Talk:Sugar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

sugar v. sucrose?

There seems to be a lot of duplicative content between these two articles that might be better merged. What's the distinction between these two articles? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 13:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sucrose is a specific type of sugar. To combine them would be like combining all alcohols into one article. Apteva (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Invention of sugar cubes -- try #2

Could an administrator change the following paragraph in the History section (Modern History subsection), from:

Until the late nineteenth century sugar was purchased in loaves, which had to be cut using implements called 'nips', while in later years, bags of sugar became more common. Henry Tate of Tate & Lyle was an early proponent of sugar cubes, which he manufactured at his sugar refineries in Liverpool and London.

to:

Until the late nineteenth century, sugar was purchased in loaves, which had to be cut using implements called 'nips', while in later years, bags of sugar became more common. The first inventor of a process to make sugar in cube-form was Moravian Jakub Kryštof Rad, director his own sugar company in Dačice. He was granted a five-year patent for his invention on January 23, 1843 and in that year sugar cube production began at Rad's sugar company. Henry Tate of Tate & Lyle, was another early manufacturer of sugar cubes at his refineries in Liverpool and London. Tate purchased a patent for sugar cube manufacture from German Eugen Langen, who had invented a different method of processing of sugar cubes in 1872.

The caveats expressed in Talk:Sugar#Invention_of_sugar_cubes, above, have been met, notably:

• Improving the Jakub Kryštof Rad article -- someone from the biographies or sugar projects should remove its stub class;
• The patent date for Rad's sugar cube patent is now included in the Rad article;
• It seems like the notes link leading to an error page, written in Czech, is fixed.

ʈucoxn\^talk 06:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done with a couple tweaks, though it could still use references and you should be able to make such edits yourself. So feel free to add anything further directly. -— Isarra ༆ 22:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit and the educational tip regarding auto-confirmed users. ʈucoxn\^talk 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Genetically Modified Sugar

I've never commented on an article before, so I hope I'm doing it right. I think the Wikipedia Sugar article needs to mention GMO sugar on the page somewhere.

There is a lot of information out there. This article is just one example. More information can be found here, including the information that there really aren't non-GMO sugar beet seeds to be found in the United States.

I don't know how to change articles or anything, so I hope someone can add this important information. Thanks!

75.169.218.50 (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 February 2013

I'm just asking to put this paragraph on "addiction", since it needs expanding.

Sugar addiction is the term for the relationship between sugar and the various aspects of food addiction including: bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization. Some scientists assert that consumption of sweets or sugar could have an heroin addiction like effect. Thanks, !ṂěṭáṛđίṢ! 08:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: solely on the basis that according to your contribution history you should be able to effect this change yourself. The {{edit semi-protected}} tag is only for use by editors who cannot edit the article. If the wiki software is preventing you from editing the article, make sure you are logged in first, and if you still cannot edit it, re-activate this edit request with a comment indicating that fact. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2013

Please insert a new subsection at the start of section 8 (Health Effect), as follows:

Metabolism Different sugars are metabolised in different ways within the body (for instance, glucose can be metabolised directly by cells, whilst fructose metabolism takes place in the liver). Discussion of the health effects of sugar as a broad category therefore obscures these differences and may account for some of the conflicting evidence on the subject.

Cdh1001 (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2013

minor grammar suggestions:

1. "...sugar that is transported round the bodies..." --> "...sugar that is transported around the bodies..."
2. "peoples, wars between 19th century sugar trade controlling nations " --> "peoples, the wars between 19th century sugar trade controlling nations " (list agreement, maybe there's a better fix)
3. "In the same year, much the largest exporter of sugar was Brazil" --> "In the same year, the largest exporter of sugar was Brazil"
4. " prevent micro-organisms growing" --> " prevent micro-organisms from growing"

Nrjank (talk)19 March 2013 (UTC)

Done all except #2. I think that sentence is worded fine. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Added sugar vs refined sugar

I've created an entry on Added sugar. I am not sure if refined sugar should redirect there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, people searching for refined sugar are often searching for table (granulated) sugar or other sugars with various amounts of refinement. Your article applies only to sugars added to food and beverages. But thanks for the contributions, I may help add to that added sugar article if I find the time.--ɱ (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 April 2013

The article states that one of the largest sugar producing nations, and one the largest sugar importing nations is the European Union. As the European Union is not a nation this is quite obviously obviously incorrect. 87.194.159.216 (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any text in the article that refers to the European Union as a nation. As far as I can tell, the text you are referring to is, "The five largest producers of sugar in 2011 were Brazil, India, the European Union, China and Thailand." I don't see a problem with that. If you would like to suggest some specific changes to the article, you may do so: specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2013

Add reference to "Cardiovascular disease" section A number of studies in animals have suggested that chronic consumption of refined sugars can contribute to metabolic and cardiovascular dysfunction Fess-it (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The reference you've provided says nothing about metabolic dysfunction, and it refers to "starch and/or sugar", not refined sugars. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 August 2013

Remove "One of the most interesting studies" onwards in the Hyperactivity paragraph, as the study was conducted to test the expectancy effect, and does not suggest what the "real effect of sugar is". BobHackett (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Thanks for the suggestion, but I disagree with your reasoning. A reader interested in whether sugar really causes hyperactivity may end up here, and would surely be interested in that study. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for a new section on medicinal use on 11 September 2013

example:

Medicinal

Sugar is effective in wound cleaning. In 2013, Murandu, found clinically that sugar is an antibiotic, and pouring granulated sugar on necrotic wounds can help ulcers heal faster. Giftssooty (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Cane sugar vs. beet sugar.

SUGAR, SUGAR / Cane and beet share the same chemistry but act differently in the kitchen. Is there any more authoritative sources about this? Komitsuki (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sugar consumption falling

I am a bit worried about this sentence under the Consumption sub-header:

Data collected in multiple nationwide surveys between 1999 and 2008 show that the intake of added sugars has declined by 23.4 percent with declines occurring in all age, ethnic and income groups.[54]

First, the data immediately below doesn't support this claim. In fact the data doesn't go back as far as 1999, but the data we have shows no sign of such a trend.

Second, the reference is broken. The page which is claimed to support this no longer exists.

Third, even if it did exist, the website the link refers to is not an independent source but a pro-sugar lobby: www.sugar.org. Reading the site, you realize that it is quite happy to distort facts in order to make sugar appear harmless. Look at this glorious quote: "With only 15 calories per teaspoon, sugar is no more fattening than any other 15 calories." Umm... that is a statement of the 'More people have been to Russia than I have' type. I don't think this site should be used as a source without qualification 'The Sugar Association claims ...'. Vronks (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Deleted this claim. Dausuul (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a dead link to the Sugar Association is not a reliable source. However, I disagree that content should be removed if it has a dead link. That is contrary to the Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline. As well, the page is accessible through the Internet Archive (hyperlink here), and the Sugar Association write-up links to an independent science research study by researchers in Emory University and the CDC (hyperlink here), which is undoubtedly a reliable source. As well, I should note that the "data immediately below" is recent data, and not as comprehensive or indicative of a trend as the journal article. I will put the information back with a citation to the American Society for Nutrition journal paper.--ɱ (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

More issues with consumption

I see that issues have been pointed out with this section and apparently addressed. However, the information in the table] and the text that goes with it are completely at odds. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Percentages in Infoboxes

What is happening with the percentages in the infoboxes?

• white sugar: Riboflavin (B2)---0.019 mg---(2%)
• brown sugar: Niacin (B3)---0.082 mg---(1%), Vitamin B6---0.026 mg---(2%)

Doesn't make sense. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Photosynthesis

We currently have what appear to be contradictory statements (both without references) on the product of photosynthesis.

'Through photosynthesis plants produce glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate (G3P), a phosphated 3-carbon sugar that is used by the cell to make monosaccharides such as glucose'.

and

'Glucose, dextrose or grape sugar occurs naturally in fruits and plant juices and is the primary product of photosynthesis'.

How can this be resolved? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

‘tr’ in Sources table

I assume this means ‘trace’ but it’s not clear. On every nutrition label I’ve ever seen, at least in the UK, it is always written in full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.180.227 (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2014

One study finds no effect for non-Hispanics, the other has a wide confidence interval -- not unequivocal at all! 82.6.48.194 (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The change should be to remove that sentence because both given sources only provide weak evidence. Or at least remove "unequivocal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.48.194 (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced these are weak studies, but how about some other sources, reviews instead of RCTs:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20524996

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/08/21/ajcn.113.058362.abstract

Cannolis (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Diffusion extraction?

This article mentions something called diffusion extraction, but makes no attempt to explain it. Also apparently there are no other Wikipedia articles that describe whatever diffusion extraction is and how it works.

-- DMahalko (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this article is incredibly misleading and seems as though it were written by a lobby group from the big sugar industry. In the health section ("Studies on the link between sugars and diabetes are inconclusive, with some suggesting that eating excessive amounts of sugar does not increase the risk of diabetes, although the extra calories from consuming large amounts of sugar can lead to obesity, which may itself increase the risk of developing this metabolic disease.[66][67][68][69][70][71] " The link connects to genetic, inborn metabolic diseases. The correct link should be to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome.

Sincerely, A student.

Ryderion (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)Ryderion

(Sorry, I was barred from editing the primary article even when I created an account, so I can only presume Wikipedia is no longer democratic and the Sugar article being a common one, was protected from vandalism. Hope someone sees this.)

Proposed merge with Refined sugar

There seems very little worth adding to the existing content, not enough to merit a separate article. PamD 09:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. In my view, that article seems at it falls under Stub-Class in quality and length, and it could simply exist as a section in the Sugar article. Danielh32 (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@PamD:..Shall we go for a RfC?? IMO, the merge is unnecessary because sugar is not necessarily refined sugar (which is sucrose). The herald 13:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. No need for RfC. The content of refined sugar should go into the Production section, subsection Refining. There is no good reason to have a separate article. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and merged it. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 07:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Silly study

Th study claiming "Controlled trials have now shown unequivocally that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages increases body weight and body fat, and that replacement of sugar by artificial sweeteners reduces weight" is silly. Obviously any calorie intake compared to zero calories will increase someone's weight. If the study is to mean something they would have to show that the same caloric intake of sugar makes you gain more weight than that of protein, fat, or complex carbs. I don't think there is actually evidence of anything like that though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.131.31 (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sugar vs HFCS

You say "Since the latter part of the twentieth century, it has been questioned whether a diet high in sugars, especially refined sugars, is good for human health. Sugar has been linked to obesity, and suspected of, or fully implicated as a cause in the occurrence of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, dementia, macular degeneration, and tooth decay. Numerous studies have been undertaken to try to clarify the position, but with varying results, mainly because of the difficulty of finding populations for use as controls that do not consume or are largely free of any sugar consumption."

But sugar has been around for 100 years with minimal bad effect. In 1970 HFCS was invented and the diseases you mention began to increase. Indeed the production of HFCS closely tracks the the increase in obesity. Should this be mentioned? Arydberg (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2015

please change from "The English word jaggery, a coarse brown sugar made from date palm sap or sugar cane juice, has a similar etymological origin; Portuguese xagara or jagara, derived from Malayalam chakkarā from the Sanskrit śarkarā" to "The English word jaggery, a coarse brown sugar made from date palm sap or sugar cane juice, has a similar etymological origin; Portuguese xagara or jagara, derived from Malayalam chakkarā from Telugu చక్కెర (chakkara) from the Sanskrit śarkarā.

because Telugu born from Sanskrit and is the oldest language in India and a 2nd largest spoken language in India. Please include Telugu words where possible. Appreciate your help.

Dasarisuneel (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done. Source says Malayalam, but does not mention Telugu. Rmhermen (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Indentured servants to Southeast Asia

Under Modern History, the sentence "Millions of slave and indentured laborers were brought into the Caribbean and the Americas, Indian Ocean colonies, southeast Asia, Pacific Islands, and East Africa and Natal." needs a citation relating to Southeast Asia. Were Indian indentured servants brought into Southeast Asia to work on sugar plantations? The references cited are for the Caribbean and Indian Ocean islands. juanTamad 09:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtamad (talk • contribs)

Requests

Sugar is derived from Sugar cane and sugar cane originated from South Asian countries,There were no sugar cane in all of europe accordingly in Alphabetical order, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, India, Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

Alikhattakkhan (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

== Please add text on recommended sugar consumption (2015) ==

Please ADD the following code to the article. The World Health Organization has released new recommendations for the consumption of sugar in 2015 and this has not yet been reflected in the article. Thank you in advance! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitzah (talk • contribs) 07:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nitzah, do you have a source for this? And do you have any particular way you think it should be phrased? Kharkiv07 (T) 03:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends reducing the consumption of foods and beverages that contain less than one-half of discretionary calories from added sugars. Both American men and women are asked to reduce consumption of added sugar which comes from processed and prepared foods and beverages. The AHA suggests for most women no more than 100 calories per day (about 6 teaspoons or 24 grams of sugar) and for men no more than 150 calories per day (about 9 teaspoons or 36 grams of sugar.)Lnajmi (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2016 == Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015 ==(UTC)

Is it really A.D.?

Looking over History section I can't help but feel that instead of A.D. multiple instances should actually be B.C.E. because it just makes no sense to talk about India and China in 6th century A.D. and then mention Alexander The Great because there's about thousand years between them. And even if A.D. is correct it should probably be changed to C.E. instead.

Niks (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The daters appear to be correct. The section may need some reorganizing if strict chronology is considered more important than following the growth of technology in one location. We have a policy on date formats, WP:ERA. Rmhermen (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviations

Hello. What does it means the abbreviations tr and na in the table of composition of foods, in the file of the yam. I'm traslating part of this article for the Wikipedia in Spanish proyect. Thank you.--CarlosVdeHabsburgo 17:14 9 oct 2015 —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

tr is trace - a very small amount

na is not available Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you again.--CarlosVdeHabsburgo (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

High Fructose Corn Syrup

High Fructose Corn Syrup is a sugar, consisting of glucose and fructose. Why is there no mention of this in the article? Could we at least have a link to the Wikipedia HFCS article? The article is about sugar, not just cane or beet sugar. For example the tonnage of HFCS produced in the USA alone is greater than its tonnage of cane sugar. --MichaelGG (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sugar

Sugar and cocaine have similar effect on the brain. Their brain activity show similarities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieZeila (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sugar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ethnoleaflets.com//leaflets/sugar.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Grammar

"...since most studies do not use a population that do not consume any "free sugars" at all, the baseline is effectively flawed" What the fuck is this? 'Most dogs do not use a tree that do not have any leaves'? Try this: '...since few studies use a population that doesn't consume "free sugars", the baseline is effectively flawed' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:f0c0:6600:b5fd:6dab:a495:de9 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

List of sugars

The article here has two lists, one that is types and one that is forms. I started List of sugars without, for some reason, noticing the lists at this article. My intention was to make a catchall list of sugars that states what each is made of. So, what should be come of List of sugars? Is it useful? And what about {{main}}s here and such? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Content improvement

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.20.85 (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Biological necessity, and actions, of sugars need to be described if this article is to be considered valid science

 Hello, hope I'm doing the right thing here-
 The Wikipedia entry on Sugar is listed as a good article, and is semi-protected; yet there is almost nothing therein which describes the essential role of sugars in biology (as opposed to much of the article's text describing the ill effects of over-consumption in humans).
 Complex life on Earth is dependent on the metabolizing of sugars and this process is much-studied and fairly well understood, but you wouldn't learn that from this article: There isn't even a decent exterior link. 
 Instead, sugar seems to be portrayed in large part as a 'first world' dietary cause of disease- an absurdly limited perspective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.2.160 (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC) 

Etymology

@Zefr: Twice now you have reverted my addition of other language script into the etymology section, despite examples I have given (Macedonia_(terminology)#Etymology, Ginkgo_biloba#Etymology_and_pronunciation) where it is used. Also see, for example, Carbohydrate, which has Ancient Greek script in the lead, specifically: The word saccharide comes from the Greek word σάκχαρον (sákkharon), meaning "sugar". Do you have a policy based reason for removing this? The fact that this is an English encyclopedia makes no difference; the etymology section is about other languages. Laurdecl ^talk 05:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The English pronunciation of the root non-English is fine because it is pronounceable, but the non-English script serves no purpose for the English encyclopedia per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, #s 1 and 3. --Zefr (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the link you gave about not including foreign languages in etymology sections. I've given you three random articles where it is used. What about the carbohydrate article? Laurdecl ^talk 06:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It may be a matter of interpreting the WP guides and policies. In my opinion, there is no gain for the common English-reading user having the Sanskrit, Arabic and/or Greek scripts for the etymology of sugar. Especially for sugar (as opposed to carbohydrate), where three different origins and scripts are provided for a simple word, this seems "dictionary-like" to me, so falls under WP:NOT#DICTIONARY where it states under #3: Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not (desirable). The policy further refers to WP:NOTMANUAL, #s 6-8, where it states: Texts should be written for everyday readers, which by my interpretation means a typical WP English user cannot read and does not have interest in Sanskrit, Arabic or Greek scripts. There is a place for these scripts in the foreign language Wikipedias listed here, but not in the English encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. The etymology section is most useful for those interested in the study of language, not the average user; for them it might be useful to have the untransliterated script, and it doesn't take up much room at all, so there is no loss to having it. It also seems to be the standard in etymology sections, like I've linked above. What if we put the script in brackets, after the transliteration? Laurdecl ^talk 22:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a toss-up. I'll invite Plantsurfer and Anna Frodesiak to weigh in; you could invite two others, so we can settle by committee. --Zefr (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think Zefr's reversions are fully justified. The Sanskrit, Arabic and Greek scripts do not contribute to understanding. The etymology section is already becoming excessive. Let's go through the text. 1) The sentence "The etymology reflects the spread of the commodity." is unsourced and unexplained by what follows, since there is no connection of this statement to any information about the history of the world spread of the use of sugar. 2) How is the clause "as granular or candied sugar, which is cognate with the Greek word, kroke, or "pebble"" relevant to the etymology of the word sugar? It is out of place here. 3) The statement "(the g is unexplained, possibly a Venetian dialect)" is unsourced, arguably WP:OR. 4) The sentence "The contemporary Italian word is zucchero, whereas the Spanish and Portuguese words, azúcar and açúcar, respectively, have kept a trace of the Arabic definite article. The Old French word is zuchre and the contemporary French, sucre. The earliest Greek word attested is σάκχαρις (sákkʰaris)." can probably be removed per WP:NOTDICT. A list of foreign language words for sugar is irrelevant here unless there is a clear clear connection with the use of the word "sugar" in English language. Plantsurfer 00:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest of the section, but what's being discussed is whether to include foreign script. You say it doesn't contribute to understanding, but for people studying etymology and language it might, and it takes up no additional space so there isn't a downside to having it. The norm is to include it, as shown in the examples I've listed. See how Greek script is used in the lead of Carbohydrate, a closed related topic. Laurdecl ^talk 02:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

foreign script? "sákkʰaris" is quite foreign to me, being unreadable (to me) as a guide for pronunciation of a word that... I'm forbidden to see? "σάκχαρις" *is* the word. "sákkʰaris" is one of many possible representations of that word. Without the actual Greek word the pronunciation is useless and misplaced. The same goes for the other pronunciations given instead of those words - they don't actually identify the word.

Objecting to foreign scripts is really disconcerting to me. Only if you would defend renaming the article to 'shughar' could you object to retaining the distinguishing form for specific words. σάκχαρις is the word. Any particular form of pronunciation is 'beeess' in isolation from that. I'm afraid I disagree with Zephyr's first statement above very strongly.

I've read the mentioned WP:NOT#DICTIONARY sections and don't see why they were mentioned. The subject here is 'sugar' and all the what/why/how topics. I can't agree more with "The etymology reflects the spread of the commodity." That topic is quite interesting. Mentioned above is that "the section is too long". Address that then by refining the section to the information behind the introductory topic statement. It does seem to wander a bit a field currently. But that is a separate issue. Shenme (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make. The IPA is not the word. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY could be construed as saying there shouldn't be an etymology section at all, if you wanted it. I can't understand the desire to remove this information, which takes up no room on the page. Laurdecl ^talk 06:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi folks. We're talking about a teensy amount of text, so not a big deal to include. However, It is probably wanted and appreciated by an even teensier percentage of readers. I'd lean toward omitting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

As Shenme says above, the IPA is not actually the word. Even ignoring the fact that it is the norm to include script in etymology sections, there is really no reason to removing this. I'm not sure why Zefr pinged two random editors... Laurdecl ^talk 01:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The highly experienced editors who responded were in the history of editing the article; I requested their thoughts per WP:TEAMWORK. --Zefr (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies; I did not realise they had previously contributed to the article. Laurdecl ^talk 02:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply to my point that script is commonly used in etymology sections and Shenme's view above, nor has there been any example of a con to including this text, I have readded the script. Because the version with the script has been in place for ~11 years (!) without being contested, the burden is on Zefr if they want to change the article – they can try WP:DRN if they like. Laurdecl ^talk 07:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016

<! -- Begin the request --> The American Heart Association recommends daily sugar intake for women is 6 teaspoons for women and 9 teaspoon for men.

Lnajmi (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Or less, preferably; and with a citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, the AHA recommendation is to not exceed those amounts, not to consume those amounts! Secondly, in May 2016 the FDA issue new rulings for labeling added sugars, and to not exceed 50 grams/day, for both men and women. This information has been incorporated into the section on Recommended dietary intakes.David notMD (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sugar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131106015828/http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/docs/ag%26environ/Sugarcane.pdf to http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/environment/docs/ag%26environ/Sugarcane.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150303000000/http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ to http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://westernsugar.com/pdf/Refining%20and%20Processing%20Sugar.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sugar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110910142340/http://www.bihargatha.in/early-agriculture-based-enterprenureships/sugar-concerns to http://www.bihargatha.in/early-agriculture-based-enterprenureships/sugar-concerns
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612120611/http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/sugar/2011/Nov2011sugar.pdf to http://www.fas.usda.gov/htp/sugar/2011/Nov2011sugar.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://jada-plus.com/content/140/suppl_1/25S.full
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.powderandbulk.com/resources/bulk_density/material_bulk_density_chart_s.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Health_effects_of_sugar

Content has been forked to Health effects of sugar by an anonIP. Forking is probably reasonable, but could an interested editor please review/edit appropriately.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sugar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110326144355/http://www.britishsugar.co.uk/Journey-of-Sugar.aspx to http://www.britishsugar.co.uk/Journey-of-Sugar.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071210121837/http://www.aace.com/meetings/consensus/dcc/dc-quiz.php to http://www.aace.com/meetings/consensus/dcc/dc-quiz.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150308144358/http://jada-plus.com/content/140/suppl_1/25S.full to http://jada-plus.com/content/140/suppl_1/25S.full

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Blood glucose levels needs more content

This section should cover fasting glucose, response to a glucose tolerance test, hemoglobin A1C, diabetes, etc... all with appropriate links David notMD (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Slavery>

Sugar, refined sugar, was used in history to keep slaves addicted and inline, with assurance that they would die young of diabetes or any other refined sugar induced momentary energy, fast depletion disease.

Anyone here has a good article reference on this, the lot of the tropics having had a fast number of ' slaves ' and there being such a large continued interest in continuing to promote enslavement processes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.91.51.205 (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Molasses (partially processed sugar cane) and sugar were cash crops, too valuable to feed to slaves. From one source: "The plantation owners provided their enslaved Africans with weekly rations of salt herrings or mackerel, sweet potatoes, and corn." Slaves were also allowed their own garden plots. Type 2 diabetes is a disease of age and obesity. The idea of avoiding too much sugar as a means of slowing the progression of diabetes did not become known until well after the slave era was over. Same would apply to the reverse of deliberately feeding slaves sugar so they would die young. Keep in mind that diabetes is a slow disease, so a slave's capacity for labor would diminish long before death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ancient and Medieval Times - History section

  I plan to add information about sugar's role in the beginning of religious communities like Buddhist and Islamic, and its symbolism. Also, I plan to add more about the transition sugar made from being healthy to unhealthy into the Renaissance. I will also investigate whether or not the information and sources that are on the page are valid.

Initial bibliography:

Rachel Laudan's article: "The Birth of the Modern Diet"

Sydney Mintz "Sweetness and Power"

"Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction to knowledge and Practice." Nancy G. Siraisi

Scully, Art of Cookery in the Middle Ages

Rüdiger Schmitt, "Cooking in Ancient Iran" www.iranicaonline.org

Wilkins et al., Food in Antiquity

Mazumadar, Sugar and Society in China

Sabban, "sucre candi" "industrie sucrière" and "savoir-faire oublié"

Kieschnick, Impact of Buddhism

Daniels and Daniels, "Origin of the Sugarcane Roller Mill"

Dunn, Sugar and Slaves

Achaya, Indian Food — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolevlad (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

HFCS redux

Just reviving the note above, here Talk:Sugar#High_Fructose_Corn_Syrup. If we are getting into health effects of sugars, we have to include HFCS, no? Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC):The WHO source defines "sugars" as “Free sugars include monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods and beverages by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates" (very bottom of page 1). Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should include high fructose corn syrup. There is currently one mention of corn syrup, under "Types#Fructose", and general statements about syrups elsewhere, as under "Forms and uses". Corn syrup is not a well-known foodstuff in much of the world outside the US (sorry, I have no idea if you know this). My proposed section briefly describes a deeply depressing squabble between the makers of corn sugar syrup and granulated sugar, where they both put out stacks of material on the unhealthiness of one another's products. I don't know if this will make good sourcing easier or harder. On your third sentence, I think it would be a good idea to have a discussion of what "free sugars" includes a bit earlier in the article. HLHJ (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

As a result of this discussion I've added a note explaining what corn syrup is to the proposed section text above. HLHJ (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

That is a start but doesn't come close to adding it throughout. Still not mentioned in the commercial forms nor in the health section; a bunch of the concern about "sugar" and obesity is HFCS especially in beverages. Am not fully sure we should do all that and am interested in what others have to say. But I think we should weave it in more. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• 
  Converting glucose to fructose makes maize syrup sweeter
• 
  ...so it has become more popular in the US, at the expense of sucrose.

I think the ==Forms and uses== section needs subcategorizing; adding information on maize syrups there also seems like a good idea.

I've tried researching the fructose health information a bit. There is no shortage of not very independent sources, even in the peer-reviewed literature, which will make researching this tedious. The COIS are also frankly confusing; plain corn syrup is ~all glucose, HFCS is often slightly less than 50% glucose, although it can be other proportions, and so is similar to invert sugar (hydrolyzed sucrose syrup). HFCS sells better than plain corn syrup, as it provides more sweetness at less cost. So who benefits if fructose is avoided by consumers? Sucrose or maize syrup makers?

If the HFCS is ~50:50 fructose:glucose, this change seems unlikely to have much effect on the monosaccarides consumed. The existence of invert sugar suggests that sucrose might not entirely hydrolyse in baked goods, though, and actual analysis of soft drinks and juices (with no COI statement, which makes me reluctant to use it) shows rather weak differences in the sugar compositions of HFCS-sweetened/sucrose-sweetened samples of pop.

I might, with a great deal more work, be able to give a balanced account of the evidence here. Or you might. While I agree it needs doing, I'd like to finish off the proposed edits on COI I've already written first, and then I'd like to fix the problems I know about in the existing health section. I haven't actually edited the article except to tag unreliable sources since you templated me for edit-warring, and I'd like to resolve that conflict. HLHJ (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Industry funding edit, 5 Sep 18

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Removed from the article to here for further discussion and evaluation per WP:NPOV. This section shows anti-industry bias which derives from opinion editorials and related publications which do not prove that industry and researchers funded through industrial grants tried to influence research outcomes and public policy. What direct evidence is there that actual influence occurred? --Zefr (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sugar refiners and manufacturers of sugary foods and drinks have sought to influence medical research and public health recommendations, with substantial spending documented from the 1960s to 2016. The results of research on the health effects of sugary food and drink differ significantly, depending on whether the researcher has financial ties to the food and drink industry. A 2013 medical review concluded that "unhealthy commodity industries should have no role in the formation of national or international NCD [non-communicable disease] policy". There have been similar efforts to steer coverage of sugar-related health information in popular media, including news media and social media.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Funding of health research

Hello, again, Zefr. Could you please specify exactly what portions of the edit you reverted were original research? I took care to cite reliable sources. The WP:BLOGS policy allows use of an investigative journalist's professional blog if they are published by a reputable third party (such as the New York Times) and acknowledged as an expert in the field; the use of the term "blog" by some newspapers can be misleading. While some of the sources are not medical sources, I was also careful not to make medical claims. Statements about funding, lobbying, and political influence may be supported with non-medref sources, such as reputable newspapers; indeed, they should be. I will re-instate the section with additional attempts to make the language neutral, and the information well-cited. Please raise any objections here, and I will do my best to address them. HLHJ (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Zefr. I'm sorry my revisions didn't sastify you. Could you please explain why? Your first revert summary was:

• Editorializing and WP:OR; sources are not WP:MEDRS

Your second one, after I posted the paragraph above, was:

• WP:BRD; Talk page discussion is open; excessive editorializing and opinion, non-WP:MEDRS sources.

Could you please explain what parts you think are editorializing and what statements you think I need MEDRES sources for? WP:Biomedical information explicitly says that "Other information about research, such as funding information, is not biomedical." it also says that "Discussions about the ethics of a treatment, publication, set of rules or practices, or the handling of an event do not constitute biomedical information". WP:MEDRES only applies to WP:Biomedical information. HLHJ (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC) (comment replaced by HLHJ)

The current explanation and 2017 Kearns/JAMA source in the section, Society and culture, covers everything your 5600-character editorial added; see WP:BECONCISE. Concerning the Kearns/JAMA article, key points are 1) while a historical review, it is itself an op-ed, and 2) it acknowledges there are no high-quality clinical trials - no systematic reviews or meta-analyses - establishing a causal link between sugar consumption and disease, i.e., fails WP:MEDRS and so is WP:OFFTOPIC. --Zefr (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't delete my talk page posts, Zefr, as per WP:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments.

If you'd like conciseness I could move the section to a separate article. However, the current explanation gives the misleading impression that sugar industry funding for health research is a problem that ended in the 1970s. The section should contain something like my lede: "There is extensive evidence that sellers of some sugary products have sought to influence the medical evidence base on sugar, and public health recommendations based on it. According to industry documents, this was done to increase per-capita sugar consumption. There is also evidence that some of the same companies are still engaging in similar funding activities.", followed by refs. While I'm sure my phrasing should be improved, I think the section should include, as a minimum, these pieces of information:

• There's good evidence
• such practices are widespread
• and recent to continuing

For instance, the article contains the statement "From systematic reviews published in 2016, there is no evidence that sugar intake at normal levels increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Controlled trials showed that overconsumption of sugar-sweetened beverages increases body weight and body fat,". "From systematic reviews published in 2016, there is no evidence that sugar intake at normal levels increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases."[messed up attempt to insert full ref] Both those refs are from a "supplement sponsored by Rippe Health". I'm not sure what that means, I'll look into it. Rippe Health is in turn sponsored by producers of sugary foods, among others, like the Corn Refiners Association (sic). Systemic bias is clearly a major issue here.

To address your other points:

1) Why do you believe the Kearns/JAMA article to be an op-ed?

2) Why do you think that the section gives WP:Biomedical information and thus requires WP:MEDRES? What specific statements are biomedical information?

Finally, there is strong evidence of a causal link between sugar consumption and tooth disease, as the WHO review is quoted as saying in the article. You are right that there is not strong evidence on sugar causing cardiovascular disease. A Cochrane review found insufficient evidence to make any recommendations about low-glycemic index diets, because all the evidence was poor-quality. It is worrying that the evidence is so poor; we should know by now.

References

HLHJ (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC) (edited to fix ref formatting by HLHJ)

Your proposed edits don't improve the article beyond what is stated in the section, Society and culture. You will need other editors to consent to such changes, WP:NOCON. Your time would be well-spent for users of the article if you were to complete the bare references you added to the Market section using the appropriate template from the RefToolbar. --Zefr (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Zefr. I'm sorry, I still don't understand why you think the three pieces of information I listed don't improve the article. Could you please give me some specific things to improve? I'd like to discuss the specifics of what you are objecting to. I'm sorry that you find my bare URLs annoying, but I'd rather WP:REFILL after we've settled on content. HLHJ (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Zefr. Could you look at User:HLHJ/sandbox/Sugar industry funding and health information (which I have added to) and raise any specific objections, please? If you have none, I will post the modified version. HLHJ (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that Zefr made some comments at that page. I've looked at it. Please a) anchor it in time. There are issues with WP:RELTIME throughout (there is no '"still... today" in Wikipedia, as articles have no datelines - see especially the first paragraph and the last sentence); b) please get rid of stuff like " 2015, the New York Times reported ...". The New York Times doesn't report things - specific reporters or articles report things. In general I think it is excessively detailed about specifics of who received money. I do think the current Society and culture section could do with expansion and if you were to tighten this up it could serve that purpose. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Copied from here to make it obvious what I'm responding to:

This reads like a soapbox editorial; WP:SOAP. It combines several news articles on the same topic as "extensive evidence", discusses the sugar-caries issue already represented in the article, elaborates on Coca-Cola which sells Coke, not sugar, alleges links of research outcomes to sugar industry financing (unconvincing), and doesn't educate us about sugar in society beyond the present concise statement. If you can add one sentence supported by a strong source to the present article content, I and perhaps other editors may agree to it. But the mess above is not worth further time, so I am finished in dealing with this. Zefr (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Zefr, I didn't see that you'd responded here and thought that you hadn't responded. If you ping me next time I'll try to get back faster. I'll work on addressing your concerns tomorrow. I was not intending this to be a general statement on sugar in society; that's why I changed the section title. Thank you for you patience. HLHJ (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I've had another go] at a "Sugar industry funding and health information" section. I have:

1. removed the words "extensive evidence" and written an new section lede.
2. added references for the links of research outcomes to sugar industry funding; I didn't search exhaustively, there may be more or better sources.
3. generalized to make it clear that both refiners and manufacturers of sugary food and drink are lumped together under "sugar industry".
4. left the content on caries, because I'm dealing with lobbying and influence around caries research in this section, while the other section discusses the effects of sugar on caries, and I think the separation is a good content structure. Should I state what caries is, perhaps with a wl?
5. anchored it in time, hopefully completely
6. fixed in-text attributions ("2015, the New York Times reported...")
7. I've removed most of the details on who got what money, and delistified it.
8. I've removed all reference to the actual scientific conclusions in dispute, but I'm not sure if that's a good idea or not, so I've just commented them out for now.

I hope that you will find it at least somewhat improved, Zefr, Jytdog, and will tell me how I could improved it further.

HLHJ (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Further edit, better in-text attributions, sources. HLHJ (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Statements like the very first sentence "Sugar refiners and manufacturers of sugary foods and drinks have spent millions to influence medical research and public health recommendations" are not not anchored in time. This is also ridiculously overcited, and the citations are a bunch of bareURLs, which makes it a ton of more work to even review this (generally the first thing I do is look at sources). There is a tool that autoformats citations (it requires a little additional filling in, but is very fast!) See User:Jytdog/How#Formatting_citations. This is going to take a bunch of time to review. I will try to look at it over the weekend. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, Jytdog, I've revised again. I've changed the first sentence and anchored it. I will have a go at fixing the citations, I agree that it's ridiculously overcited and hard to read or edit. Let me know if there is anything else that would make it easier for you. HLHJ (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Bare urls gone. The text is still rather illegible in the markup editor. I think some of the refs need removing; not all the media reports are necessary or very well-written. The fact that it cites both the Guardian and Fox News is interesting (although the latter seems to be a Reuters newswire). HLHJ (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Uodate, I've cut back somewhat on the refs and somewhat more on the citations (fewer repeat citations). Zefr, could you please let me know if you think that there is anything that is inadequately cited? HLHJ (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

One more update, cleaning up the source and segregating out all of the citations. I did decide to remove most reference to the actual scientific conclusions in dispute; I think it's clear as it is, though I'm open to correction. I doubt I'll make further changes without feedback. HLHJ (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, one more update. Fewer refs, some rewrite. HLHJ (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[edit: updated URL due to a formatting error]

Zefr, it is obvious that Jytdog is busy. Can we try once more to resolve this between us? Are you happy with the text now, or are there specific changes you'd like to see? HLHJ (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following text as a replacement for the existing "Society and culture" section, and invite comments on it. I would especially welcome comments on WP:OR, WP:MEDRS, editorializing, being opinion, WP:SOAP, containing insufficiently extensive evidence for the generalizations it makes, and WP:NPOV.

Notifying Zefr, Jytdog. HLHJ (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Zefr, Jytdog. I'd like to get this settled. Please let me know of any problems you have with my including this text. If no-one except me cares, I'd feel a bit silly doing anything elaborate like an RFC, so if I don't hear anything I will just make the edit. I've pinged you, but if you first noticed this comment after I've inserted the content, feel free to revert it and discuss your reasons here. HLHJ (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The section on Society and culture adequately covers this issue, and in my opinion, does not warrant the verbose, heavy anti-sugar bias presented in your draft below. No other editors have edited this section, so by WP:CON, there is no justification for this entry. --Zefr (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding, Zefr! I've worked to write WP:neutrally, and I think the section primarily reflects anti-misinformation sources, not anti-sugar ones; I can imagine similar sources about any industry that behaved similarly. While I've tried to be objective, portraying misinformation campaigns relating to public health information in a positive light would be WP:UNDUE, given the balance of sources. If you find good sources with a different perspective, please let me know, and I will reassess. Any other advice on bias is also welcome.

I don't think the existing "Society and culture" section adequately covers the topic. It reads, in its entirety:

Manufacturers of sugary products, such as soft drinks and candy, and the Sugar Research Foundation have been accused of trying to influence consumers and medical associations in the 1960s and 1970s by creating doubt about the potential health hazards of sucrose overconsumption, while promoting saturated fat as the main dietary risk factor in cardiovascular diseases.[1] In 2016, the criticism led to recommendations that diet policymakers emphasize the need for high-quality research that accounts for multiple biomarkers on development of cardiovascular diseases.[1]

The first sentence is awkward and I can't figure out what the second sentence means. The current section does not reflect the range of information available. The proposed section is long, but a condensed version would not look like the current section. There clearly is editor interest in conflicts of interest, and I had no difficulty finding sources. I can't agree that there is no justification for editing something unless someone else has edited it. If you would like consensus, I will start an RfC; please let me know if you have any other concerns. HLHJ (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

When I was checking if you'd been around to see this post, I noticed that your user page identifies you as a PhD in physiology, a scientist, and an author of peer-reviewed articles. I'd tend to assume from this that you are, or have been, a physiology researcher. I have read the views of academics who feel that concerns around conflicts of interest in academic publishing are overblown, but I've never actually had a discussion about it with one. Especially in medicine, all the academics and students I've met seem to be really concerned about the issue. This probably reflects some selection bias; I've been around university academics and students, who are not necessarily dependent on industry funding, not private-sector researchers. I would be especially interested in discussing your views with you if they are atypical of the views I have been in contact with. I'm interested in editing in this area, which I think is important to Wikipedia, and a broader view would definitely help my editing (and the editing of anyone reading our discussion). I'm not quite sure where would be best for posting such a discussion, but please let me know if you'd be willing. HLHJ (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

On my talk page, you said: "this is just to let you know that I've left a message for you at Talk:Sugar#Funding of health research. Thanks!" I read your comments, but have to say I feel the issue is settled for now. I don't want to be involved in a discussion other than improving the article according to editor consensus. --Zefr (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

(text above quoted from talk) Hi, Zefr. I'm sorry to hear that, but of course your time is yours. I'm afraid I'm not satisfied that this issue is settled, either in the world of medical research or the content of this article. I have made a couple of minor modifications to my proposed text. Before actually starting an RfC, I've asked for views at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Conflicts of interest in health information on sugar. Hopefully this will suffice to resolve the matter, and the RfC will be unnecessary. HLHJ (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Zefr. I got comments from WhatamIdoing and Krb19 there; in summary, there should not be a "Society and Culture" section, there should be a summary of this information in the article, with a link to the full information elsewhere. For previous comments, I think Jytdog also favours a summary, and you might be willing to accept one. I am therefore writinig one in, following best practice by placing COI information before the main information. If you feel it needs broader consensus, feel free to seek one, and tell me about it here. HLHJ (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Funding of health research (Industry funding edit, 5 Sep 18)

Moved quote here, archiving original post at Talk:Sugar#Industry funding edit, 5 Sep 18 to avoid WP:discussion fork, but retained heading as a subheading as this discussion (beginning at Talk:Sugar#Funding of health research) is getting pretty long.

Removed from the article to here for further discussion and evaluation per WP:NPOV. This section shows anti-industry bias which derives from opinion editorials and related publications which do not prove that industry and researchers funded through industrial grants tried to influence research outcomes and public policy. What direct evidence is there that actual influence occurred? --Zefr (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sugar refiners and manufacturers of sugary foods and drinks have sought to influence medical research and public health recommendations, with substantial spending documented from the 1960s to 2016. The results of research on the health effects of sugary food and drink differ significantly, depending on whether the researcher has financial ties to the food and drink industry. A 2013 medical review concluded that "unhealthy commodity industries should have no role in the formation of national or international NCD [non-communicable disease] policy". There have been similar efforts to steer coverage of sugar-related health information in popular media, including news media and social media.

Hi, Zefr. The evidence of attempted influence seems pretty strong. It's mostly internal documents, dug out of archives or released in court, plus charitable, corporate, and lobbying spending databases, and asking-awkward-questions investigative journalism. All this has been pored over and written up by journalists and academic researchers.

The evidence of actual influence is also pretty strong, but not required to make this notable. Spending tens of millions on a completely failed effort, sustained over many decades despite it having no effect, would actually be even more worthy of note.

The medical-journal sources provide evidence of actual influence, including evidence of funding bias. They also make statements about it, like "Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD [coronary heart disease]" and "Research that could have been harmful to sugar industry interests was omitted from priorities".

Ref 1 is a "viewpoint" article, in the JAMA's terminology not an editorial (this issue contains 23 Viewpoints, reviewing different topics). The associated editorial is here, and not cited. 2 is "commentary", as the title says, and 5 is called an "editorial", but recites publicly-available and personally-experienced data on funding of conferences, and neither might meet the definition of "editorial" in WP:NEWSORG. I don't think the remaining sources give any grounds for calling them opinion, or editorials. We could leave out sources 1,2, and 5 and still support all the statements, but I'm not convinced we should. If sources 2 and five were removed, would you be OK with putting this up?

While I agree that this information does not make the industry look good, I think the text is neutral and reflects the balance of sources. If you have statements and sources making the case for this sort of clandestine behaviour (details below and at Sugar marketing#Influence on health information and guidelines), could you please give them? HLHJ (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing you say above expands usefully beyond what we already state. --Zefr (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still disagree. The existing section gives the impression that the issue is limited to the 1960s and 1970s. It does not mention the good evidence of funding bias in this field. It makes a rather incomprehensible statement about biomarkers rather than a clear statement about academic response to this bias. Actually, I think we should add the information that this was done clandestinely to this edit, as that is also an important factor, and I stupidly left it out. Your comment is similar to the ones you made at the end of March, at which time I thought I addressed these issues. Do you see any prospect for us reaching an agreement on this edit? HLHJ (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Take a break and let other editors comment, if there's anything further to say. --Zefr (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This disagreement has been dragging on since March, and will soon be half a year old. I don't think it will be improved by drifting further. I have gathered comments from other editors, as mentioned above, and I'd agree that discussion of the substance of our disagreement seems not to be working. I can't see an alternative to starting an RfC. HLHJ (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)