Talk:High fructose corn syrup
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on food and drink on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles. |
[edit] discussion of other substances in HFCS
I used to work at a beverage factory, where we used HFCS, and I tasted it straight. Anyone who has ever tasted straight HFCS will definitely know that there are other things in it besides fructose and glucose, it has an odd, rather unpleasant flavor. I'm wondering if anyone knows of any information about what else is in it... it would be interesting to have in the article
69.207.177.222 20:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] practical cooking question
when making a recipe that calls for hfcs what can i use to replace it? honey? some combination of molasses/honey/brownsugar/refined sugar? i would like to avoid hfcs, it grosses me out! specifically i am looking at recipes to "pecan bourbon pie" any pointers, i would be delighted! my email is dhull@oberlin.edu
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.162.218.70 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] jwanderson edit rationale
I moved fructose specific information to the Fructose page.
The paragraphs on beverages were confusing and redundant, so cleaned those up.
Sucrose and HFCS have about the same ratio of glucose to fructose; they are essentially interchangeable from a nutritional point of view. It doesn't matter to a cell in the body where any molecule came from. Once something is digested and absorbed into the blood stream, the cells and molecules in the body must deal with it; the source doesn't matter as long as it's there.
HFCS has been blamed for the current health crisis, but it is really the increase in total metabolic fructose that is the relevant variable, since fructose is about 10X more active chemically than glucose. It just happens that beverages are the most significant source of the increased fructose that is causing the trouble. In Europe, pop is usually sweetened with sugar instead of HFCS. The same trend of increasing sweetened beverages and increasing rates of chronic degenerative diseases is playing out there, but they are behind us on the curve.
Just a note: 42% HFCS is often called corn syrup on nutritional labels. It shouldn't be, but there appears to be a loophole in FDA rules that allows this. If anyone has specifics on this, I'd like to know.
Jwanderson 06:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)jwanderson
- Are you sure that the corn syrup on the label is always the HFCS? The two are often used together, along with many other corn products such as xantham gum and maltodextrose. 82.93.133.130 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Not same as corn syrup
High Fructose Corn Syrup is not the same thing as Corn Syrup and deserves its own page.
[edit] Cleanup
I flaged this article for cleanup and a look at npov. It seems somewhat bias against high fructose corn syrup and it also goes into first person at one point. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view & Wikipedia:Manual of Style --70.240.240.67 13:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC) FRUCTOSE SUCKS!
[edit] Not Sweet Science
The article is inaccurate, obviously biased with non-credible / mis-quoted citations. For brevity sake, here are a few examples problems with the article:
<<High fructose corn syrup is cited by some nutritionists as a leading cause of obesity and is linked to diabetes.[1]>>
The misquoted citation for this statement is a Washington Post article and to quote the article,
"In November, however, Havel and his colleagues published a review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that examined evidence from multiple studies. They concluded that large quantities of fructose from a variety of sources, including table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, induce insulin resistance, impair glucose tolerance, produce high levels of insulin, boost a dangerous type of fat in the blood and cause high blood pressure in animals. "The data in humans are less clear," the team noted. Others are skeptical that high-fructose corn syrup acts differently in the body than table sugar. "I don't see it as a particular evil," says Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a vocal critic of soft drinks, which he dubs "liquid candy." "It wouldn't make much difference if soft drinks were sweetened with sucrose [table sugar] or high-fructose corn syrup."
So while statements were made in the article that fructose was processed differently with potentially different effects to the human body (but no studies), the published review lumped table sugar along with HFCS as causing negative health effects IF OVER-consumed. If the author wishes to use the cited article, than the author needs to change the statement to indicate that consuming large quantities of HFCS and table sugar is cited by some nutritionists vice just consuming HFCS.
Of course the biased author probably didn't want to make that statement because it takes far less HFCS (almost half) to sweeten a product as opposed to table sugar. Thus if American soft drinks were suddenly made with cane sugar exclusively, the collective sugar intake would nearly double assuming the same amount is consumed.
<<Also cited as reasons to avoid HFCS are that it is highly refined, that it might be produced from genetically modified corn, that various molds found on corn might leave harmful byproducts in the final product, or that corn products in general should be avoided. [2], [3]>>
Citation 2 is www.bodyfueling.com authored by a self proclaimed Herbal Expert and a 'Natural' Healer. They have no credentials or scientific evidence to make such claims. Let's stay in the realm of rational science.
Citation 3 is from Dr Joseph Mercola's Total Health shopping site. Instead of a citation that shows serious studies and proven science, we get sales hype from a holistic health practitioner who's pitching Krill Oil and other interesting 'health' supplements. Again, let's stay in the realm of rational science and objectivity.
If the author is looking for credible citations, how about, "Highs and Lows of High Fructose Corn Syrup: A Report From the Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, Nutrition Today. 40(6)253-256, November/December 2005. Hein, Gayle L. BS; Storey, Maureen L. PhD; White, John S. PhD; Lineback, David R. PhD Abstract: Since the early 1980s, the prevalence of overweight/obesity in the US population, as well as per capita consumption of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), has increased. Although some public health researchers and administrators hypothesize that these 2 trends are directly related, current research published in the scientific literature does not support a cause-effect relationship between HFCS consumption and overweight/obesity rates. Some explanations for the popularity of these unsupported hypotheses may be due to confusion concerning the compositional differences, or lack thereof, between HFCS, sucrose, and other sweeteners. In addition, failure among individuals in the scientific community to distinguish between HFCS and "corn syrup" may exacerbate the confusion. Before any relationship between HFCS consumption and overweight/obesity can be examined, more information concerning current levels of HFCS in the food supply, as well as individual-level HFCS consumption, must be established."
<<According to some, the usage of HFCS in soft drinks in America degrades the taste, as compared with those made with cane sugar in most other countries.>>
Who is some and where did the author get this factoid? Was it pulled from the nether regions - please revise or eliminate for objectivity.
<<American HFCS cannot usually be imported to the European Union because of the European Union's moratorium on the production and sale of genetically modified products.>>
Removed because the statement was attempting to imply that HFCS was genetically modified. HFCS is derived from corn. If the corn happens to be GM, than the product might be banned, but HFCS is not the culprit as the statement suggested.
Unfortunately this is a poorly disguised position paper against HFCS. The article should not be a position paper for or against because factual information is often sacrificed in order to perpetuate a particular position.
<<Unlike sucrose, HFCS consists of a mixture of glucose and fructose,>>...<<Sucrose (table sugar) is a disaccharide composed of one unit each of fructose and glucose linked together>>
Are these two statements consistent? If so their consistency should be explained better. My (brief) research says that sucrose is readily digested in the stomach to its component sugars, by acidic hydrolosis. This implies that even if HFCS is an unbonded mixture of free glucose and frustose the difference is insignificant soon after ingestion.
[edit] Medical Effects
I originally added a section on the effects of HFCS to metabolism while reading the Corn Syrup entry. I didn't spot the topic break out at that time. I've since moved that information here. It is added information compiled from 2 medical articles published in 2004. These mark the really solid start of the research for the current growing body of evidence on the effects of HFCS consumption on the metabolism.
- I have updated this section with some data from the USDA as well as clarifying the results of the 2004 study. The study in question looked at replacing glucose in the diet with fructose, not sucrose vs. fructose or sucrose vs. HFCS. The authors of the study refer to a "high fructose" meal, not HFCS. The metabolic changes inferred in this study would be the same whether the source of additional fructose was HFCS, honey, or cane/beet sugar. If we can get the HFCS/fructose confusion straightened out on Wikipedia, that might be a significant impact. Getting POV for a moment, people need to worry about table sugar and honey just as much as HFCS. Fructose is fructose, no matter whether it was produced in bees or in tanks. Gwimpey 03:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- It is not good to eat much honey - Proverbs 25:27a. King Solomon knew it! They didn't have HFCS back then, of course. This article should have less POV material (and links to such) about the dangers of HFCS (much of which is pure hogwash) and more info on the general overuse of sweetners of all kinds, and the danger such overuse causes to people's health. Also, general NPOV info on HFCS is always appropriate! EthanL 11:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recent visit to the US
Seemingly practically everything in the US now has high-fructose corn syrup. I wouldn't like to be trying to avoid it - although after one soft drink in the States, I didn't actually physically feel like drinking more.
Mind you, who knows, maybe the beer had it too.
I know the ketchup did. Bleugh.
Is there a reason that manufacturers haven't tried to push this stuff in Europe? Or is it likely to creep in? (Or even worse, is the "sugar" in for example Coca Cola here, actually HFCS - are they allowed not label it as such?) Or is the GM thing stopping it for now?
zoney ♣ talk 23:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
well, HFCS isn't listed in nutritional info, its just clssified as a sugar. you have to look at the ingredients to see if high fructose corn syrup is in there (for soda, it probably is). I really wish that most of the food companies would use dextrose instead. dextrose is made from corn, is almost as sweet, and doesn't have any fructose. it's cheaper than using splenda for he diet stuff, and i'd be fine eating stuff sweetened with dextrose (not going overboard with sugar, of course) and feel a little less paranoid when looking through ingredients and avoiding fructose. Oh, and btw, dextrose is what is often used in beer.
- I have heard that the reason that HFCS is not seen much in Europe is that Europe heavily subsidizes sugar beet production, just as corn is subsidized in the USA. Nothing to do with nutrition. Some people claim to taste a difference, but there is little if any metabolic difference between sucrose (cane/beet sugar) and HFCS (glucose/dextrose vs. HFCS/cane/beet is another matter). There are additional considerations to the choice of sweetener besides sweetness, such as its effects on consistency of the finished product. It's probably worth noting that many products sweetened with "fruit juice" are actually sweetened with a fruit-derived product very similar to HCFS. I've also seen "glucose-fructose syrup" appear as a euphemism for HFCS on products aimed at the "Whole Foods/Wild Oats" consumer (ie people who think that because it's more expensive, it must be better for you). Gwimpey 04:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Note: Beer in the US, or anywhere, isn't made with HFCS. Glucose/dextrose and malt sugars only. Use of corn sugars or fructose to make beer makes it taste winey or cidery, which ruins it. Sometimes a small amount of corn glucose is used to finish a small-batch beer in-bottle with natural carbonation. But that is well after the main fermentation, immediately prior to bottling, and the amount is small (< 1 tsp/12 oz) to avoid ruining the flavor. Cernansky 17:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Aggressive Editing
User 24.27.210.84 has been making a series of edits to the article, making it more favorable to HCFS interests. After a series of changes were reverted, the user persisted and removed several sections from the article, as well as removing the vandalism section from the talk page. I am new to editing Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how to handle this hostile user. --McChris 23:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Response: Is this a case of the scorched bottom of the kettle calling the the pot black? The purpose of the edits was to correct the nature of the article from being a blatant position paper against HFCS to a factual article about HFCS (neither pro or con). If your desire is to write a personal diatribe against HFCS, than you should consider writing a separate article although it should still be supported and the criticisms made above have not been answered. You certainly should read the Wikipedia Help pages if you're looking for an FAQ, but since you're obviously using the Wikipedia to insert a position paper against HFCS, you should read the help pages more carefully. The vandalism page that you're referring to (and was only ONE senteance) was removed because it was in fact juvenile vandalism. Also, be advised that just because somebody disagrees with you and changes your article, it most certainly does NOT constitute vandalism - you'll find that in the FAQ as well. If you want to cooperate to make an article that limits bias to the maximum extent possible, by all means, I'm happy to communicate with you on the talk page. Last, but not not least, according to the Wikipedia Help page and I quote, "Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled."
[edit] Link query
Nunquam Dormio 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC) What is the objection to someone adding a link: High Fructose Makes You Fat: Information on High Fructose Corn Syrup and Obesity? Although, it self-evidently takes a viewpoint, it seems perfectly germane to this topic.
- Read WP:EL. Ask yourself how many of the "include" criteria it meets (zero, as far as I can see) and how many of the "links to normally avoid" criteria it meets (1, 2, and 12 at the very least). --Craig Stuntz 18:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Apply those criteria to the other external links and see how many survive. For example, is the Steven Milloy article of any great merit? Anyone know what the relevance is of the two links about "ghrelin"? What happened to the link referenced in the main article — "(See External link on HFCS and Obesity)"? Nunquam Dormio 19:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't attempting to defend the others. My personal opinion is that almost nothing written by Milloy has any merit on or off of Wikipedia. :) --Craig Stuntz 19:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pro/con HFCS material
I haven't edited here in a while (and I've changed my username). I was responsible for some of the maligned links to sites of questionable nature. That's not because I believe them, but because many people do, in fact, hold those opinions about HFCS. I think some of those links might have been there before I got here, and I just tidied them up, or else I found them to at least indicate that the opinions expressed were not original to the other editors of the article. However, I'm also the one who put in the USDA graph, which definitely suggets that increased consumption of sweeteners, rather than the biochemistry of HFCS, is responsible for any increase in obesity linked to sweeteners. I think that I actually toned down the anti-HFCS tone quite a bit. Personally, I think that much of the anti-HFCS material on the net is poor science. But Wikipedia needs to report on its existence; there's plenty of people out there who hold those positions. Perhaps I went a bit overboard in presenting the rather flaky, anecdotal evidence. If so, that's a first for me! --GeoGreg 22:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Fructose Messes With Your Hormones (from Mens Health Magazine 2005)
Normally, when you eat a food that contains glucose or starch -- or any other carbohydrate -- your body releases insulin, a hormone that does a series of important jobs to regulate your body weight: First, it tries to push the carbs into your muscle cells to be used as energy and facilitates carb storage in the liver for later use. Then it suppresses your appetite -- telling your body, in effect, that you're full and it's time to stop eating. Finally, it stimulates production of another hormone, leptin. Leptin is manufactured in your fat cells and acts as a nutrition traffic cop of sorts. It helps regulate storage of body fat and helps increase your metabolism when needed to keep your weight in check. "Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin and therefore doesn't increase the production of leptin," says Havel (Peter Havel, Ph.D., a nutrition researcher at the University of California at Davis). This is the most important part of the case against fructose in general and HFCS in particular: Without insulin and leptin, your appetite has no shutoff mechanism. You can drink a six-pack of Mountain Dew or eat a half gallon of frozen yogurt, and your body will hardly acknowledge that you've consumed any calories at all. Eat the equivalent number of calories in the form of a Thanksgiving dinner and you feel stuffed.
[edit] More on NPOV and cleanup
What is the relevance of the Mens' Health article above to health and metabolism when comparing sucrose with HFCS? Ordinary sucrose is a disaccharide, a glucose molecule linked to a fructose molecule. If I understand right, the two are broken apart early during digestion, and are absorbed into the bloodstream as the monosaccharides. Which is almost exactly the same as HFCS made up of 55% fructose and 45% glucose, the most common formulation according to the second paragraph in the article. Thus, if fructose fails to stimulate insulin release, it would fail almost exactly as much after drinking a soda containing sucrose as it would a soda containing HFCS. I have to agree with one of the commenters that this article seems intended as a screed against HFCS. Apparently, some of the heavily biased stuff has already been deleted. But what remains is choppy, seems intended to make points against HFCS but never gets around to any real facts. Obviously there is a public health controversy about this stuff, and the article should address it. But the POV that HFCS is more unhealthful than ordinary sucrose is not supported by the facts presented here, despite the transparent intent.
The text discussing the graph on sugar consumption in the US is self-contradictory. The sentence "Thus, the proportion of fructose as a component of overall sweetener intake in the United States has increased since the early 1980s" is a direct contradcition of earlier text in the same paragraph and of the accompanying graph.
The section on health controversy does not explain the controversy at all. Instead, it discusses a few disjointed facts which do not get to the point and seem to be misleading: people eat a lot of sugar, fructose in HFCS and in sucrose may be bad, people who drink a lot of sodas tend to be overweight, HFCS is not to be labeled a "natural" product, and HFCS is produced by an industrial process. So what? If HFCS is worse for us than ordinary sucrose, can someone explain why and cite reliable sources?
There are many more problems throughout the article. I looked this up because I've heard about the health controversy and wanted to find out something more reliable than idle gossip and faddish pseudo-health articles. Instead, I just found more idle gossip and faddish pseudo-health claims.
I don't know enought about HFCS to edit the article, but I hope someone with some real facts and no ax to grind will fix it. Best, -SW Scott D. White 05:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT I am not going to bore you with a bunch of quotes from studies about HFCS, but rather share a nutrition philosophy that is sadly forgotten or unknown on a grand scale in the United States. The absolute best nutrition and therefore health comes from a diet that is unprocessed and unrefined; eating food that is in the form that nature intended it to be in. This philosophy does not include eating "Frankenstein" foods and ingredients that are created in a laboratory. There is no study, no matter how well executed, that will convince me that including this "Franken-crap" in the diet is not detrimental to health. Most studies done on HFCS are funded to some degree by those who have a vested interest in the successful use of this ingredient in the food supply. Government agencies are not a reliable source of information either, as there is so much influence by food industry to deem their products as a healthy part of any diet, or at the very least not harmful. On the issue of GMO's and HFCS, the reality is that in America there is no labeling laws for GMO foods. Unless a product is organic, there is a good possibility that the corn used to make the HFCS is genetically modified. This is why Europe will hesitate to accept HFCS from America. User: sopeterson 20:09, 3 October 2006
"There is no study, no matter how well executed, that will convince me that including this "Franken-crap" in the diet is not detrimental to health." Glad to see you are open minded to science. You have decided that NO evidence will EVER convince you of something? That is a very unfortunate attitide to adopt, and you will never convince anyone with an attitude like that. 76.20.176.60 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Wow! I was not expecting a personal attack. Very interesting. You don't have to agree, but you should respect that someone else may have a different view than you. Way to be open-minded!
- Might I suggest that complaints about someone else's lack of open-mindedness might have more weight if what they're failing to be open-minded about is the validity of your personal proud declaration of closed-mindedness :-)? Groyolo 04:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Explain this sentence
"By increasing the fructose content of corn syrup (glucose) through enzymatic processing, the syrup is more comparable to table sugar (sucrose)." Fructose, glucose and sucrose are all different compounds, so what does this sentence even mean? Furthermore, corn syrup is not pure glucose, so this is misleading. Olin 16:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Biased links?
"HFCS Facts (Industry site)" and "Cargill Foods (Largest provider of HCFS to the food & beverage industry)" are quite obviously biased information, and probably should not be in an encyclopedia entry. Olin 16:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious assertion?
"Use as a replacement for sugar [...] HFCS has a much longer shelf life." Refined sucrose has an effectively unlimited shelf life. Possibly what is meant is that HFCS products have a longer shelf life than sucrose-based products. (Is this true?)
- By the way, according to Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, American consumption of sugar has increased even as usage of HFCS has. The wiki article says that HFCS replaces sugar, but you can often find both in the same product. 82.93.133.130 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Can someone get the chart?
I was trying to find the amounts of sugar vs HFCS the "average American" ingests, and they might be here http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/ The problem is that these are tables made for Exel which I don't have. All I really want is to see the numbers... the charts should go by food groups and they may possibly lump all sugars&sweeteners together. I suspect the numbers in the article are somehow from USDA somewhere because they are for 2004, which is the most recent year USDA has complete consumption data.
Possibly the numbers are also here: Bray, George, et al. "Consumption of High-fructose Corn Syrup in Beverages May Play a Role in Epidemic of Obesity," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 79 (2004) 537-43 Gaviidae 16:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tiny little thing...
But as far as I know, "It is commonly used to kill Americans as they are stupid enough to consume this outright poison."
sounds a little biased and unfounded, though funny and somewhat interesting, I will edit it out. Oddperson 05:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Oddperson 05:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] honey
The article says, "Honey is a mixture of different types of sugars, water, and small amounts of other compounds" Ironically, the embedded link to the wikipedia entry for "honey" directly contradicts that, saying, not merely that it comes from bees, but specifically, "honey stipulates a pure product that does not allow for the addition of any other substance...this includes, but is not limited to, water or other sweeteners"
- I think the text here refers to naturally occurring substances, not anything added in a manufacturing process. Frankg 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] HFC
hmm...it is interesting to know that HFC(High Fructose Corn Syrup) was developed in 1957, when the obese rate was 2%, now its 2007 and HFC is listed in many many food labels, and the obese and overweight rate have gon up to what 60%!?!?!?!
[edit] CONSPIRACY FOR MONEY
I once heard the FDA alows over 15,000+ chemicals to be put in the U.S. food!! And this HFC alone is listed on even some things you would think wouldnt make you fat, like ketchup, I mean what the hell does ketchup need sugar for?!?! I guess the only persons who care about their health now days are individuals, not the FDA who are supposed to "protect" the people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.129.134.58 (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
