High Fructose Corn Syrup and Mercury

Discussion in 'The Watercooler' started by artana, Feb 9, 2009.

  1. artana

    artana New Member

  2. eekysign

    eekysign New Member

    Don't worry too much. IATP, the group that performed both studies, is pretty close to "crackpot hippie". And I say this as a near-crackpot-hippie-type myself. But I get really unhappy with activist groups waving poorly-designed study data around to get media attention. The second study isn't even peer-reviewed (the gold standard of an ATTEMPT at legitimacy).

    So yeah, quit worrying----this isn't even close to a legitimate organization. :)

    EDIT: Ugh, just read the full text of the "study", now I'm spittin' mad. Those "scientists", and I use that term loosely, should be ashamed of themselves. They fully admit their sample size was "poor", then whine that it's because they couldn't get enough funding, so it's not their fault. THEN they start whining that the companies they are trying to criticize were not being forthcoming with samples of their product for them to test. Oh yes. And WHY, praytell, should some manufacturer give you samples? The rest of the article goes on to say that "mercury MAY be a problem and COULD cause issues, and so the gov't should investigate this". In 11 of the 20 samples, they didn't even FIND mercury, and their "significant levels" from the other 9 are all ONLY significant in the sense that they EXISTED---not that they were over a "safe level".

    Better, the list of glorious research institutions of the authors included a community college in North Dakota, a government research facility dealing with HONEYBEES, the organization that created the study in the first place, and the "Alternate Medicine Review", among others. GEH. GARGHGHGH. This makes me NUTS.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2009
  3. skeeter

    skeeter New Member

    following up on eekysign's post, I, too, looked up the study.

    "After digestion, samples underwent total mercury analysis using Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence(CVAF). The detection limits varied for different laboratory 'runs' of the food products, dependingon the characteristics of the food item (e.g., carbonation, viscosity, etc.), and the preparation and dilution needed."

    Ah - the table of findings lists anywhere from 30 to 100 ppt "detection limit", which makes no sense to me. If you are doing good analytical science, your detection limit should be a constant.

    What really gets me is the "depending on the characteristics of the food item". It's acid digested - there is not "characteristic" left at that point.

    I did atomic absorption work many years ago, and while I'm sure the limits of detection have changed, the methods for acid digestion haven't.

    This doesn't seem like very good "science" to me.
  4. artana

    artana New Member

    Thanks you guys. I'm usually much more critical, but I saw it on the Washington Post and the groups sounded like official government groups so I posted it. Sorry.
  5. skeeter

    skeeter New Member

    Artana - no apology necessary. I really, really hate that "main stream" media picks up "scientific" publications, without really researching what is being written about.

    I've done research that's been published - and it drives me nuts to see credit given to bad research, or insubstantial findings. Just from a quick reading of the methodology - I'd have been fired for doing such shoddy lab work (I worked in an analytical lab in food for 18 years).