Talk:High-fructose corn syrup/Archive 3

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)


 * ✅ But next time, be bold my friend! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Princeton Study
CartoonDiablo, please stop adding the Princeton press release and the "HFCS - the poison that promotes obesity and liver damage" story - they are both highly biased and fail WP:MEDRS. We already discuss the first study directly below (Bocarsly et al). I'm not sure about the second, but if you want to add it you will need to do it in an WP:NPOV way citing appropriate sources. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious (I am not involved in editing this entry) but, could you please explain what you mean here and now by "POV", and what exactly the POV you are bringing up repeatedly in fact consists of?Radical Mallard (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * POV means 'point of view' - if you have a look at WP:POV you will see it explained. The problem with this article is that it is a magnet for people who believe that HFCS is dangerous and they attempt to put all sorts of dubious studies into the article to further that point of view. --sciencewatcher (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the original "science" article alleging that HFCS was bad was done by a new age person who's assertions seem to have been as correct as if you threw darts at a dart board (that was my feeling about it) .. the Princeton study is another case, however. The assertion that this Wikipedia article draws people who believe HFCS is bad (in some negative or underhanded or counterproductive way) is in itself a POV and assuming bad faith. If it is justified to do this we must also weigh in the other direction and consider that this article draws people who side with industry and will always insist HFCS is "natural" and "harmless" and will attempt to cover up facts and observations to the contrary. Challenging the Princeton study, let alone removing it entirely from this article is a very very serious issue, and should not be taken lightly. Are you willing to stake your reputation that the study is completely wrong in its findings, let alone that you can remove it and remove anything that even sheds doubt on the safety of the product?  I'm just curious because we all know that the tobacco industry did this exact same thing when tobacco was first challenged by scientists external to industry, and we all also know that it was new age types and "food faddists" and pseudoscience "health nuts" and religious people and such who originally openly said that it was bad for peoples health. I am also noticing a sudden extremely strict and rigid application of Wikipedia's policies here in order to sentence by sentence, and paragraph by paragraph, remove all negative information or tone or to paint the (extremely important and also politically bipartisan) issue as "grey" and undecided (this is distinctly different from actual neutrality), which has been spelled out as against Wikipedia policy. You are aware of this policy, I take it?  -Radical Mallard (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, there are likely people on both sides trying to put their viewpoint into this article (I am in neither camp). I never said we shouldn't include the Princeton study - it is already in the article and I have spent a lot of time rewording it for neutrality and accuracy. There are still a few points that need some work though. --sciencewatcher (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, my apologies if I am over-reacting here. It did just occur to me that a person used to dealing with pseudoscience could appear to be someone siding with industry in this case! I'm really sorry if this is the confusion on my part.Radical Mallard (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * [QUOTE] "I am also noticing a sudden extremely strict and rigid application of Wikipedia's policies here in order to sentence by sentence, and paragraph by paragraph, remove all negative information or tone or to paint the (extremely important and also politically bipartisan) issue as "grey" and undecided (this is distinctly different from actual neutrality), which has been spelled out as against Wikipedia policy."


 * I am seeing this more and more in Wikipedia. I am concerned that Wikipedia is being taken over by the Big Boys and the Fat Cats.  This is not paranoid thinking at all - it is certainly reasonable to believe that corporations that spend millions on lobbying for their products would also attempt to deliver their message on the first site to come up in a google for information--Wikipedia.  Wikipedia guidelines that were set up in an attempt to keep articles accurate can easily be used to discourage a less experienced editor from making reasonable edits.  Gandydancer (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I have been on wikipedia quite a while and I have never seen industry shills (although I have - ridiculously - been accused of that myself by idiots who can't be bothered to check my editing history). Radical Mallard hit the nail on the head with his comment about dealing with pseudoscience - I only started editing this article to get rid of the crappy biased science. Also please assume good faith - see WP:AGF --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are the one that needs to assume good faith rather than to remind me. I have not suggested that you are an industry shill.  However, many of the articles I have on my watch list do spend millions on advertising and lobbying. I am suggesting that it is important to assume that they may  attempt to influence their articles rather than to just  have faith that they won't.  Gandydancer (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a link to the Bocarsly section for the "Princeton study" and removed the "recent completed" and "Princeton". None of the other articles are labeled by their university and Feb 2010 is not that recent anymore. Is it definitely the same study because the date (Feb 26 2010), authors, and journal mentioned by http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ are identical to the Bocarsly study discussed in the Health effects section. Rolandschulz (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I also added a link to a criticism of Bocarsly study. http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/09/the-evils-of-corn-syrup-how-food-writers-got-it-wrong/63281/2/ agrees with the criticism and says that Nestle has no conflict of interest. One could also add that the author thinks this is a preliminary result, saying "The one thing everybody agrees on is that we need more research” on http://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2010/04/28/pages/5110/index.xml.  But I haven't added it because I wasn't sure whether it is relevant. Rolandschulz (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Liver disease
I removed the liver disease section because it does not accurately reflect the published research. I initially wanted to rewrite it, but the more I tried, the less relevant it seems seemed. The original section quoted this lay press article suggesting a link between HFCS and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. But the actual published study (abstract here, full text .pdf here) only investigated fructose. They do speculate a little about HFCS, but it's not the focus of the research and the conclusions are that they make are about fructose, not HFCS. MYCETEAE - talk 07:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC) [Edited my original post for readability -- MYCETEAE - talk 06:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)]


 * I thought perhaps I could "fix" it too, but you are correct. Gandydancer (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. I added the study that shows HFCS and sucrose had the same effect on the liver. However I didn't realise the original study only talked about fructose and not HFCS. Better to just remove the entire paragraph as you have done - it was really just a WP:POV addition. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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.

This is the central issue. Why delete it? Leave it and add the notations given here.Stevequark (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Reworking the health effects section

 * I really think the whole Health effects section needs work. I'm not sure if it directly violates WP:MEDRS, but this article does seem like an example of how not to write a Wikipedia aritcle. The entire section reads like a point-counter point piece, citing mostly primary literature, without clarifying the prevailing view of the scientific community. I have not been able to review every claim and every citation, but I shouldn't really have to, because Wikipedia is supposed to summarize. It may well be the case that the scientific consensus is that we don't yet have a definitive answer, which is the impression this section gives, but if so, a couple of good reviews ought to sum it up quite nicely. It seems reasonable to specifically mention a few landmark studies if the results stand up, or perhaps even if they were considered signficant at one time, with a discussion of why the results were later rejected or challenged. I don't want to jump in and make too many changes because I know that this is a contentious issue, at least in the public at large, and I can see that there has been a lot of discussion about exactly how to present the information that currently appears here, but I would be interested in starting a discussion about how to overhaul the entire article to provide a more concise, coherent view of the topic. If there is legitimate scientific controversy then secondary and tertiary sources will reflect that. If the controversy is in the eyes of the public alone, then I think it still warrants discussion, but it needs to be framed properly, and again I think we can find sources that summarize the issue accurately, and use those as the basis of the article. -- MYCETEAE - talk 06:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel that the section handles a difficult controversy quite well. It first states that there is peer reviewed information that comes to different conclusions and then goes on to present studies that demonstrate those different points of view.  If you have a source that has reviewed these studies, please mention it.  But even still, wouldn't that just be one more point of view?  It's not proper that "Wikipedia" should decide who holds the accurate viewpoint. Gandydancer (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Having just re-read the article, I think you're right. The scientific consensus seems to be that HFCS is no different from sucrose in terms of health effects, but the article doesn't give this impression - instead giving too much attention to all the primary studies and rebuttals which then gives the false impression that there might be problems with HFCS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should not legislate the truth, and I am not suggesting that, but it should accurately report the current state of relevant knowledge. The current article strays significantly from the WP:MEDRS guidelines. Everyone involved in this project familiarize themselves with the entire WP:MEDRS article, but I'll lift some key lines (itallics in the original):
 * "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse."
 * "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to ‘debunk’ or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim…"
 * "Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field."
 * The section on health effects uses primary sources almost exclusively, when Wikipedia standards dictate that all references to primary literature should be replaced with quality review articles summarizing the various findings. I'll look for some apporpirate secondary sources this weekend, if I have time, and I will certainly share them before making any major edits to the article, but my ultimate goal will be basically get rid of the current health effects section and replace it with a concise summary of all of the relevant research findings. -- MYCETEAE - talk 04:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with everything you have just said. If you have time to fix the article, go ahead. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with everything. Please discuss changes on the talk page first.  Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What don't you agree with? He is simply saying that we need to follow wikipedia policies - currently the article fails miserably by using so many primary sources. I'd suggest you read carefully WP:MEDRS, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Anyway, I would urge Myceteae to be WP:BOLD and make the changes - we can then discuss here any issues. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As you well know, or at least should well know, this is not exactly a time to be BOLD! Also, please quit suggesting that I must not have read wikipedia guidelines and thus must be wrong.  I do not see where scientific consensus has this all figured out and all wrapped up.  If there are systematic reviews suggesting that, why not present them here for all to see? Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well here is one to start with. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not a systematic review. Furthermore, how could you have missed this:


 * The author is a consultant to the food and beverage industry in nutritive sweeteners, including HFCS and sucrose. His professional associations, past and present, include individual food industry companies as well as such organizations as the American Chemical Society, American Council on Science and Health, Calorie Control Council, Corn Refiners Association, Institute of Food Technologists, and International Life Sciences Institute.


 * Might as well ask the fox to write up a report on the status of the chicken coop fence. Gandydancer (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not ideal I agree, but that's the best one I came up with searching on google scholar and pubmed. There were a few others that looked more authoratitive, but they all had zero citations. Let me know if you find anything better. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I have found a very good one that uses PubMed and the Cochrane Review. It is here:  http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=HFCS+systematic+review&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=HFCS+systematic+review&d=4725705413036682&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=5ceb7b8f,6ecce895&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=p3q9BSR229qEsWcMa23VWg--
 * Never the less, please of not start deleting the studies we have. I would like a chance to review the article first.  Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that looks good. And here is a direct link to it on the ama-assn.org website. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to pop in to say that my intention is to be bold, but I will also temper that somewhat because I can see how much work and discussion has gone into the current article. I deleted the liver disease subsection because it was so misleading, and really quite irrelevant. My hope is to dedicate some more time to this on Saturday, and I will post my thoughts before attempting to rewrite the entire section. -- MYCETEAE - talk 04:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I had another look at the health effects section, and I think we just need to obliterate the whole thing and replace it with the conclusions from the AMA review. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why exactly do you want to do that? I sure as heck don't trust the AMA.  In fact they actually do not even represent physicians:
 * "Physician membership in the group is thought to have decreased to less than 20% of practicing physicians.[8] In 2004, the AMA reported membership totals of 244,569, which included retired and practicing physicians along with medical students, residents, and fellows."
 * Your suggestion, to me, represents a very strong bias. Gandydancer (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The "Health effects" section should have a lead paragraph. It should indicate whether scientists consider HFCS to be more harmful to people than sucrose.  TFD (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to do that because, as discussed above, the health effects section currently violates WP:MEDRS (due to primary sources) and WP:WEIGHT/WP:POV (due to giving the incorrect implicationion that HFCS might be more bad for you than sugar). My suggestion is to remove the bias, not add one :) And how come you (Gandydancer) don't trust the AMA when it was you who suggested that review in the first place? If you have found any better reviews, please post them. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not for you to edit this article to reflect your opinion that HFCS is not "more bad" than sugar. You seem to think that its OK to call any information  contrary to your beliefs biased.  As for references, wikipedia does not say that a primary reference can NOT be used, but to use them with caution.  There is nothing wrong with including a good peer reviewed study.  But a Cochrane review, since it reviews many studies, has more weight. Where do you see that I suggested a "AMA review"?  The AMA doesn't even do reviews.  Gandydancer (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You posted the AMA review in the talk page just above here, on 20:20, 3 November 2010. I don't have any personal opinion on HFCS. I only go by what the references state, and all the references we have seem to say that HFCS=sugar as far as health effects are concerned. If I'm missing something, please correct me and post some references. Otherwise please assume good faith. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding primary sources, yes they can be used with caution, but in this article they are used inappropriately to paint a biased picture of HFCS, violating WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH. As soon as I have time I will remove all the problematic bits, and I'm guessing there will be nothing left. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, having a look at this article and the sucrose article, I realise there is a need for a health effects section, as long as we make it clear that HFCS isn't any worse (according to current research) than sucrose. However if you compare the sucrose article to this one you'll see that it appears that HFCS is much worse for you than sucrose, which (according to the research we have) is not the case. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the AMA site and see that I did not read it closely enough. I felt that I had offered a Cochrane review, but now I see that the AMA did their own review using the Cochrane review and other studies to decide what their position on HFCS was to be.  Since there is no record of exactly which studies they included and what methodology they used, I would not consider this a systematic review in the same sense that a Cochrane review would be considered a systematic review.  Also, there is the problem of how few practicing MD's are really included in their "20%" since it would seem that there are a lot of students, etc.  Certainly it would not be appropriate to get rid of everything else and use only their findings. Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see we are already using the AMA review in the lede. If you want to add the Cochrane review (or anything else), go ahead. We should mostly be using reviews in this article and not primary sources. I just did a search for HFCS at cochrane.org and nothing turned up. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No available review is the problem, and without one we do need to include primary sources. Gandydancer (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We've had this discussion before, please check the archives. HFCS is much more heavily processed and therefore not comparable to sugar in the way you suggest. Studies funded by the corn industry (including its lobbying group) don't count. - PrBeacon (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please post reliable review references for the health effects if there are any. So far pretty much everything we have says that HFCS = sugar, yet the coatracking of the primary sources gives the reader the opposite impression. Processing isn't the issue here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Everything we have.." ? Aside from the obvious difference in plant origin (corn vs. cane), the processing inherent in HFCS certainly is part of the issue. And with all due respect, I decline your request to list refs. -- I think you're capable of reviewing the archives yourself. - PrBeacon (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

About proposed editing: I can see Sciencewatcher's point when s/he suggests that to look at the article as is, you'd think that most studies seem to suggest that HFCS must be very bad for you. Perhaps at one time it seemed to make sense to list each study with its own bold heading, perhaps it was felt that made it easier to understand the information. But what it has done, IMO, is to make them look more important than they are. I would suggest that the bold headings be dropped and mention of the studies be (in some cases) shortened. That way it will not appear that they have undue weight and yet a reader who wants more information can read the links. Perhaps the AMA's position could be stated in the opening paragraph.Gandydancer (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed. There is far too much info given for obesity, for example. I think it should be a paragraph or two at most. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly there is plenty of fluff to be removed from the first two paragraphs, but I do not agree if you plan to just get rid of most of it. As I said, I do feel that the studies with bold headings should be combined in a paragraph.  And again, as I have said, to be BOLD in a contested article is not appropriate, and it's not playing fair, either. Gandydancer (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with you. Basically we need to [1] replace primary sources with good reviews, [2] remove the individual headings for each study and [3] reduce the size of the entire health effects section as per WP:WEIGHT. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

use of "sugar substitute" in first paragraph.
HFCS is sugar (and water) and to call it a "sugar substitute," as this article does in the first paragraph is inaccurate as a matter of chemistry and, moreover, to do so is inconsistant with the Wiki article on sugar substitutes. I hesitate to edit it without opening the matter to discussion because this is a controversial article, but it is clear to me that "sweatener" would be a more accurate and neutral term. Mikesartin (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mind either term, 'sweetener' or 'sugar substitute,' but I do object to the characterization of it as simply "sugar (and water)" on several levels -- to name two: plant of origin (corn vs. cane) and synthetic processing. I'm not sure what you mean by saying 'sugar substitute' usage here is inconsistent with that article. - PrBeacon (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * HFCS is a sugar (just look at the 'sugar' wikipedia page and you'll see). Sucrose is highly processed too... --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree and I changed it. Gandydancer (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I read that the carbonyl is "reactive carbonyl". Is this a different or worse carbonyl. The description I read was not reassuring. Reactive carbonyls were mentioned as damaging tissue - it didn't mention pancreas tissue but any tissue probably is not a good thing for your food to damage. Has there been studies correlating corn sugar obeity diabetes etc? My wife has been checking for corn sugar/syrup on food packages( trying to avoid the stuff) but it seems to be in almost everthing - cane sugar has almost been driven off the market except at expensive health food stores that are priced far beyond most paychecks. Any study comparing heatlh food store food versus oyur local grocery, ie food content versus disease, etc?159.105.80.220 (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

A proprietary process - does this process have a patent? Is the process checked by the FDA,etc as thought they can get out of their own way. It sounds like this is sugar after a lot of chemistry is applied - ie can a chemist turn almost anything into "sugar"?159.105.80.220 (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Princeton University's website and Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism are not MEDRS?!?
Referenced material from Princeton University's website and Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism journal was removed by an editor citing WP:MEDRS. Princeton University's own website is not a reliable source and an article that references Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism by Wiley are "unreliable medical sources" Does this make any sense?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Websites are not acceptable sources - you must use peer reviewed journals. We already discuss the princeton study in a NPOV way, referencing the actual journal article. Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:NPOV. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but website ARE acceptable sources if they can be demonstrated to be readable per Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_55. The website in question is the news section of Princeton University itself and explains in layman's terms what the referenced article says.  I have kicked this up to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that these websites appear to be slightly misrepresenting the science - see previous discussion (above) regarding the Princeton website. For medical articles we should be using the actual article from the peer reviewed journal - this clearly trumps a journalist's interpretation! --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can claim that. The abstract of the Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism article ends with with "Over the course of 6 or 7 months, both male and female rats with access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than control groups. This increase in body weight with HFCS was accompanied by an increase in adipose fat, notably in the abdominal region, and elevated circulating triglyceride levels. Translated to humans, these results suggest that excessive consumption of HFCS may contribute to the incidence of obesity."
 * The Princeton University article says "Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides."


 * Mind explaining how that "appear(s) to be slightly misrepresenting the science"? While you are at it explain how the March 30, 2010 Washinton Post article High-fructose corn syrup study generates debate about obesity findings containing the details about the study and even quotes from the abstract of the journal article ("Translated to humans, these results suggest that excessive consumption of HFCS may contribute to the incidence of obesity.")  contradicts the Princeton University article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See the discussion here. The abstract of the paper actually misrepresents the data they present in the paper. Unusual, but if you read the full paper you will see. Regarding the Purnell study: there appear to be a couple of issues with the news story. First it talks about 'corn syrup' but the study itself (at least the abstract) doesn't mention HFCS at all. Also it says 'an abundance of fructose' which is WP:POV. It also says that the study found that HFCS had a different effect to 'sugar' (I assume they mean sucrose), but the study itself doesn't mention sucrose at all!


 * A few more general points: according to MEDRS we should generally stick to reviews (which neither of these are). If using primary sources we need to be careful - we definitely shouldn't be using a journalist's misprepresentation over the original article! Also you appear to be introducing a WP:POV by trying to insert the incorrect implication into the article that HFCS is worse for you than sucrose (it isn't - or at least it hasn't been proven to be). I'd recommend you read WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT carefully and you will see why these edits are problematic. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As per the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, there appears to be consensus that we shouldn't be using these sources so I would suggest that BruceGrubb reverts his changes and then discuss any further changes here in the talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How can you justify keeping this study at all when the notice board clearly says it is not appropriate. Or did I misunderstand them? Gandydancer (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't misunderstand them. And now he isn't even bothering to reply to this discussion at all. I'm just going to revert his edits myself. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be still some issues with this Princeton study. Gandydancer said my edit was biased - in what way? Surely your current edit is biased by saying that HFCS "may contribute to the incidence of obesity" when the study found no differences between HFCS and sucrose. Also, comparing 24h HFCS with 12h sucrose in the same sentence appears very biased - how on earth can that be a fair comparison? You have put back in the non-MEDRS blog post. And the current entry is simply too long for a dubious primary study. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the thing is Sciencewatcher, this is exactly what they state in their abstract. I had to swallow a bitter pill some years ago and here is the story on that...  I was reading some wikipedia controversy and one editor argued that "it" was not "the truth".  Another wise editor commented, "Wikipedia is not about the truth, it's about what can be properly documented".  If you doubt I learned my lesson, read my comments on the Factory farming talk page (bottom of the page) where I say I feel we need to delete information that I believe is accurate, but that  the references are not acceptable.  Now, as for this article, I note that we have had plenty of armchair experts call the Princeton study a farce.  We did not go to Princeton, we were not part of the study group, we are just lowly wikipedia editors, and our opinions should not affect what eventually gets into this article.  As for opposing viewpoints, I did find an acceptable ref that did have a link to the Nestle opposition, so that should help point out that there was opposition.Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Odd juxtaposition of various research
I find it strange that this article's most damning research on HFCS is recent, and the corn lobby's research they're citing here is all older and seems fixated on glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels, which are unlikely to account for metabolic problems that might be associated with HFCS, anyway. Yes more research is warranted, but the dates of the older research should be in the body of the article rather than just in the citations at the bottom. The Princeton 2010 study should also mention here the fact the sucrose rats were fed TWICE the calories of the HFCS rats, yet were still healthier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.178.144.221 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Heteditary Fructose Intolerance & High Fructose corn syrup
My son is a living example how high fructose corn syrup is not the same as sucrose from a metabolic perspective. He has "Hereditary Fructose Intolerance", which is an disorder where he is limited in his ability to process fructose. He exhibits the following symptoms when he ingests any food product with high fructose corn syrup; intestinal pain, fever, diarrhea as well as respiratory distress (wheezing, shortness of breath, congested sinuses). He does not show these symptoms when ingesting products with table sugar (sucrose). From our perspective, my son is proof positive that the Corn lobby's assertion stating that High Fructose Corn Syrup is the same as sugar is laughable. It would be nice to add a section discussing this disorder and any associated research as this research would highlight the differences in how the human body processes different sugars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.44.125.14 (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The same enzyme is also required to process sucrose (as it is broken down into fructose). According to the wikipedia page on Hereditary fructose intolerance, sucrose does cause the symptoms as well. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If your child handles sucrose with little difficulty, the issue wouldn't be Hereditary fructose intolerance (per reasoning in Sciencewatcher's post above). Sounds more like Fructose malabsorption.  But I don't think anyone would argue that fructose is metabolized in a different way than sucrose.  That would be akin to saying the body metabolizes morphine the same way it does diacetylmorphine - while the body ends up using both as morphine, the way it metabolizes each compound is quite different. K10wnstaz (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at obesity studies
I have edited to present the 2009 AMA review in the opening paragraph because it is a review and it states the present controversy fairly well. I removed the "Anderson" paragraph because it is not a study but an editorial by a non-noteworthy person. If there are no objections I am going to remove the Forshee study because it was funded by the food industry and in fact several of their scientists are included as authors of the study, and published in a non-peer reviewed journal - as far as I can tell the "Food Science and Nutrition" journal is an industry mag which includes Campbell's Soup, Proctor & Gamble, and Masterfoods, which makes candy bars such as Mars and M & M's, on their editorial staff. Gandydancer (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As I continue to review the studies I have also removed one that when googled I found it to be a "small unpublished trial" that was presented in Boston at some sort of meeting. Also, I find that the Forshee study is mentioned again later in the section and I am going to go ahead and remove the first mention. Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the headings and hope everybody is happy with that. I do note that a study mentioned later on in the article disputes Ferder's study and I will move it up later to counter their study.  If everybody is happy perhaps we can remove the tag? Gandydancer (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So you have added the Forshee "review" saying it meets Wikipedia guidelines even though it was published in a non-peer reviewed journal (which actually appears to be an industry mag) and was done by the very company that refines corn and produces HFCS. Please explain. Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I already commented on this in the above section - I assume you missed it. Also, this journal is peer-reviewed and pubmed-indexed. I'm starting to get concerned about your continual posting of erroneous information. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * After repeatedly calling a PETA type site and an editorial reviews I hardly think you should be criticizing my mistakes. Yes, I did miss your post - we were editing at the same time. Could you please provide the Pubmed URL for the review.  Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * here it is. Also I notice we have two refs for this review (44 and 45) - we should get rid of 44. Regarding my blooper, I think I was originally considering them "secondary sources" rather than reviews, but as I said above I agree some of them were not very good sources after taking a close look at them (and you're right - they weren't all reviews). My aim here is simply to make the article NPOV. I have no personal interest in HFCS whatsoever (not that it should matter, but I think it's useful if editors know where everyone else is coming from). --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

CNN quote from Bocarsly
There are two problems with this. First, they talk about not being able to study humans for 10 years, which would seem to be irrelevant and misleading because they didn't study the rats for 10 years either (only 6 or 7 months). Also, CNN isn't a WP:MEDRS source. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What about the NYT's and blogs - are they WP:MEDRS sources? Gandydancer (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they are not - and MEDRS specifically says that blogs are not reliable sources for medical information. I see we have a quote from the NY Times from another study author, which I assume is what you are referring to. Whether or not we can have quotes and opinions from the study authors is a different matter - that might not have to satisfy MEDRS. But even if we deem the CNN quote to be a reliable source, there is still the question of WP:WEIGHT and relevance. We still seem to have too much weight for this one study, and the CNN quote doesn't seem to be relevant or useful as far as I can see. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Bray study uses a CNN quote as well. It has been my experience that you do not seem to have any problem at all with blogs and news sources unless they do not support your point of view.  Please accept in good faith that other editors are every bit as interested in presenting an honest, unbiased article too.  As for the blog I am referring to, that is the Nestle blog.  Gandydancer (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you look at my comment in the section above, you'll see I suggest we remove the Nestle blog comment. I think everyone should assume good faith and concentrate on the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Bocarsly - conclusion vs results
If you look at the results section, they show that there was no difference between fat gain between HFCS and sucrose in the long-term experiments on females (and they did not compare sucrose in the long-term male experiments). Their conclusion does not mention this. So can we include this info, even though it is a primary source and not in their conclusions? MEDRS says we have to stick to the conclusions, but this says we can use the results sections from biological primary sources. So my suggestion would be to get rid of the criticisms we have and replace them with a more NPOV summary of Bocarsly that includes their long-term studies showing that HFCS is not significantly different from sucrose. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have replaced most of the Bocarsly text with my own NPOV summary of their results, and also removed the non-MEDRS opinions and criticisms. I think this is ok as I am not performing any WP:OR - I am simply summarising their own results without applying any analysis or synthesis. I have also significantly reduced the length of the paragraph as per WP:WEIGHT. If everyone is happy, I'll remove the npov notice. If not, let's discuss it here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sciencewatcher, it is not our place as editors to do our own summaries and/or criticisms of a study posted in this article. You may actually have the level of education and experience to conduct a similar study and evaluate the results, but even still it is not your place to do your own evaluation for Wikipedia.  The authors provide an abstract that summarizes the experiments and the results and that is what we are bound to present.  If the study was highly criticized, as this one was, that information should be presented as well.  It is not for you to put yourself into this controversy by doing your own summary of the study.  I propose the following and I'd appreciate input from other editors that are following this discussion.


 * A 2010 study funded by U.S. Public Health Service. examined both short and long-term effects of HFCS on body weight, body fat, and circulating triglycerides. In the first experiment designed to look at short-term effects, male rats were maintained for 8 weeks on 12 h/day of 8% HFCS,  12 h/day 10% sucrose,  24 h/day HFCS, all with ad libitum rodent chow, or  ad libitum chow alone. Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than those given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose. In the second experiment the long-term effects of HFCS on body weight and obesogenic parameters, as well as gender differences, were examined. Over the course of 6 or 7 months, both male and female rats with access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than control groups., with a notable  increase in adipose fat, especially in the abdominal region, and circulating triglyceride levels.


 * The study has been strongly criticized as being poorly designed and controlled and failing to prove  that HFCS is more likely to lead to obesity than sucrose. Food policy writer Marion Nestle wrote in her blog, "I don't think the study produces convincing evidence of a difference between the effects of HFCS and sucrose on the body weight of rats." Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, characterized the study as an example of "efforts to disparage high-fructose corn syrup and perhaps drive it out of the marketplace."[49]  Gandydancer (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For comparison here is your edit:


 * Bocarsly et al.[46] completed a 2010 study in which groups of 10 rats were given water sweetened with either 8% HFCS 12 hrs/day, 8% HFCS 24 hrs/day, or 10% sucrose 12 hrs/day (table sugar), all with ad libitum rodent chow, or only ad libitum rodent chow for a duration of 8 weeks. Then groups of 8 male rats were fed to compare diets with added sweetener in the form of HFCS to ones without added sweetener for 6 months. Then groups of 8 female rats were fed to compare diets with no or different kinds of added sweeteners to ones without for 7 months. The study found that male rats with 12-h access to HFCS and chow gained significantly more weight than those with access to sucrose and chow (502g vs 477g) over a period of 8 weeks, but over the course of 6 or 7 months the female rats with 12-h access to HFCS and chow actually gained less weight than those with 12-h access to sucrose and chow. Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, it certainly is our place as wikipedia editors to summarise research - that is what we do when editing an encyclopedia! Secondly, those blog criticisms fail WP:MEDRS badly as many people (including you!) have noted. Third, you have omitted the very important information that the long-term experiment showed the rats gained less weight on HFCS than on sucrose, which is clearly introducing a POV. Fourth, your suggestion is far too long and breaks WP:WEIGHT - this is a single study primary source after all. I'm not suggesting we re-analyze the results or do anything else that we're not permitted to do as editors - all I'm suggesting is that we take the important results (i.e. HFCS vs sucrose) verbatim from Table 1 and summarise them. Either that or we remove the study completely and just use the reviews.


 * If you want we can post a message on the reliable sources admin noticeboard to get some more editors involved in the discussion. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the problem is that by doing your own summary rather than accepting the summary (abstract) of the authors you are putting yourself in the place of a published expert in the field, and you are not. As for blogs, yes I am aware that they are not generally acceptable though I do not know whether they may, at times, be acceptable.  I'm going to paste a little info here which includes the statements from one of the authors of the study and refers to Nestle's position as a NYU nutrition professor:


 * "On the blog of New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle, for example, Hoebel agreed that “sucrose can also increase body weight,” but noted that in this specific study, a 10 percent sucrose solution did not cause obesity, while an 8 percent high-fructose corn syrup solution did."


 * "Why the difference? It may be that the chemical structures of the two sweeteners cause them to be metabolized in different ways, Hoebel said. In sucrose, each fructose molecule is bound to a glucose molecule, while in high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules are free and unbound. But exactly how that translates into weight gain remains unclear. “The one thing everybody agrees on is that we need more research,” Hoebel said."


 * As one can see, the issue is quite complex but you have cherry-picked information that suggests that the study was incorrect in its conclusions. Disagreement with the study should be left to published experts, not us.  If Nestle's blog is not acceptable, perhaps a NYT's quote from Nestle would be.  At any rate, I consider it extremely important that it be noted that the study was highly criticized. Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the full-text of the study (and not the abstract)? Did you look at the results (table 1)? --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at Nestle's blog, and it seems to be a pretty good critique of the study. As she is a professor at NYU that carries some weight. I would still prefer to do our own summary of the main results, but if other editors prefer to take the Bocarsly summary and the Nestle criticism, I'm happy with that. However I think we should go into more detail about the specific criticisms rather than just saying she criticized the study. Clearly the study conclusions are flawed, and it misrepresents its own results - anyone who reads the study can see that - so we should be presenting the study in that light. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also I just noticed on Nestle's blog that there is a detailed critique of the study from Jeff Walker, professor of biology at the university of southern Maine here. "I would note that the experimental design, statistical analysis, and interpretation of the results in Bocarsly et al 2010 are deeply flawed. Indeed, the elementary flaws in the statistical analysis and the absence of any discussion of the glaring paradoxes in the results combined with a much higher rigor of analysis and interpretation in the senior authors’ previous papers raises several ethical questions that will be addressed at the end.". --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I found a Washington Post article that refers to Nestle's complaints and used that for the article to take care of the blog problem. Gandydancer (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent edit to my edit. It was a long haul but it is good that we worked this out together.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think the article is better now. Although I'm not sure if it breaks WP:WEIGHT, at least it is WP:NPOV (which is more important). Given there does seem to be a lot of controversy around this study, I guess it is reasonable to give it more space in the article than some of the other studies. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it's better too. You brought up many good points and I think it was good that together we worked something out.  Like you, I have not not been able to form an opinion on this either.  In the first place, it is a confusing subject in that I doubt that there is any disagreement that people, and especially kids, are getting fatter and fatter.  When I was in high school there was one fat kid in my class - only one.  Today half the kids are fat and it is so ordinary that they go about in their skimpy clothing with fat bulging out all over and seem not embarrassed at all.  But back then, in the 50's through the 70's, kids exercised more and did not constantly consume highly-processed sugary and fatty snacks and were more likely to eat home-cooked meals rather than fast food.  So we know that HFCS is not responsible for the epidemic of obesity.  But as to whether or not there is actually something about the artificial manufacture of fructose from corn starch that is adding to the problem, I just don't yet know and I think it will be some time before I accept what either "side" tells us without reservations. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of blogs for this article
I've put some thought to this and I'd like to at least include a reference to Nestle's blog. For one thing, we already have a ref for her statements so the inclusion would not be to establish what she said. But I see no reason that the link to her blog would be problematic when merely used as an additional ref. Furthermore, I read the U of SM link and he has a very detailed discussion of the study that I feel should be included as a link as well, if it would meet the requirements of acceptability. (The ref could follow the words in the article, "The study was widely...") I understand that the use of blogs is not acceptable because they may just be the thinking of non-experts, but if they are established experts, would that change things? Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I found this information at the help desk and I now feel that the blogs are acceptable:


 * If the blog was clearly by a researcher involved in the whole thing, then it really doesn't matter it is a blog. Some people believe blogs are de facto unreliable without taking into account the author's identity. Gandydancer (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The only issue is that blogs don't satisfy WP:MEDRS (which generally requires peer-reviewed journals, preferably reviews). However as discussed above, this study itself doesn't really fit WP:MEDRS, but we are including it due to all the media coverage it has generated. As per WP:5P "Wikipedia does not have rigidly fixed rules", and in this case it seems to make sense to include the study and the resulting criticisms. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeNoel (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * no connection of HFCS to munitions; alcohol is a general solvent, see smokeless powder69.72.27.125 (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute, Bocarsly et al.
Should a criticism of a study disparaging HFCS, made from by the president of the Corn Refiners Associate, be included in the subsection Bocarsly et al.? It seems to be a biased statement. --173.80.122.64 (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it shouldn't. But the Bocarsly study shouldn't be included in the first place because it is a single study, primary source. So if we include it we should also include the criticism. My preference would be to remove all the primary studies and use reviews as per WP:MEDRS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior" sounds like a peer-reviewed journal; as such the publication is a secondary source. A primary source would be a pamphlet published by Princeton or the paper as-submitted to NIH or published as a government document.  69.72.27.125 (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it certainly is appropriate - as are the studies. Sciencewatcher please explain your opposition to including a criticism of this particular study.  As for the studies we have presented, I am not aware of any reviews; if Sciencewatcher is, it would be helpful for him/her to furnish them.Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We have two reviews at the start of the section. They don't include Bocarsly, but that isn't necessarily a problem. Why should we include it here? Are you saying we should be including it because of the media attention? --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I still don't see the review you speak of.  Also, I note that the entry by "Anderson" turns out to be an editorial by a Harvey Anderson who actually does not support a HFCS problem as  our article says he does  -- he feels that it's the same as plain old sugar.  Plus, he is not a person of note.  I'd like to replace him using this person/quote:  "In a 2010 review of the relevant science, Luc Tappy, a researcher at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who is considered by biochemists who study fructose to be the world’s foremost authority on the subject, said there was “not the single hint” that H.F.C.S. was more deleterious than other sources of sugar."  As for using the studies, unless you can find some reviews, what choice do we have? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?hp=&pagewanted=all Gandydancer (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See references 40, 42, 43, 44 and 45 in the article. Yes, we should change the Anderson note if it is misrepresenting the source. We should not be including a single study primary source simply because it is not in any review - see WP:MEDRS. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should Bocarsly et al. not be included? This makes no sense. It is a peer-reviewed publication by experts within an applicable and relevant field; it is worthy of being cited and presented as it is a peer-reviewed publication that followed the scientific method in an effort to reduce/eliminate bias and was judged to be of sound methodology and interpretation...how can this not be considered "worthy" of presentation? Only to those who are biased to its results, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindHindSight (talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the problem is that Bocarsly have misrepresented their own results, and that is not just my opinion (see the criticism of it we have in the article). If you actaully read WP:MEDRS you'll see that it says we should rely mainly on reviews and not primary sources (even if they are peer reviewed). Single studies can be included with caution, but this does not seem to be a good one to include. Also I would urge you to read the full-text of the Bocarsly article (and not just the abstract) and you will clearly see that their conclusion does not match their results. This point was discussed here a while ago - check the archives. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sciencewatcher, I'm not sure you're in a position to second guess a peer reviewed article. Random posters on the internet really don't get that privilege. If you think there are flaws, do your own studies and get published. Until then, your opinion counts a whole lot less (read: your opinion doesn't actually count) then that of the authors of a paper that has been deemed sound by other professionals in the field. A food policy writer and somebody from a very heavily biased industry source are not even remotely as credible as a peer reviewed study. Appealing to athority doesn't work when the people who's opinions you're appealing to don't have lesser authority than the thing they're criticizing. Cptjeff (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. Furthermore, s/he continues to state that according to policy studies are not acceptable.  That is not the case at all - studies are perfectly acceptable from well-known/peer reviewed sources, especially when no reviews are available.  I have asked many times for a review of studies and s/he has yet to furnish even one.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

From MEDRS: "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse". Just because this study isn't in a review doesn't mean we should include the primary study itself (in fact, if it's not in a review we should probably NOT be including it). And: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.".

Also there are a number of reviews: see references 40, 42, 43, 44 and 45 in the article (you'll see I noted this above, so why are you saying that "s/he has yet to furnish even one" when I have furnished 5?)

If there is some wikipedia policy that says it's ok to post primary studies where no reviews are available, please post it. Otherwise let's remove the primary studies that are not covered by reviews. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Gandydancer's edits, it seems he/she has a habit of adding single studies to articles. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you understand what a review is? #40 is a terrible reference - it seems to be a pressure group if you take a look at their main page.  I think we should get rid of that info.  #42 is an editorial (see my above post).  However, #43 is a review and I believe we should open the section with that information.  They have looked at what is available and at this time find that not enough information exists to suggest it is harmful, which is about where mainstream thought is at this time.  I'm going to copy it here so we can all take a look at it:


 * "High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has become an increasingly common food ingredient in the last 40 years. However, there is concern that HFCS consumption increases the risk for obesity and other adverse health outcomes compared to other caloric sweeteners. The most commonly used types of HFCS (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose (table sugar), consisting of roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS. The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose is so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose does. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiologic studies, as are more strongly designed experimental studies, including those on the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to ban or otherwise restrict use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. Nevertheless, dietary advice to limit consumption of all added caloric sweeteners, including HFCS, is warranted."


 * Should we work with this and present it for our opening paragraph? Gandydancer (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To answer ScienceWatcher :"Looking at Gandydancer's edits, it seems he/she has a habit of adding single studies to articles. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)"


 * All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above.


 * As you can see in the review I posted above, "..few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time." In other words, it was not possible to state as a fact that it is or is not harmful because few studies have, so far, been done.  This is the picture that one would expect to see in the early stages of any controversial position.  Take cough syrup for example.  At first a few studies suggested it was not beneficial and they could (for instance) be included as long as it was made clear that it was only the conclusion of the authors of this particular study.  Eventually as more studies were done that came to a similar conclusion a Cochrane review was done that came to the conclusion that cough syrup did not appear beneficial, thus our article could state with authority that cough syrup is not beneficial.  At this point in time it generally would not be acceptable to continue to post studies that found benefit.  In this article about HFCS we are far from any determination re its harm, if there is any, and primary studies continue to be acceptable as long as they are presented according to wikipedia guidelines, as this one is.  I am not sure I am using the best examples or am presenting my thoughts very well, but I am just so tired of going over and over the very same thing and getting nowhere. Gandydancer (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Having another look at those refs, I agree that 40 is dubious and 43 (Moeller) is a reasonable review (although I see 43 only has 3 citations). The Forshee review has 68 citations. Forshee and Moeller seem to be in pretty much agreement - that there is no evidence that HFCS is different from sucrose in causing obesity and it is unlikely to be the case, but more research is needed. So if we can use mostly these reviews, that would be ideal. I disagree that it is ok to use primary studies. The reason for not using primary studies is because they can give an unbalanced view. In this case Bocarsly seems to have a minority viewpoint (it is disagreeing with the reviews), so giving it a whole section is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. The policy about relying on reviews was put in place just to avoid this kind of problem. From MEDRS: "Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. The use and presentation of primary sources should also respect Wikipedia's policies on undue weight; that is, primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field" --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Forshee? How can you even consider a review done by the food industry ( http://www.tateandlyle.com/aboutus/pages/aboutus.aspx ) to be fair and balanced?  I certainly will not agree to that.  Re your WEIGHT issue, I do agree with you there.  I have long wondered why this article has these studies listed the way they are here.  They should be presented under one heading as other articles generally do with misc. studies. Gandydancer (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Forshee himself is affiliated with the University of Maryland. While the study was supported by Tate & Lyle and their scientists are also listed on the paper, that is not a reason to exclude it. It is classed as a review by pubmed and has 68 citations, so according to wikipedia policy it is good to go. (Also if you check other medical articles, we have many studies funded by drug companies). We can maybe just mention that it was funded by Tate & Lyle. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am neutral on the hypothesis that Hi-F causes obesity. When Wikipedia uses 10 or 20 rats to substantiate a broad claim there is something wrong.  Do the editors understand that 1) four groups of 10 rats do *not* constitute (reasonable) proof of a hypothesis 2) that the peer reviewed publications vary in quality from first rate to horrible 3) that "evil" food companies can also do good work - peer review can not filter out fraud and is based on trust, not paranoia. (Trust but verify, reputation IS important) 4) that the conclusion in the Bocarsly paper  compares HFCS to *nothing* (unsweetened chow) while the appropriate comparison should be (IMHO) to sucrose.  Their first experiment compares it to sucrose, then they claim that becasue they saw no effect from sucrose, they did not follow up with the longer term work.  Yet that is exactly what a control (null hypothesis anyone?) group SHOULD do.  Amazingly poor design.  Lets see, will the rats eat more good tasting chow than not?  and 5) The wikipedia article talks about RATS and groups as if the average reader is supposed to infer something from the (to them) irrelevant details of a study that throws around the word "might" way too much to qualify for Science.  Nothing wrong with using "might" in the Discussion section after the Conclusions, something really wrong with using it throughout the paper. Might = speculation. period.  There are some interesting facts CITED in the paper, but the paper itself will be relegated to the dustbin of Science, I'm sure.  Suggest you use the established facts and not words out of context.  The author's conclusion section doesn't even differentiate between Expt 1 (8 week w/sucrose group) and Expt 2 (7-8 month w/o sucrose, with unknown number of females), and with no discription of their procedures/models for statistical analysis.  Sorry, where is the citation that establishes rodent metabolism is a good model of ours?  Comparing excessive calories to not excessive calories and concluding that excessive is, well, excessive is a real jewel of a paper.  There is much better work in this article which does a good job (IMHO) of indicating that HFCS may be a problem.  I vote to toss out the Bocarsly work, its over-exposed and underwhelming.  I am not a evil spokesman of either the "all natural is best" nor the "synthetic is good" camps69.174.113.4 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)