corn Refiners Association would like to propose several edits to this page. We are presenting these edits to the Wikipedia community for review prior to making the edits. Thank you for your consideration.

Edit Explanation: Not all members of the CRA are currently listed. Additions represent a full list of members of the Association.

Edit Description: Provide full name for Cargill, Incorporated, add National Starch, Penford Products, and Roquette America, Inc.

Edited Text Reads: Members of the CRA include Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Incorporated, Corn Products International, Inc./National Starch, Penford Products Co., Roquette America, Inc. and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corn Refiner (talk • contribs) 14:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.--Breawycker (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody is going to have a problem with anyone adding neutral factual information about the company. Go ahead and make any changes. Freikorp (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've since noticed you've been blocked from editing. I've taken the liberty of making this neutral change for you. Freikorp (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Blogging controversy section
Edit semi-protected

Edit Explanation: Opinion language should be deleted as it is subjective and unsupported. Neither source proves that the bloggers who viewed the webinar did not do their own research. The effort was educational and information presented was factual.

Edit Description: Remove “This practice backfired, with” and “writing scathing criticisms of” and “passed on the information presented in the seminar without conducting their own independent research” from third sentence. Webinar link added to references.

Edited Text Reads: The CRA attracted controversy in 2010 for approaching bloggers who run mom blogs, through the organization MomCentral.com, a website that has drawn criticism as an advocacy vehicle of large chemical and pharmaceutical corporations. Bloggers were extended offers of $50 Wal-Mart gift certificates in exchange for writing about a CRA sponsored seminar that made the claims that high fructose corn syrup and table sugar were nutritionally equivalent and affect the body in the same way. Several prominent bloggers criticized the CRA's methods as well as bloggers who participated.

Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.-Breawycker (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You state "Neither source proves that the bloggers who viewed the webinar did not do their own research." Do you have a source the proves that they did? Have a read of Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As long as someone provides a reliable secondary source that something happened (or did not happen) it can be included on wikipedia. I strongly contest your proposal to remove the statement "without conducting their own independent research." Freikorp (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: High-fructose corn syrup name change section
Edit semi-protected Edit Explanation: A significant missing component of this discussion on the potential name change is the editorial published by The New York Times. Additional comments on the name change from well-known food and nutrition experts should also be included. Additional note: much of this content is copied verbatim from the entry on high fructose corn syrup. It should be distinct as well as relevant.

Edit Description: Add a paragraph on The New York Times editorial between first and second paragraphs and reference. Add reference to FDA for clarity in first sentence of first paragraph. Update link to CRA press release. Clarify the source in the first sentence of the second paragraph as The New York Times health blog, “Well.” Correct misspelling of recommended. Add correct reference for Pollan, Weil and Popkin quotes.

Edited Text Reads: On September 14, 2010, the Corn Refiners Association applied for permission from the United States Food and Drug Administration to use the name "corn sugar" in place of high fructose corn syrup on food labels for products sold in the United States. According to a press release, "Consumers need to know what is in their foods and where their foods come from and we want to be clear with them," said CRA president Audrae Erickson. "The term 'corn sugar' succinctly and accurately describes what this natural ingredient is and where it comes from – corn." The New York Times ran an editorial the day after CRA filed the petition stating, “That’s why we think this name change is a good idea. Calling high-fructose corn syrup “corn sugar” makes it easier for consumers to tell that sugar has been added — and easier to choose another product with no added sweeteners.”

The New York Times subsequently ran a post on its health blog, Well, asking nutrition experts what they would suggest as appropriate names for HFCS. Three of the five experts recommended alternate names, including Michael Pollan who suggested "enzymatically altered corn glucose". Dr Andrew Weil recommended not changing from HFCS, calling the term Corn sugar "too vague" and the CRA's attempt to change HFCS's name as ""Orwellian". However, Dr Barry Popkin felt that "Corn sugar" was an appropriate term. Additionally, Michael Jacobson, executive director of the health advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest was quoted in The New York Times stating, “high-fructose corn syrup had misled many into thinking the sweetener was composed mainly of fructose, a simple sugar found in honey and fruit. Sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are nutritionally the same.”

Marion Nestle, a professor in New York University’s department of nutrition and a longtime food industry critic, said in The New York Times that Americans consume too much of all types of sugar, but that there is no meaningful biochemical difference between table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup.

Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.--Breawycker (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are going to add the quote from Michael Jacobson that "Sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are nutritionally the same.” I strongly suggest you add his follow up comment "I don’t know if ‘corn sugar’ is the best term, but it’s better than ‘high-fructose corn syrup." Adding only his statement that works in your company's favour when there is one that does not directly beneath it seems extremely one sided. If you make the changes and don't add that information as well, I will.


 * I believe the paragraph about Marion Nestle that reads "Dr. Nestle says she thinks the plural “corn sugars” is a better description of high-fructose corn syrup, which is actually a mixture of glucose and fructose. But she agrees that the corn refiners “have lots of reasons to want the change.” “Even I have to admit that it’s not an unreasonable one.” is far more appropriate for the article, the section you want to quote does not seem to address the name change at all, it's just a generic statement about HFCS as far as this wikipedia article is concerned. Freikorp (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Commercials section
{{tl|{Edit semi-protected}} Edit Explanation: The current second paragraph presents the comments of one FDA employee as the whole Administration. Edits clarify series of events and provide citation to justify clarification. Citation for synthetic and genetically modified claim in the third paragraph links to blog post with no citations or references to justify the claim. Deletion based on weak reference for making the statement. See reference added to second paragraph for more on synthetic ingredients. Given the discussion of the safety of foods from corn in the fourth paragraph, adding a paragraph on the current position of the FDA on the safety of high fructose corn syrup is warranted. The discussion of the error on the pancreatic cancer release is unnecessary. This was due to an error by PR Newswire, the service that distributed the release. The Corn Refiners Association was in no way responsible for this error. PR Newswire apologized to the CRA and a correction was issued on the same day. See http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-on-fructose-and-pancreatic-cancer-generates-premature-and-potentially-misleading-conclusions-99860874.html. Additionally, the reference link on the current last paragraph is broken. A Google search for “Corn Refiners Association Cancer Research Association” resulted in no relevant results.

Edit Description: Add “In April 2008, an employee of” at the front of the 5th sentence in the second paragraph and remove “have declared HFCS is not "natural",”. Add a sentence to the end of the second paragraph with reference “However, the agency subsequently issued a clarification confirming that HFCS does qualify for “natural” labeling.” Delete “when it actually contains synthetic and genetically modified ingredients” from third paragraph. Add a sentence and reference between the 4th and 5th paragraphs that states “The FDA has confirmed that HFCS is a safe ingredient.” Delete the last paragraph.

Edited Text Reads: The CRA launched a public relations campaign in 2008 called “Changing the Conversation about High Fructose Corn Syrup” (HFCS). Initial commercials stated that HFCS was "natural". In more recent commercials characters state HFCS is 'made from corn, has no artificial ingredients, has the same calories as sugar and is okay to eat in moderation.'

The CRA received heavy criticism for calling HFCS "natural". In direct response to the commercials, Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest stated: "High-fructose corn syrup starts out as cornstarch, which is chemically or enzymatically degraded to glucose and some short polymers of glucose. Another enzyme is then used to convert varying fractions of glucose into fructose...High-fructose corn syrup just doesn't exist in nature." In April 2008, an employee ofthe United States Food and Drug Administration was quoted in an article, stating: "The use of synthetic fixing agents in the enzyme preparation, which is then used to produce HFCS, would not be consistent with our (…) policy regarding the use of the term 'natural'". However, the agency subsequently issued a clarification confirming that HFCS does qualify for “natural” labeling. Stating HFCS contains no artificial ingredients has also been criticized, as it has been argued that such a statement implies HFCS is natural

Opponents of the commercials have also noted that saying HFCS is made from corn is misleading, as ethanol and certain plastics are also made out of corn. Therefore it is argued that just because something is made out of corn, it should not be assumed that it is safe to eat.

The FDA has confirmed that HFCS is a safe ingredient.

The claim that HFCS is safe in moderation has also been criticized, as HFCS is used in tens of thousands of products in America, including soda, bread, pasta sauce, barbecue sauce, ketchup, salad dressing, fruit juice, cereal, meat products, chips, as well as "health products" such as protein bars, the average American does not eat HFCS in moderation. "...unless you're making a concerted effort to avoid it, it's pretty difficult to consume high-fructose corn syrup in moderation."

- Time Magazine

Numerous videos have been released on YouTube, parodying the commercials.

Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.


 * I agree the last paragraph should be removed, I have just done that myself. I don't object to you adding information that the FDA says it is a safe ingredient however I object to you removing the FDA employee stating it is not natural. I want to hear a third opinion regarding validity of the references in the paragraph starting with "Stating HFCS contains no artificial ingredients...". Freikorp (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed the reference in question. The statement is still backed up by the other reference which is indeed more reliable. Freikorp (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: External links section
Edit semi-protected Edit Explanation: Include a list of all Web sites sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association.

Edit Description: Add cornsugar.com, sweetsurprise.com and cornnaturally.com

Edited Text Reads:
 * Corn Refiners Association - Home Page
 * www.cornsugar.com
 * www.sweetsurprise.com
 * www.cornnaturally.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corn Refiner (talk • contribs) 19:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 23:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As per EL:


 * More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation.


 * corn.org has links to cornsugar.com and sweetsuprise.com on its home page. Therefore as per wikipedia's guidelines only cornnaturally.com should be added to this section. Freikorp (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, as you've been banned I'm making this change for you. Freikorp (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)