Talk:High-fructose corn syrup/Archive 7

Relationship to corn syrup
I added a short sentence to the lead explaining that "high fructose" is relative to conventional corn syrup and linking corn syrup. That was reverted with the argument that it's not lead info and that it's sufficiently discussed in the article. I respectfully disagree on both counts.

A reader who has hear wacko hearsay health claims, or just read it on a ingredients list, might be confused about the difference between HFCS and corn syrup. Are they the same thing, and one name is just more descriptive? Or are they from different varieties of corn? Defnining HFCS (not only what does each initial stand for, but what do they mean hear) and providing context (i.e., how does it relate to other kinds of corn syrup) are emphasized repeatedly in MOS:LEAD as important priorities in the lead. There's even a section, MOS:CONTEXTLINK suggesting links to articles that provide context. Corn syrup was seem to me to be an essential basic element of that context.

If someone sees a better way to work that content into the lead, great, but I think it definitely belongs there.

As for it being covered elsewhere in the article, I don't see where that is directly discussed except perhaps under history. But regardless, I think it is exactly the kind of content that belongs in the lead. Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The FDA source best defines HFCS 45 and 55. I added details from that source to the lede and composition sections. As corn syrup is linked, that seemed sufficient for leading a user to other information on syrup differences. --Zefr (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see a link to corn syrup in the lead. Am I missing it?  As far as defining HFCS 45 and 55, I do appreciate what you added, and I think it is useful for some readers, but I think those are different readers than the ones that I am describing.  When I talked about defining HFCS, I didn't mean in the sense of helping a food chemist know exactly which corn syrups fall under the definition.  Rather, I mean someone who doesn't know anything about it and is wondering what it is.  The whole article needn't be written for a lay audience, but giving a lay audience an orientation is absolutely appropriate for the lead.


 * For now, I'll assume that you are working towards improving the lead for one audience. I'll go ahead and edit in order to improve it for a lay audience.  Hopefully that will lead to a lede that's better for both audiences. Ccrrccrr (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

New editor (2019)
Hello I am a new to wikiedia, I am apart of a class and have addopted this article for my semester long project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonks2020 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello veteran contributers. I'm new to being Wikipedia contributor and I've adopted this article for my college class. I look forward to being able to contribute to this while being within the guidelines! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kooruzoo (talk • contribs) 00:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I am a student who is trying to edit this wikipedia article for a class project. I have genuiene interest in this subject and would like to contribute on improving this article. After reading this article, I found the health section to be lacking information and would like to focus on this area. please correct me if I'm wrong on future edits that I will be making here. I will be taking any critiques and comments open mindedly and seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjeong4 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Create a proposal of what changes you would like to make, show your WP:SCIRS sources (use reviews in reputable journals), and post them here for assessment and feedback by other editors. --Zefr (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Health section expansion
The health section was vague, and only associated HFCS with obesity, and metabolic disorder. My edit added more insight on other ailments that have been directly identified as concerns from consuming fructose.Blkyank17 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I added to the health section by adding a 2016 study that linked HFCS to triglyceride accumulation. The edit gives a recent study that provides new information to add to the effects of HFCS on the body in regards to health and metabolic disorders. Eonixphay (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there no review? --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify what you mean by no review? The source I listed was peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal. --Eonixphay (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We prefer using reviews - see WP:MEDRS. From taking a quick look, it seems as if there are multiple studies showing this result, but no reviews as yet (that I could find). --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Inclusion of studies focusing on metabolism on fructose - It seems difficult to separate fructose from HFCS, given that HFCS by definition relies on fructose as an essential component, e.g., HFCS 45, HFCS 55, etc.  The difference is that fructose can come from other sources, but HFCS must comprise fructose. Unitacx (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

But HFCS also contains glucose, and the effects are very different in the body from fructose alone. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to add a study done by the national center for chronic disease control about the correlation of consuming HFCS and developing asthma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjeong4 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add some information in the health section on how intake of fructose causes hypertension which generates uric acid and ultimately causes ATP depletion. I have found this information from an article in science direct which is a reviewed secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjeong4 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The source has to be a review of clinical research, as explained in WP:MEDRS. I looked and found no such review. --Zefr (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to propose to add a part to the health section that is an increased risk of developing kidney stones from high HFCS consuption. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=HRCA&u=jcl_jccc&id=GALE|A186517715&v=2.1&it=r&sid=summonKooruzoo (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I have an issue with undergrad students editing medical content on Wikipedia. Competence in judging the quality of sources is needed; see WP:CIR. Your class should review WP:MEDHOW and WP:MEDMOS, and the tutorial below. --Zefr (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Student tutorial for medical content and sources

Addition to Production
I was wanting to add figures for the production of HFCS. This was something I noticed with the article lacked in with actual totals of amounts produced. Adding total amounts of fructose produced could be beneficial showing the trends over time. Kooruzoo (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * USDA production source here
 * It's a August 2019 reliable source, but the only information that appears novel is " 2017 production was 8.3 million tons". --Zefr (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Update E.U. Section
The information under the E.U. Section is outdated as the production quota was lifted 2 years ago and needs updated information. I was wanting second opinions on my sources before updating the section. Kooruzoo (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Those are better sources which should replace the current information. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I am grateful for the trimming that you did but I noticed an error where I added that the quota had a cap of 720,000 tonnes before being abolished, but the section now reads that the cap was put in place after the removal of the quota. From the reference: "As of 1 October 2017, production and export restrictions will be lifted and European sugar producers will be able to produce and export as much as they want." I'm going to edit to say such but curious if the 720,000 tonnes is redundant and rather "...allowing production and export without restriction." is more appropriate. Thanks.Kooruzoo (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Redundant line
Under "Saftey and manufacturing concerns" the line "In 2015, production of HFCS in the United States was 8.5 million tons from some 500 million bushels of corn." is redundant since its been updated with a newer reference under "History: the United States" and not being related to safety concerns. --Kooruzoo (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Student project
Hi, I'm a student working on a semester long project which includes editing a wikipedia page. I have done previous research for other classes and have written multiple papers on HFCS. My last paper was actually over this article and i was very discouraged to see that the "health" section only contained two sentences. It does not go into depth at all on the different metabolic pathways fructose and glucose take when inside the body. I think we have enough scientific literature stating the negative metabolic affects that fructokinase has on the body. I thought the "Obesity and metabolic disorders" section was very misleading in some of its wording while some of the section is subjectively written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebare (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources you added were not from high-quality clinical trials about HFCS specifically, and were not conclusive about fructose as the initiating factor of kidney stones or gout. They are inconclusive associations which are not proof. No causality of connecting fructose or HFCS to kidney stones or gout can be concluded from those studies. They are not WP:MEDRS-quality reviews. You can discuss here, but I am reverting your edit. --Zefr (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There are thousands of studies from pubmed posted across wikipedia. Can you specifically identify why https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3197219/ is not valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebare (talk • contribs) 00:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The main message about fructose in the article you provide is that fructose ingestion has increased concomitantly with the increased popularity of sweetened beverages and rise in incidence of gout and obesity. It is false reasoning to state that fructose itself - or HFCS specifically for this article - is a cause, as stated in the Conclusion by the authors: "it remains unclear whether the associations are caused by fructose per se, or through some other mechanism." For an encyclopedia, we cannot state fructose or HFCS specifically has a role in these other diseases. That is WP:SYNTH, and is metabolically unlikely anyway. --Zefr (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Fructose itself cannot be the direct cause to either gout or obesity. Both obesity and gout require a multivariate analysis and therefore neither can be directly caused by one thing. This does not mean that fructose isn't contributing to these causes along with other things. When the author states “Fructose is known to induce uric acid production by increasing ATP degradation to AMP", how is this not valid? You stated it was because of the source and when i asked you why this source was not valid, you did not give me an answer. Please explain directly why this source is not valid. If the source is valid, this would mean that the edit I made was valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebare (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * that quote applies to in vitro lab research that cannot be proven in vivo to connect fructose -> uric acid levels -> gout or other diseases in people. Your proposing this is synthesis of concepts or WP:SYNTH which is unencyclopedic and discouraged on WP. Even in vitro, the fructose-ATP-uric acid linkage would be tested in a dose-response relationship (see in this link the top right graph where fructose would be the 'agonist' and uric acid the 'tissue'). In humans, normal fructose intake is at levels in the far left of the curve, and excessive intake may increase the tissue response, but no specific causality can be shown that fructose is the only specific agonist. See here under 'Cardiometabolic diseases'. That is the best, current information according to high-quality reviews. I think the question has been answered, so will not return here unless something more substantial is presented. (Note: please sign your talk page comments by using the signature icon in the upper left). --Zefr (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you responding. When you state "that quote applies to in vitro lab research..." Can you provide context as to how you drew this conclusion? In the quote, "Fructose is known to induce uric acid production by increasing ATP degradation to AMP, a uric acid precursor (85, 93, 94) and thus, within minutes after fructose infusion, serum uric acid levels rise (94)." the author uses nothing but vivo research throughout the quote. So when you state "that quote applies to in vitro lab research..." what supporting evidence do you have to support this claim? I also do not understand when you state "Your proposing this is synthesis of concepts or WP:SYNTH which is unencyclopedic and discouraged on WP". I looked further into this and went to the link you provided. The link provided states to not combine multiple sources. The quote I use is from a single source. Now since you state these are the only two objections you have making this source invalid, would you please provide evidence and elaborate on your objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluebare (talk • contribs) 01:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

"no evidence" is too definitive for a controversial topic
In the health section where it states "there is no evidence that retail HFCS products contain harmful compounds or cause diseases.[4]" is at the very least controversial and i think the wording "no evidence" is too definitive. Obviously there is a lot of controversy surrounding HFCS and the metabolic effects fructokinase can have on the body such as the increase in uric acid production by degrading ATP to AMP, the effects on the liver, how it may be associated with obesity, non alcoholic fatty liver disease and so on. Taking a look at the "Fructose" wikipedia page, under cardiometabolic diseases it states "fructose has been associated with increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disorders that are part of metabolic syndrome.[10]" Now obviously HFCS is partly made out of fructose, so i'm wondering why my edit was reverted when i removed "there is no evidence that retail HFCS products contain harmful compounds or cause diseases" when this is such a controversial topic. I still do not believe this statement should be in the article, does anyone object and if so why? 01:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Bluebare (talk)
 * This topic continues a discussion from above under "Student Studies" and is given thorough review and sourcing in the article under "Obesity and metabolic disorders" here. Specifically regarding HFCS (rather than fructose in isolation), the statement "there is no evidence that retail HFCS products contain harmful compounds or cause diseases" is a fact, as there are no WP:MEDREV reviews - i.e., no national medical association position statements, no governmental warning, or no reputable published reviews - stating that HFCS contains harmful compounds or causes diseases, as stated in the quote, which was paraphrased from the FDA statement on HFCS safety under "Is HFCS less safe than other sweeteners?": FDA receives many inquiries asking about the safety of HFCS, often referring to studies about how humans metabolize fructose or fructose-containing sweeteners. These studies are based on the observation that there are some differences between how we metabolize fructose and other simple sugars. We are not aware of any evidence, including the studies mentioned above, that there is a difference in safety between foods containing HFCS 42 or HFCS 55 and foods containing similar amounts of other nutritive sweeteners with approximately equal glucose and fructose content, such as sucrose, honey, or other traditional sweeteners. As the literature stands presently, the disease-causing vector is excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened foods and beverages (cited with reviews in the article), not specifically isolated to HFCS. cites the Fructose article as stating that fructose is associated with increased disease risks, and it is (by excessive calorie intake from consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages), but this is not proof of a cause-and-effect relationship between fructose or HFCS and diseases. If Bluebar can cite a high-quality review or statement from a government organization or clinical association (as outlined in MEDREV) directly linking HFCS to diseases, then we can discuss changes to the article. Until then, this discussion and topic are a WP:DEADHORSE. --Zefr (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Statement from this 2017 review: "the available evidence from human epidemiological and interventional studies does not support the hypothesis that fructose, when consumed in isocaloric amounts, causes more liver fat accumulation than other energy-dense nutrients. The observed prosteatotic effect of fructose in hypercaloric trials is likely confounded by associated weight gain, and this level of evidence is insufficient to adequately guide the public and policy makers on the use of dietary fructose vs. other products." The review discusses areas of research where fructose may have disease effects, but there is insufficient evidence to date to draw the cause-and-effect conclusion. --Zefr (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to piggyback on your comment for the student editor, but when there is "controversy" that contradicts the scientific community, we generally call that WP:FRINGE and don't include those viewpoints per WP:NPOV. That happens whether people try to say there is controversy about climate change being real, genetic engineering is safe, vaccines don't cause austism, etc. If there was evidence of an actual problem specific to HFCS, it would need to be sourced to WP:MEDRS sources like high quality reviews or statements from mainstream medical organizations reviewing the literature like Zefr just did. This may not be the best topic for a student editor if this line of arguing is indeed a dead horse and talk page comments won't change consensus for what's in the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional Countries under History
I was wanting to get an opinion on some sourcing. I'm adding more countries to the history section specifically, China right now, and I've found this Reuters article that's fairly recent but not sure if I can use it as a source. It's been difficult finding English sourcing for these countries that are comparable to the USDA or FDA, and I assume using a non-English source for the article is not acceptable Kooruzoo (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reuters is a WP:NEWSORG source, and this article shows an interesting, significant commercial trend for HFCS in China and SE Asia generally. I created a "Commerce and consumption" section where this information is better positioned, rather than under history. Most sources should be in English, depending on the importance of the content, where, in this case, English sources are preferred. --Zefr (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Userrrr1267! edits
I would like to add an edit into the health section. The first paragraph talks about manufacturing contaminants and I feel it is important for people to know right away that it was mercury. I find this important because it is a highly toxic substance that causes serious harm to the human body. My source is published in The Journal of Pediatric Nursing and is titled "How Does the Consumption of Fructose and High Fructose Corn Syrup Impact the Health of Children and Adolescents." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userrrr1267! (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * We have this section on health and manufacturing safety (where former manufacturing methods had used mercury), including the last sentence where the US government agencies responsible for food safety - USDA and FDA - do not mention mercury levels in HFCS as a concern. --Zefr (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to edit the wording of the second sentence in the first paragraph, under the section "Food". I feel that changing "Factors in the rise of HFCS use" to "Factors contributing to the rise of HFCS" makes it easier for the reader to process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userrrr1267! (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add an edit to the health section that shows the increase in high fructose corn syrup consumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userrrr1267! (talk • contribs) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add the fact that fructose promotes visceral fat accumulation to the health section. This is a dangerous type of fat as it accumulates around vital organs and can cause health issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userrrr1267! (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add onto the end of the first sentence that HFCS is cheaper and sweeter that table sugar (sucrose). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userrrr1267! (talk • contribs) 19:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add an some information about risk of fatty liver disease and how this happens in the body — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userrrr1267! (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add a fact about Japan's HFCS and corn imports — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userrrr1267! (talk • contribs) 19:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add an edit stating that the government policies are what led Japan to using HFCS. This information is from the USDA website on Japans sweetener policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userrrr1267! (talk • contribs) 19:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Questions, comments and reorganization
1. Shouldn't the two forms of HFCS show 6 atoms of carbon? I only see 2.

2. " Glucoamylase is mixed in and converts them to glucose. The resulting solution is filtered to remove protein, then using activated carbon, and then demineralized using ion-exchange resins."

This sentence is not clear.

3. I printed this article a while ago. Why was the entire "history" section wiped out? Isn't it important to know that commercial production of corn syrup began in 1864?

4. "One consumer concern about HFCS is that processing of corn is more complex than used for “simpler” or “more natural” sugars, such as fruit juice concentrates or agave nectar, but all sweetener products derived from raw materials involve similar processing steps of pulping, hydrolysis, enzyme treatment, and filtration, among other common steps of sweetener manufacturing from natural sources."

This sentence is incomplete. It's missing something, perhaps "the one" after "than" and before "used".

5. "While these are simply opinions, a 2011 study further backed up the idea that people enjoy sucrose (table sugar) more than HFCS."

It's not an opinion. It's a fact, especially if you tried the "classic" sugar flavor.

6. "In 2010, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) applied to allow HFCS to be renamed "corn sugar", but that petition was rejected by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2012."

This is nonsense. It is sugar made out of corn.

7. One or more geniuses created redundant sections with the same exact titles so I merged several of them. I hope the genius or the geniuses that do this come to the realization that it's better to consolidate and ponder before writing repeated and redundant entries (including Userrrr1267!). Check if a subject you want to discuss appears in the title of an entry first!

ICE77 (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Obesity and metabolic syndrome
These are related human diseases (generally discussed together clinically under the term, metabolic syndrome) for which there are WP:MEDRS reviews used in the section. and have tried to enter content using this primary research which is not a MEDRS review, but rather a preliminary lab study in mice. It is not a useable source for the article; see WP:MEDANIMAL and WP:BIOHARD. The section is correct for content and sources as it is now. Human, MEDRS-quality research and reviews on individual foods or ingredients like HFCS are difficult to perform and control as variables in human research, as are all studies for potential dietary effects on human diseases. We have to rely on the few reputable reviews (current refs 4, 16, 52, 53) and the AHA position statement as the most reliable sources for this section. Zefr (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree. PMID 29287121 is not a viable source for biomedical content. Alexbrn (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree with you that PMID 29287121 doesn't seem very reliable and thus I added the restrictive description to what's claimed. I have not objection removing it all together. You keep ignoring my argument that I have NOT AT ALL intention to endorse PMID 29287121. Please go ahead to clean it up if you have the domain expertise. Again. please don't associate me with PMID 29287121 or opinions that I don't hold. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 16:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Mexican coke contains HFCS not cane sugar
Study citing Mexican Coke

A study in 2012 tested Mexican Coca-Cola using HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography) and found the Mexican Coca-Cola contains 58:42 Fructose to Glucose content, but was sucrose was not detected. Bottles of Mexican Coca-Cola state 'sugar' in the ingredients and it is widely believed to contain cane sugar and taste better than standard HFCS Coca-Cola, however this study suggests cane sugar is not added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.139.109 (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Very good new 2021 review article on fructose and health
I thought this was a pretty good article, and especially helpful because it's from this year.

https://www.intechopen.com/online-first/fructose-intake-metabolism-and-role-in-diseases

To what extent, if any, do people think it should be worked into this article? One section to highlight:

Fructose, a potent sweetener, is also artificially added to foods and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB), often in the form of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). HFCS refers to the fructose content relative to corn syrup, which is entirely glucose, rather than the fructose content relative to other sweeteners. Indeed, as in sucrose and in honey, most HFCS compounds used as food additives contain nearly the same 1:1 ratio of glucose to fructose. Therefore, it is important to understand that concerns pertaining to fructose consumption might also be inferred to a wide range of sweeteners, not only HFCS.

Declanscottp (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Predatory publisher so not usable for anything. Alexbrn (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

"Health" Section Highjacked by Sweetener Industry?
It certainly does appear that the "Health" section has been hijacked by industry advocates of HFCS; the "pro" argument is overrepresented, the "con" argument appears to have no active advocate, as of this date. This is the sort of thing that undermines the credibility and integrity of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.3.121 (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia just presents the sources. If you have any other reliable sources showing that HFCS is more dangerous than sugar, please discuss. Don't just come out with a ridiculous statement that we are the "sweetener industry". (All of the recent edits on this page have been by regular wikipedia users, so it would be highly unlikely that those editors - who also edit completely unrelated pages - are stooges for any industry). That's just a ridiculous conspiracy theory. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is trying to take reader eyes out of the complete metabolism process by focusing it solely in the liver. Glucose is mostly metabolized by other organs and only some go to liver, but HFCS is solely processed by the liver before converted into other produces.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanhafizi (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is one. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441692.2012.736257 Arydberg (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That study is just an association - not a proof of cause - that countries with manufacturers using HFCS have a higher incidence of diabetes. The issue remains that overconsumption of HFCS products and sugars in general contributes to onset of metabolic syndrome, consistent with this systematic review (ref. #47) and the existing section on obesity and metabolic disorders. --Zefr (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

There are direct studies that do describe specific mechanisms linking fructose to obesity, both due to inability to stimulate insulin secretion via activation of a pancreatic β-cell GLP-1 receptor and attenuation of hunger and satiety mechanisms. If the study is directed to the fructose, it won't describe HFC, because HFC relates to a food production method to provide fructose. (i.e., fructose is by definition a key component of HFC, but is not by itself HFC). The distinction is in formal semantics and not substance.

These are direct peer-reviewed studies, so naturally, reviews per se are not likely. If one is seeking authentication, one would want to look at the study; not a review that includes the study. Unitacx (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It is wikipedia policy not to rely on individual studies for medical information. Please read WP:MEDRS.--sciencewatcher (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Added some sentences to the health section because my sources claim that HFCS can be very unhealthy and can cause more serious health issues if it is consumed often and in large amounts Tuj14627 (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"There is no scientific evidence that HFCS itself causes obesity or metabolic syndrome". The first sentence in this section at least misleading. Without the word "itself" it would be a straight up lie. There are plenty sources highlighting the link between HCFS and obesity. There is an ongoing debate on this topic https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10408363.2015.1084990. Claiming "There is no scientific evidence" while the debate is ongoing is just wrong. Parts of the argument, e.g. that HFCS doesn't reduce the feeling of hunger by the same amount as other sugars, are completely ignored. Wotanii (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * the misleading part has been introduced with edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-fructose_corn_syrup&diff=prev&oldid=965792218 The same edit also removed the argument about metabolic dysregulation entirely.  Wotanii (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I recall a tv program that was shown at least one time on one of the big networks that explained how HFCS damages the pancreas. The show said because HFCS is not a real food, but its chemically altered the body does not know how to process it and become "confused" this leads to diabetes. But now I can't find that program any longer. If I could I would have tried to cite it after I had confirmed the information. Because the information has been removed from the Internet I can't find it. So, there is a possibility that the entire show was "Fake News" Even so people who don't eat HFCS still get diabetes. I would like to see a study that asked people after they came down with diabetes how much HFCS did they consume prior to their diabetes. This would determine if HFCS is more likely to cause diabetes then sugar. Upon finding such a study it could added to the page. The reasons behind using HFCS were that it saved money and it got rid of surplus corn that they wanted to get rid of. Ty78ejui (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Any such content would need WP:MEDRS sourcing. Alexbrn (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree the tone and wording here is unbalanced and seems to reflect advocacy for HFCS makers. From the critical review article cited above:


 * "Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) of the brain demonstrates that the brain responds differently to fructose or fructose-containing sugars compared with glucose or aspartame. Some epidemiological studies show that sugar consumption is associated with body weight gain, and there are intervention studies in which consumption of ad libitum high-sugar diets promoted increased body weight gain compared with consumption of ad libitum low- sugar diets."


 * This is not reflected by the statement "There is no scientific evidence that HFCS itself causes obesity or metabolic syndrome". There's also a strong focus on the question "is HFCS any worse than other refined sugars?" A more important question for me is "Is the amount of HFCS actually consumed by average Americans harmful to health?"


 * Both questions are worth discussing, but an advocate for the HFCS industry would obviously prefer to focus on the first question, which is what the section does.Declanscottp (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have now edited to take out two sections that more or less paraphrase White 2008 article. The article itself is outdated, and White is an industry consultant. Having looked into this more, I see an excessive focus by industry supporters on two red herrings: (1) lack of conclusive evidence HFCS is worse than other refined sugars (2) that HFCS is approved by the FDA for use in food. The FDA's GRAS evaluation simply does not look at questions like whether a food ingredient, when consumed in very large amounts over a long period, increases heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. Declanscottp (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not insert your odd personal views into Wikipedia articles, misrepresenting sources in the process. Alexbrn (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are going to accuse me of adding "odd personal views" and "misrepresenting sources," you will have to be more specific. Declanscottp (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: delete two problematic items with no source but White (2008 and 2009)
I had initially made these changes based on a large number of people identifying what they believed to be an pro-HFCS industry bias in the article. I agree with those comments, as I noted in my comment to that section. However, because my edit was reverted, I want to zero in on what I consider the two main issues.

Mr. White is a private consultant who has written a number of articles defending HFCS, more recently aimed at the general public rather than nutrition and epidemiology specialists. He works for the companies that manufacture HFCS.

This does not, by itself, make his 2008/2009 articles on the topic unreliable. However, I think it is a pretty serious problem that on several key points, he is the wikipedia article's sole and central source. The articles are both out of date and from someone paid by an industry to write good things about it, and should be cited sparingly only to the extent newer and less biased sources are unavailable.

Let's start with the first statement that doesn't belong in the wikipedia article:

"There is no scientific evidence that HFCS itself causes obesity or metabolic syndrome, but rather overconsumption and excessive caloric intake of any sweetened food or beverage may contribute to these diseases."

First, it is pretty confusing what is being denied here. Is it that eating 1 gram of HFCS a day isn't going to cause diabetes and obesity? How about 200g? What does it mean for "HFCS itself" to cause medical issues? Couldn't you say "it isn't smoking itself that causes lung cancer, but rather 'overconsumption' of cigarettes"?

Second, it is literally false. Eating refined sugars causes obesity and diabetes. The fact that there's safe low levels of them doesn't change the fact that actual consumption patterns in the USA and other nations show that eating sugars causes these issues.

Third, even White pro-industry strawman, that HFCS supposedly isn't any worse than other refined sugars, is unproved but far from "no scientific evidence." Rodent studies, for example, show HFCS is worse than other refined sugars.

The second issue is this:

"One consumer concern about HFCS is that processing of corn is more complex than used for common sugar sources, such as fruit juice concentrates or agave nectar, but all sweetener products derived from raw materials involve similar processing steps of pulping, hydrolysis, enzyme treatment, and filtration, among other common steps of sweetener manufacturing from natural sources."

White is the only source for this entire passage. It is based on the following from White:

"A popular misconception is that the corn wet milling process for HFCS is more “complex” than the perceived “simpler” or “more natural” processes for sugar, fruit juice concentrate, or agave nectar production. However, the manufacturing processes for all fructose-containing sweeteners must include production methods that can accommodate raw materials carrying a formidable hodgepodge of agricultural dirt and residue, botanical structure and nonessential chemical compounds, and unwanted colors, flavors, and odors. The production methods in each case must refine the raw material into a robust and versatile sweetener that can be formulated into a wide range of foods and beverages. Common unit operations are relied on by all sweetener producers to accomplish this task: pulping, clarification, evaporation, carbon treatment, ion exchange, centrifugation, filtration, and enzyme treatment."

White cites ZERO sources for there being such "popular misconception." I don't have a problem with wikipedia citing an industry affiliated source to correct actual "popular misconceptions." In this case, however, the popular misconception" has no evidence for its existence.

It's clear to me that White and the corn industry do not like any research on these questions about HFCS and health:

Is it safe in the amount commonly used in processed food and actually consumed?

Is it a public health concern in the USA and Mexico?

Should people try to avoid HFCS consumption?

Instead, they want to focus on "Is HFCS worse than other refined sugars?"

I don't object in the least to providing info on this question. I strongly object to the article focusing on this question as if it were the only one.

As with the first passage, in addition to all these concerns, it is also literally false in addition to being misleading. It says "all sweetener products derived from raw materials involve similar processing steps of pulping, hydrolysis, enzyme treatment, and filtration." Not true of, for example, honey, honey blend, date sugar, or maple syrup.

Please let me know if you support the changes I made to remove these (now reverted). The diff for them is here

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-fructose_corn_syrup&diff=next&oldid=1031621630

Declanscottp (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Some further research for high quality studies on HFCS: Association of fructose consumption and components of metabolic syndrome in human studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899900713003924

Conclusion: Fructose consumption from industrialized foods has significant effects on most components of metabolic syndrome.

Effect of fructose consumption on insulin sensitivity in nondiabetic subjects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diet-intervention trials https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/6/1562/4668585?login=true

Conclusion: Short-term fructose consumption, in isocaloric exchange or in hypercaloric supplementation, promotes the development of hepatic insulin resistance in nondiabetic adults without affecting peripheral or muscle insulin sensitivity. Larger and longer-term studies are needed to assess whether real-world fructose consumption has adverse effects on insulin sensitivity and long-term outcomes.

Declanscottp (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The White source, apart from anything else, is too old. I added something recent (2021). There's no reason to use outdated sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I see that, and I think it is an overall better as well as more recent source that eliminates one of the two problematic sections. I would rephrase it however. The study didn't say "no evidence," it performed a meta-analysis that was not conclusive either way. Since you reverted my other change deleting a section based on White, I think it would be helpful to explain your position if I haven't convinced you. Declanscottp (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The phrase: "The FDA has listed HFCS as a safe food ingredient"
How many times does this phrase (or paraphrases) need to be repeated in an article? I have watched this article change over the years, and it seems that no matter what, the industry always gets their words in. It's one of the reasons I don't feel I can trust WP for facts on nutrition. They can say whatever they want, I guess. The fact is that if you overlay a chart of obesity and Type II diabetes in the USA, it correlates very nicely with the increase in HFCS in foods. Or, you could just look around or at some pictures dating back to the '70s and see it for yourself. I lived through this epoch, and I can see it everywhere. I use myself as a test subject since I take in almost no HFCS. I am the only old guy in my peer group who isn't overweight. I attribute that to taking in almost no HFCS. And I'm going to keep avoiding it for that reason. Sooner or later, the truth will come out.

I believe this article should be edited to remove all the repetitive, marketing words. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Sketchy yoghurt study removed
> While these are simply opinions, a 2011 study further backed up the idea that people enjoy sucrose (table sugar) more than HFCS. The study, conducted by Michigan State University, included a 99-member panel that evaluated yogurt sweetened with sucrose (table sugar), HFCS, and different varieties of honey for likeness. The results showed that, overall, the panel enjoyed the yogurt with sucrose (table sugar) added more than those that contained HFCS or honey.

It is true that the cited paper says right in the abstract that "Panelists preferred sucrose-sweetened yoghurts over those sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup and honey (P < 0.05)." But the data given in Table 2 contradicts this claim. It shows the sugared yoghurt scoring 6.57 ± 1.02 and the syruped yoghurt scoring 6.02 ± 1.14. Both of these figures are marked with a superscript "a"; a note at the bottom says "Means with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05)." It is not clear how to explain this discrepancy. My best guess is that the authors pooled "yoghurts sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup and honey" into one artificial category which they then contrasted with sugared yoghurt, which would be egregious p-hacking. Whatever the case, this paper should not be cited as serious evidence that people prefer sucrose-sweetened yoghurt to HFCS-sweetened or that they can even tell the difference. 70.24.23.230 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alyssacase.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)