| Revision as of 02:40, 26 May 2015 editJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits update tag on merged from← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:17, 26 May 2015 edit undoBloodofox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,884 edits →Mercury Removed from Lead, Reliance on WebMD: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
| when i was done, i rewrote the lead. ] (]) 02:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | when i was done, i rewrote the lead. ] (]) 02:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :note: i am dropping a note at ] about this rewrite so other editors from project med can review this. ] (]) 02:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | :note: i am dropping a note at ] about this rewrite so other editors from project med can review this. ] (]) 02:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Mercury Removed from Lead, Reliance on WebMD == | |||
| So, today I rewrote the section on the controversy regarding mercury contamination and mentioned the public controversy in the lead. However, this rewrite, which relied on a secondary sourced (''The Washington Post'') was removed for a brief mention that entirely relies on Web MD. You can see this edit here: . What gives? Meanwhile I've tagged the article for NPOV issues. ] (]) 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:17, 26 May 2015
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | The contents of the High fructose corn syrup and health page were merged into High-fructose corn syrup on May 25, 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the High-fructose corn syrup article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
High Fructose Corn Syrup Renamed
Hi Sciencewatcher,
High fructose corn syrup was renamed to fructose by corporations to confuse the American consumer because more people were discovering the negative health effects of the HFCS. And yes I am aware that fructose is a monosaccharide. If you're getting your information from CNN, FOX, etc. I would recommend switching immediately from there and reading more credible information.
Don't believe me? The CRA (Corn Refiners Association), a trade association in Washington said this:
"A third product, HFCS-90, is sometimes used in natural and ‘light’ foods, where very little is needed to provide sweetness. Syrups with 90% fructose will not state high fructose corn syrup on the label , they will state ‘fructose’ or ‘fructose syrup’".
I have even more evidence. Go to this link -> http://www.generalmills.com/Brands/Cereals/chex/brand-product-list. Find the Vanilla cereal. You'll see a picture of the cereal, saying No High Fructose Corn Syrup on the front but the ingredients list says fructose. It's all a bunch of health crap making people think they're eating healthy food but they aren't. In the meantime, CEO's are rolling in money from public ignorance.
130.15.206.68 (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- LOL, I assumed you were getting your info from Fox news. Anyway, if it's just the HFCS-90 that is sometimes called 'fructose', then that doesn't really apply to the majority of HFCS, so it's probably better to mention it somewhere in the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
α-dicarbonyls and other reactive compounds
I see there are a few studies showing this. However you should find a review that summarizes the studies and use it instead. If you click on "cited by" in google scholar, you can see if there are any reviews citing it. Or search using the word "review" along with HFCS and dicarbonyls.
Also, you'll need to remove the synthesis. Basically any study that doesn't specifically mention HFCS should be removed. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just had a look for reviews myself, and it appears that HFCS has similar levels of dicarbonyls to bread and other foods, so it seems to be POV pushing to add those primary studies to the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- major whoops; corrected misdirected links, incl link to dicarbonyl review.
as for fructose, many of the studies conducted to study hfcs, and cited throughout the article, are about the fructose. It is pretty much the main reason for investigating hcfs. The food scientists study fructose intensively precisely because hfcs contains so much of it. They certainly consider their studies relevant. As for other foods with dicarbonyls I highly doubt bread is a whole ≥0.1%; absorption is slower from solid foods than from liquids, putting less stress on antioxidant defences (and the absence of fructose also decreases methylglyoxal stress); lastly, adding relevant info is not pov, even if it's relevant to something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.108.179 (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- HFCS has similar fructose to sucrose (55% vs 50%), so it's misleading to imply that it is any worse than other sugars without evidence. All the evidence suggests it's just as bad as other sugars, but not any significantly worse.
- As for dicarbonyls, I would suggest you actually read the reviews which state that bread has higher levels than HFCS. I haven't given a link, because you really should have based your edits on these reviews in the first place, and it would be a good learning experience for you to search for them. It took me all of 30 seconds to find one on google scholar. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see you are still re-adding your content which violated wikipedia policies (synthesis and primary studies). Using primary studies isn't completely verboten, but when the reviews disagree with your primary studies that's a definite no-no (the reviews say that other foods like bread have higher dicarbonyl levels than HFCS, which you haven't mentioned -- that's WP:NPOV). Also, you can't use studies on "fructose" to say that HFCS is bad...again that is WP:NPOV. Please discuss here rather than reverting again. If you're confused about any policies I'm happy to advise. --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Sucrose doesn't 'have' fructose, it releases fructose... an extra step that lowers peak concentration and peak oxidative stress on enterocytes and hepatocytes, meaning antioxidant defences cope better.
...
As for the sheer patronizing presumption of refusing to provide evidence for your view, then telling me about what a 'good learning experience' it would be to look for your evidence myself, and starting edit summaries with 'No,' as if you get to decide what goes in the article and what doesn't... and ending by saying you're 'happy to advise' me... I am staggered
85.211.103.87 (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Try googling "hfcs dicarbonyl" and click on the first result (White) and take a look at table 1. PS, I don't have any "view" on HFCS (or even care one iota about it, in fact). Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. I'm not the only one reverting your edits when you break wikipedia policies. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
That thing by White? I've seen it in search results, but wouldn't touch it. He publishes heaps of pro-fructose/pro-HFCS apology.
And he is flaky. The title first of all presupposes that the opposing view is 'misconceptions', and those who hold this opposing view are just wrong. Then it builds up a ridiculous image of the opposing view, just to draw the reader in. Nobody thinks HFCS is 'uniquely'(=solely) responsible for dicarbonyls, or AGEs or obesity. But he builds up this ridiculous strawman just to knock it down easily. Once one reads the article, it turns out 'uniquely' only means 'more than average'. Ha! Fool on us.
He goes so far as to say HFCS 'should be considered a safe and innocuous sweetener'. Nobody even considers sucrose 'innocuous'.
He claims the paper is a review, but NCBI doesn't acknowledge it as such.
All that is peanuts, however, next to his proven links to the HFCS industry, and industry advocacy. President and founder of WHITE Technical Research, a consulting firm for the food and beverage industry since 1994 (21 years and counting), worked in the industry for 13 years, affiliated with:
the Institute of Food Technologists (an industry group who have the gall to claim: 'HFCS has come under fire by special interests', 'an innocuous ingredient. A mythology of misconception surrounds HFCS that has lately been embraced by researchers and health professionals' (emphasis mine))
the Calorie Control Council (who describe themselves as: "established in 1966, is an international association representing the low- and reduced-calorie food and beverage industry" (emphasis mine) and promote fructose and HFCS on their site)
and (surprise surprise) the Corn Refiners Assocation.
With such a conflict of interest, anything he says/publishes on HFCS must be taken with a biiiiiiiiiiiiig pinch of salt.
(in any case, the data in the paper, even when taken at face value, doesn't support the idea of total DCs being greater in those other foodstuffs you mentioned. They have more methylglyoxal, but HFCS has far more 3-DG, and thus considerably more DCs overall. I used a different and more comprehensive review instead) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.103.87 (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- PS: I didn't mean to attack you personally, though what you said really had come across as patronising to me.
85.211.103.87 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think you might have confused ug with mg. The primary studies you referenced both seem to show 1mg, not 1g, so therefore it is much lower than for the other foods (unless I've misinterpreted it). Also, you can't really use these, as they are primary studies. And the review you reference doesn't mention HFCS, so you're engaging in WP:SYNTH. Although the White paper might not be the best reference, it seems to be the only one we have, and it definitely trumps your existing primary sources and WP:SYNTH. We already use a number of White references in the article. I'm pretty sure it's an acceptable source, but we can get input from more editors and/or the reliable sources noticeboard if you disagree. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't being patronising, I was trying to help you understand how wikipedia works -- you simply can't use primary sources for stuff like this. I'm happy to help you out in understanding wikipedia policies and finding good references, but you have to make an effort as well. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- A 'secondary' source is supposed to provide a second layer of scrutiny, to decrease bias... which part of 'White has financial conflict of interest, multiple links to industry interest groups including Corn Refiners' Association' didn't I spell out? He'll 'review' his primary sources indeed...
- and the scientific databases where people find papers don't usually present the author's Interests in an easily visible way; there may be an inconspicuous tab reading 'Interests', or there may not be an obvious link at all. Most people don't think to look for this information. They didn't know he was effectively a paid-up corn syrup shill. (excluding the possibility that those who added the links were shills... there is precedent of shills editing the article)
- If you don't want to sound patronising, don't say things like 'I'm happy to help you out in understanding , but you have to make an effort as well'
... as if you're superior or something
- As for the numbers, look again. the values are 293 ug/ml and 1130 ug/ml. So 293 ug/ml becomes 0.293 mg/ml = 0.293 g/l. The same will go for the other number.
The source I used for 3-DG in the other foodstuffs mentions everything I needed it to. 85.211.103.87 (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're correct, it is 0.293g/L. However the review you reference actually says "concentrations up to 410 mg/L in fruit juices" (not "negligible to 42 mg/l" as you added to the article). Anyway, all of that is irrelevant. You can't do WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, you can't review articles yourself and pick apart their results, and having declared funding isn't a reason to exclude White (we include refs like that all the time on wikipedia). We (myself and the editors here) are well aware of White's funding from the HFCS industry. That doesn't necessarily mean his results can't be used here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're correct, it is 0.293g/L. However the review you reference actually says "concentrations up to 410 mg/L in fruit juices" (not "negligible to 42 mg/l" as you added to the article). Anyway, all of that is irrelevant. You can't do WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, you can't review articles yourself and pick apart their results, and having declared funding isn't a reason to exclude White (we include refs like that all the time on wikipedia). We (myself and the editors here) are well aware of White's funding from the HFCS industry. That doesn't necessarily mean his results can't be used here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you are right; I accidentally mis-cited the upper end of the range, the multitude of numbers became confused momentarily.
I don't see why you're talking about me 'reviewing' or 'picking apart' articles as I only cited them; also I don't think you can know that the other editors were aware White is bankrolled by the industry, and has decades-long links with industry interest groups, incl. Corn Refiners Association. This is far more than an issue of a one-off declared funding.
Running a consultancy for these HFCS industry groups, he has a continuous financial interest in presenting HFCS from a certain angle, and not impartially. When the review self-declaredly (right from the title) tries to whitewash HFCS and make it appear 'innocuous', the comparisons he draws between HFCS and other foods really should be treated with suspicion.
I understand what you're saying about drawing data on the same thing from a secondary source preferentially to a primary one. However, the review you cited doesn't have the data needed to draw that conclusion, that (total) dicarbonyls in those other foods you mentioned in the article are higher than in HFCS(]. The comparison based on methylglyoxal would tell one that those foods have more of it than HFCS does. But the data on those other foods' 3-DG content is missing. HFCS has by far more 3-DG than it does MG, so a comparison between total dicarbonyls in HFCS and in other foods based on MG data wouldn't be meaningful.
85.211.103.87 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're doing your original research, which is verboten here. Your opinion on White doesn't matter (and neither does mine). We can have an opinion on the quality of White's paper, but not in the way you are doing. You can't accuse authors of being "biased" or similar.
- Regarding the review I used, all I did was summarise the conclusions given in the review itself. That is about all we are allowed to do on wikipedia, whether you like it or not. (We can also delve into the details of the review itself, with certain restrictions -- see WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
worked this over
I worked this over today. there was a lot of content about health based on primary sources that violated MEDRS. A bunch of content had grown up in this article about health, that overlapped with content in the sub-article on "HFCS and health". This happens a lot. I first took all that content out of this article and put it into the other one, then blended them, and then realized that the article wasn't very long, so I moved it all back here and redirected that article to here. the MEDRS sources are pretty clear that as far as we know, HFCS per se doesn't cause metabolic disease - we just eat too much (and too much sweet stuff generally) and don't exercise enough. all the content about dicarbonyls was PRIMARY and UNDUE. I found a 2013 review that mentioned that work and built some content based on it. The stuff about mercury... 2 papers on that in 2009 and a lot of fuss in the media but no (!) reviews on the topic, nothing at CDC about it, nothing at FDA about it. That means it was either a lot of fuss over nothing, or there is a Great Conspiracy To Kill Us All. This is wikipedia, so we go with the former, not the latter. I found an explanation for the lack of concern in a quote from the FDA in a WebMD article, which is as close as I could come to a MEDRS source on this.
The content about the history of HFCS was WP:OR and wrong - somebody had tried to cobble together PRIMARY sources to write their own history. Same thing on the production process. I found secondary sources for both things, and built the content around them, keeping the primary sources as adjuncts to the secondary sources where they were helpful.
when i was done, i rewrote the lead. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- note: i am dropping a note at WT:MED about this rewrite so other editors from project med can review this. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Mercury Removed from Lead, Reliance on WebMD
So, today I rewrote the section on the controversy regarding mercury contamination and mentioned the public controversy in the lead. However, this rewrite, which relied on a secondary sourced (The Washington Post) was removed for a brief mention that entirely relies on Web MD. You can see this edit here: . What gives? Meanwhile I've tagged the article for NPOV issues. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Categories: