# Mercury in HFCS: Thank You Dr. Lu.



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

With the controversy surrounding the Harvard School of Public Health study, I checked to see if any other work had been done regarding HFCS contamination.

Sure enough, it had:

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/2 

I'm surprised that the 'expert reviewers' didn't mention this study. It supports Dr. Lu's claim for HFCS contamination. While Manufacturer A may be filtering out contaminants, Manufacturers B and C obviously aren't. Since mercury is showing up as a contaminant in HFCS, it isn't too far fetched to say that other contaminants, like pesticides, aren't being filtered out either. Filtering technology that filters out heavy metals, like mercury, generally filter out pesticides as well.

This page gives a clear description of how mercury in HFCS can harm humans. You need to extrapolate a bit to understand how it can harm bees.

http://www.sailhome.org/Concerns/BodyBurden/Sources3/CornSyrup.html

Perhaps we're looking all looking for the wrong contaminant?

I also found a statement in this study, 

http://pedrotierra.com/system/files/files/Tennekes 2011 2161-0525-S4-001.pdf,

interesting since it helps to explain the effects of low doses of neonics and metals:

"The median times to 50% mortality (t50) decreased with increasing
concentrations of metals, as seen with carcinogens and neonicotinoids,..."

The following Polish study helps to establish a baseline Hg level in pollen. The levels near the military base begin the approach the higher levels found in HFCS, but don't surpass them.

http://6csnfn.pjoes.com/pdf/18.2/265-272.pdf

I also found a paper reporting that GSTs in Honeybees actively detoxify Hg.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22248933


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

It gets scary when you start digging around and find what is actually found in our food supply. And then top it off with no concerns from the bureaucrats whose job it is to protect us.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

Dr Lu's control hives were also fed hfcs. If lead in the hfcs were a factor, it would have affected the controls equally. The ammounts found were generally small, and even the anti hfcs lobby doesn't use this argument anymore. ..old news.

Deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Dean:

I'm more concerned about Hg in anything that I eat, than I am about which brand of HFCS was used in the current study (mercury or lead free).

Don't ignore Lu's all important hypothesis that a contaminant (imidacloprid in his study) in HFCS around the time of the first occurrences of CCD was responsible. It appears that HFCS did, at least, have high mercury levels. I don't know about pesticide levels in HFCS from that time, but it seems alot more plausible now.

The 2009 study found levels of mercury that were so high in some of the samples, that a child eating an average diet containing HFCS would be exposed to 9X the EPA limit for mercury.

What would it do to the Honeybee?

The GST reference suggests that GST detoxifies mercury.

A new hypothesis might be: Mercury potentiates Nosema/imidacloprid fatalities in Honeybees by inhibiting GST.

The Lu hypothesis does seem alot more plausible to me today, than it did yesterday. However, Lu was no help at all.


----------



## Scrapfe (Jul 25, 2008)

http://www.sweetsurprise.com/news-a...Mercury Myth&gclid=CP3ViLbhra8CFcyP7QodfEECqA

Then explain this if you can, but don’t ignore this NEWS from Duke University.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Let me post his first:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0021550

There is a link between Nosema infection, GST activity, neonicotinoids, and Honeybee health.

A bit more complicated than I would like, but interesting nevertheless.

Let me read the Duke study now.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"The response by Dufault et al to Stopford's statement regarding the industry-funded lab testing can be found at":

http://www.iatp.org/documents/response-to-corn-refiners-association-paper-on-hfcs-and-mercury

Oh great, not only is this like playing ping-pong, but now I get to read a response to a response.

This reminds me of Jerry and that Foster fella.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Stopford was paid by the CRA to do the study, and they didn't use the same samples collected by the FDA investigators.

Read the Dufault response in the link, and it'll explain everything.

The study still stands.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

WLC said:


> What would it do to the Honeybee?


Forget the honeybee when you have a child stricken with cancer you smarten up real quick.

Likewise it is not the adult bee you should be concerned with. It is the developing brood that you should be concerned with. You, me, we, assume that if it makes it to adulthood it is healthy. That is a fools assumption.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

WLC said:


> Don't ignore Lu's all important hypothesis that a contaminant (imidacloprid in his study) in HFCS around the time of the first occurrences of CCD was responsible.


Bayer has already explained that only 1/2 of 1% of the corn crop was ever treated with imidacloprid. And that imidacloprid residues have never been detected in HFCS. If I was Bayer, I'd be considering a lawsuit against Lu and Harvard for negligence and slander.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

BlueDiamond said:


> Bayer has already explained that only 1/2 of 1% of the corn crop was ever treated with imidacloprid.


Could you provide a link to support the above statement, please?


----------



## Barry Digman (May 21, 2003)

I'm not sure the 1/2 of 1% is accurate. 




> Virtually all corn seed is treated with Cruiser and Poncho, as well as most soybeans, canola, sorghum, cotton, wheat and other seeds.
> 
> http://www.agriview.com/news/crop/s...cle_42e552b2-4dbb-11e1-b6c7-0019bb2963f4.html


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

Barry Digman said:


> I'm not sure the 1/2 of 1% is accurate. Virtually all corn seed is treated with Cruiser and Poncho, as well as most soybeans, canola, sorghum, cotton, wheat and other seeds. http://www.agriview.com/news/crop/se...9bb2963f4.html


Barry, that very same article said Cruiser = thiamethoxam and Poncho = clothianidin. So neither Cruiser nor Poncho = imidacloprid. 

Bayer says: http://tinyurl.com/7e6pafd 

"over the past 8 years, the annual percentage of total corn acres in the U.S. treated with imidacloprid has been less than half a percent."


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

BlueDiamond:

The mercury that made it's way into HFCS in the above study reportedly came from contaminated caustic soda and hydrochloric acid. I haven't seen any data on pesticide levels in HFCS from any time.

I would assume that they've changed suppliers and are filtering out any contaminants nowadays. But, we don't have any current, publicly available data.

That's the issue.

That being said, Lu didn't have any data from past HFCS samples to speak of.

It was a research hypothesis based on no exisitng evidence for imidacloprid in HFCS.

It was just a hypothesis, but any anti-neonic study is sure to be a big hit in Europe where it will be published.

Conversely, I think the Dufault study was well done, and hard hitting. It was done here with FDA field investigators and U.S. scientists. The chain of evidence was superb. But, I never heard about it till recently.

Funny how that works.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

WLC said:


> It was a research hypothesis based on no exisitng evidence for imidacloprid in HFCS.
> It was just a hypothesis.


But before formulating such a hypothesis, can there be a legitimate excuse for an associate level university professor to fail to check:

1) whether or not the majority of corn grown in the United States has been treated with imidacloprid?
2) whether or not the majority of HFCS purchased by beekeepers contains detectable amounts of imidacloprid?

Corn syrup manufacturers such as ADM and Cargill might have grounds to sue Dr. Lu and Harvard for negligence and product slander.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

There's no legitimate excuse for the kind of science that Lu is doing.

It's more show business than science.

Get headlines, get funding., rinse, repeat.

Dr. Lu didn't invent this model that has been used over and over again in Honeybee research since the time of CCD. They didn't find the cause/cure either. Better experiments; same results.

"More studies are needed..."

I'm not sure on what grounds Bayer, Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, the CRA, etc. would sue.

It's completely hypothetical.

However, we're all starting to wonder why there's no information on HFCS testing.

The law doesn't require it.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

WLC said:


> However, we're all starting to wonder why there's no information on HFCS testing.
> The law doesn't require it.


For decades the big food manufacturers like Cargill, ADM, etc. have done their own in house pesticide residue testing on their finished product (or they sub it out). They know their products (e.g. HFCS) will test out clean if anyone checks them.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

What about HMF or alpha dicarbonyl compounds?

It's not just the pesticides and heavy metals that someone feeding HFCS to their bees would be interested in, it's by products as well.

I've only posted the most 'offensive' study on contaminants in HFCS.

I've also found studies showing the above by products.

What perplexs me is that some beekeepers feed this stuff to their bees by the ton, but they don't have some very basic product information at their disposal.

I can't explain it.


----------



## psfred (Jul 16, 2011)

Transfer from the plant into the corn seed and hence into the HFCS isn't the only way the syrup could be contaminated.

You'd be amazed at the things people can do, like manage to screw a right hand thread hose onto a left hand, wrong sized nipple well enough to put a tanker load of sanitizer into the milk tank at the infant formula factory.

Biggest problem with HFCS as bee feed is that there isn't much research on what it does or what might be in it that doesn't harm people but wipes out bees. We don't eat anywhere near as much as bees do on a body weight basis.

I'd not bet that any particular tank car load of syrup was fully tested, either -- may or may not be, depends on the size of the batch they make, and what was in that tank car before and who cleaned it out.

Peter


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

psfred said:


> Transfer from the plant into the corn seed and hence into the HFCS isn't the only way the syrup could be contaminated.
> 
> You'd be amazed at the things people can do, like manage to screw a right hand thread hose onto a left hand, wrong sized nipple well enough to put a tanker load of sanitizer into the milk tank at the infant formula factory.
> 
> ...


......as if some organic product couldnt be mishandled as well. I find it utterly amazing how these arguments can evolve based on nothing more than pure speculation. HFCS is testing clean folks, why can't we work off of that fact instead of substituting "theory Du jour". I also think it is noteworthy that HFCS has been a staple feed in the bee industry for over 30 years now, it's not like something experimental just now coming into use.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"HFCS is testing clean folks..."

The Dufault paper found mercury levels as high as 570ppb. That's enough for a child eating a regular diet to get 9X the EPA limit.

No, Jim. It hasn't tested 'clean'.

That mercury find is very disturbing, and not only lends support to Lu's original hypothesis, but it also raises questions about what else is contaminating HFCS.

Are you saying that we should trust the CRA?

In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust, but verify."

Honeybees will mobilize the same substances, GSTs, against mercury as they do against Nosema.

They fight it like it's a disease.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Folks Randy Oliver is advertising if you have HFCS you want tested for heavy metals and pesticides send him a sample. He will fund the analysis of the sample and report back what is found in the HFCS besides HFCS.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

How many years did they put lead in paint, gasoline? How many years did we pump toxins in the air and water ways? How many years did we use asbestos in home products, brake linings in automobiles? What is your point? If you do it long enough it is safe?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Of course those products were known to contain lead. No, lead is never safe, but lets just not make assumptions without data.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

Even in science assumptions are made and then the data is collected to prove an assumption. If you don't make any assumptions it is doubtful you will ever find out anything. Science is all about questioning.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

It's a good thing that Randy is willing to take a closer look.

Otherwise, we would have to rely on Dr. Lu!


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

It is good. it looks like this study was done close to a decade ago now. How do we know if the current manufacturering processes are the same or are different. It is also good that someone in the bee industry take a closer look at sampling. He is asking for samples from all over the country and any age of syrup. It could be syrup you just bought in the form of KARO corn syrup or it could be syrup Mendes bought 10 years ago for his bees.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"The EHO working under the Office of the FDA Commissioner instructed an investigator in a FDA regional office to collect HFCS samples from different manufacturers. During the week of February 17–24, 2005, the FDA field investigator successfully conducted three separate sampling events, one at each manufacturer."

That would be over 7 years ago. Just ahead of the first major reports of CCD here in the U.S. .

Colony losses are around 30% a year. (all losses).

Pollinators may be losing as much as 70% (unconfirmed). They rely on HFCS to feed bees.


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

WLC said:


> Are you saying that we should trust the CRA?


Yes, ADM, Cargill, etc test their own finished food products in house for legal liability protection reasons; i.e. to make sure the purchasers of their products will not find contamination if they conduct their own testing. Thus, Randy Oliver will find no contamination.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

That wasn't the case in 2005.

The CRAs response to the study was to hire Dr. Stopford at Duke to do a study to refute the Dufault study.

Dufault's response to the Duke study shot down the Duke study as being done without peer review by a single investigator (and other stuff as well).

That's not an good indicator that things have changed.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

BMAC said:


> It could be syrup you just bought in the form of KARO corn syrup or it could be syrup Mendes bought 10 years ago for his bees.


According to _Karo,_ there is *no HFCS* in Karo Corn Syrup.

Source: http://www.karosyrup.com/faq.html



> When Karo was first introduced in 1902, it contained 0 grams of high fructose corn syrup. Like the original, all Karo Corn Syrup products used in baking that you can purchase today contain 0 grams of high fructose corn syrup. Karo will never add high fructose corn syrup to current consumer products or introduce new corn syrup products containing high fructose corn syrup.


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> According to _Karo,_ there is *no HFCS* in Karo Corn Syrup.


This is a perfect reason why assumptions = bad science. I assumed all corn syrup is HFCS. 




WLC said:


> That would be over 7 years ago. Just ahead of the first major reports of CCD here in the U.S. .
> Colony losses are around 30% a year. (all losses).
> Pollinators may be losing as much as 70% (unconfirmed). They rely on HFCS to feed bees.


It appears WLC is trying to make a correlation between mercury found in HFCS and CCD. However the assumption is 70% loss by pollinators. The other assumption is all pollinators use HFCS or is the assumption that all beekeepers who experience CCD use HFCS? 

Is the statements good science?


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

WLC said:


> That wasn't the case in 2005. The CRAs response to the study was to hire Dr. Stopford at Duke to do a study to refute the Dufault study.


The Dufault study was seriously flawed: http://www.sweetsurprise.com/news-and-press/press-releases/hfcs-mercury-study-flawed
just like the recent Lu study was that unjustly assumed HFCS was contaminated with imidacloprid. 

Bottom line is HFCS is tested all the time by both the manufacturers and big volume purchasers (especially purchasers in other countries like Japan, the UK etc). Therefore the chances that Randy Oliver's testing would reveal contaminants are near zero.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

...the early CCD surveys looked carefully for all kinds of correlations...feeding HFCS was right up at the top of the list. No correlation was found.

The mercury issue in HFCS is old news. There is also lead found in every tested sample of propolis that I am aware of (the folks that process propolis for human use test routinely....which is why all mass marketed forms of propolis are propolis exctract (disolved in alcohol) and heaily filtered....dirt, wax, and lead are removed in processing. ...better take all the propolis away from the bees so they don't hurt themselves.

deknow

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"the early CCD surveys looked carefully for all kinds of correlations...feeding HFCS was right up at the top of the list. No correlation was found."

I would be more concerned with overall colony losses in general that might be related to 'hypothetical' contaminants in HFCS.

Mercury wasn't hypothetical in 2005.

Also, since a minority of the samples tested positive for mercury, I don't think that it would show up in a correlational study. It's likely that a majority of beekeepers weren't using mercury contaminated HFCS in 2005. Besides, the manufactures were only identified as A, B, and C! How could anyone do a meta analysis (combine information from different studies) with that?


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

> The Dufault study was seriously flawed: http://www.sweetsurprise.com/news-an...y-study-flawed just like the recent Lu study was that unjustly assumed HFCS was contaminated with imidacloprid.


Try reading the response please.

http://www.iatp.org/documents/response-to-corn-refiners-association-paper-on-hfcs-and-mercury

It's the Stopford 'study' that has alot in common with the Lu study. Headlines and not much else.

The Dufault study was very well done.

My gut feeling is that they intended to prosecute.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

Has anyone stopped to realize that elemental Hg is present in a lot of food products that we consume, not just HFCS (if in fact Hg is present in HFCS). 

Also, elemental Hg (reported as total Hg) really isnt all that toxic when ingested. Inhalation of Hg vapor is toxic, but you arent going to get a lot of Hg vapor from a few µg/Kg in HFCS (if in fact Hg is present in HFCS). 

Methylmercury [CH[SUB]3[/SUB]Hg] is the most toxic form of Hg and is what builds up in the body and causes problems. That is the form of Hg that is tested for in fish and typically other foodstuffs. Methymercury _is not_ what they tested for in any of the studies that have been posted here.

You can read more onit here: 
http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/146-00/


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Why would you assume that they found elemental mercury in HFCS?

The HFCS they tested was processed with hydrochloric acid and caustic soda. HFCS has been reported to contain reactive alpha carbonyl compounds. 

It's not going to look like the stuff in the old thermometers.

"Mercury in any form – either as water-soluble inorganic
salt, a lipid-soluble organic mercury compound, or as
metallic mercury- is an extremely potent neurological
toxin [23]."


----------



## BMAC (Jun 23, 2009)

Mercury and lead both have similar effects on the body. Wouldn't it be more productive to campaign against beekeepers who feed HFCS thru normal garden hoses? Most definitely those garden hoses leech more lead into the HFCS than the HFCS would contain lead.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I would simply say that it would be prudent for someone in the beekeeping community to test for contaminants in HFCS.

That would put the issue to rest.

Randy's going to take a look, and that should do it.


----------



## Acebird (Mar 17, 2011)

WLC said:


> "Mercury in any form – either as water-soluble inorganic
> salt, a lipid-soluble organic mercury compound, or as
> metallic mercury- is an extremely potent neurological
> toxin [23]."


I can't believe what my buddy said.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

The quote is from the paper with a citation.

The attitude that metalic mercury isn't really harmful to adults is an old one.

But, no one handles metallic mercury the way they used to.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> Why would you assume that they found elemental mercury in HFCS?
> 
> The HFCS they tested was processed with hydrochloric acid and caustic soda.


Because the results in the paper that you cited were reported as Hg not CH[SUB]3[/SUB]Hg. And by the way, it has nothing to do with how the samples were processed. All I was pointing out was that from a toxicity standpoint, Hg and CH[SUB]3[/SUB]Hg are two completly differnce compounds. Anybody talking about the toxicity of Hg should know this before they open their mouth. 



WLC said:


> It's not going to look like the stuff in the old thermometers.[/qoute]
> 
> Uh, yes it is. That is waht they tested for, andthat is what they found.
> 
> ...


----------



## psfred (Jul 16, 2011)

Ingested metallic mercury becomes mercuric chloride pretty much instantly in the stomach, and since there is a gross excess of chloride, probably is present as the fairly insoluble HgCl2 moiety. It will still get absorbed, though, just perhaps less quickly.

I'm sure the analysis was for total mercury, not organic mercury, but thie issue is the same. 

Mercury is nasty stuff, and even very low levels can have health effects. It will be converted by the body to methyl mercury, and also into bound organic mercury, but the damage is already done.

Peter


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Nabber:

The sources of the mercury were reported as being from mercury cell caustic soda production and HCl.

The contaminating mercury was most likely a mercury salt. Mercury chloride(s).

When you add the information from another study that found reactive alpha dicarbonyl compounds as a byproduct of HFCS production, you have a reactive substrate that can form metallo-organic compounds with mercury, not just methyl mercury.

On a positive note, in 2007, a U.S. senator named Barrack Obama, sponsored a bill that required the phasing out of mercury cell caustic soda plants by January of 2012.

I have know idea how that bill worked out, or if it did remove mercury contaminated chemicals from HFCS production in the U.S. .

They may have just moved the plants overseas.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

psfred said:


> It will be converted by the body to methyl mercury, and also into bound organic mercury, but the damage is already done.
> Peter


Thanks for the insight and I agree with what you are saying about Hg being converted to CH3Hg. However not to belabor the point, Hg is not readily absorbed in the GI tract. It has to be absorded and converted into the CH3Hg before it can do any damage. I am still talking about route of exposure and Hg metabolism: 

Elemental mercury vapour [sic] may enter the body via

i) The lungs (inhalation)
Up to 80% of inhaled mercury crosses the alveolar membrane and accumulates in red blood cells and tissues

ii) The skin (dermal absorption).
Significant skin absorption of mercury vapour can also occur.

iii) The gut (gastrointestinal absorption)
*Gastrointestinal absorption is minimal (0.01%)* partly due to the formation of sulphur laden compounds on the surface of the metal. Ingestion of a large amount of elemental mercury has occurred without adverse effect:

http://www.documents.hps.scot.nhs.uk/environmental/guidance-notes/elemental-mercury.pdf
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/8355325/reload=0;jsessionid=lul8E4lLyIR19LCngZM9.138


External bioavailability is mainly a property of the matrix, whereas absorption is mainly a property of the organ. The GI tract and the lungs differ in their absorptive properties for each species of mercury, and absorption may vary by age, frequency of meals and other dietary variables. It is generally recognized that elemental mercury vapor isreadily absorbed through the lungs (50–100%), but that absorption of liquid elemental mercury from the GI tract is less than 1 percent. :

*In contrast, MeHg is readily absorbed from the GI tract (close to 100%) and from the lungs.*

http://www.albuw.ait.ac.th/Group_R/...tement_4th/pdf_link/bioavailability of Hg.pdf

Now I realize that NO exposure to Hg is good for you, but if we are going to intelligently talk about Hg toxicity, there is a big difference between 100 percent absorption and less that 1 percent absorption.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Perhaps we should discuss how mercury acts as a pesticide?

That might be more relevant to beekeeping.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

WLC said:


> Perhaps we should discuss how mercury acts as a pesticide?


Sure thing. Hence my post: 



Nabber86 said:


> Another thing that is missing is any data of toxicty levels of Hg versus CH[SUB]3[/SUB]Hg on honeybees. You might also want to consider how either of these componds enters honeybees, how they are absorbed or not absorbed, how they are metabolized and eliminated, and various affects on the health of honeybees.


Go for it man. Let's get the discussion going.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I posted earlier on a study that found that bees detoxify Hg using GSTs (gluthathione-s-transferases/they add sulfur to the mercury), which were also found to be active during Nosema infections.

So, Honeybees can (probably) detoxify mercury.

However, inorganic and organic mercury compounds have been used as a fungicide in the past (to protect seeds for example).

Hypothetically:

Could mercury contaminated HFCS (hypothetical, of course), act as a fungicide when fed to hives?

The idea being that it would affect friendly fungal organisms in the hive, but not the bees directly (since they can detoxify it).


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I found this reference, but don't have the article in ABJ.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=241398

I found this 'fragment' to be of interest:

"CITATION] The importance of microbes in nutrition and health of honey bee colonies. Part II. Factors affecting the microbial community in honey bee.[PDF] from usda.govG DeGrandi-Hoffman, D Sammataro… - 2009 - ddr.nal.usda.gov
... High fructose corn syrup (IIFCS) is fed before moving colonies for pollination or in the early spring
to stimulate ... also can affect the growth of symbiotic fungi, de- pending on the corn syrup
manufacturer and the ... The effects of fungicides on the beneficial fungi honey bees need to 
Related articles"

My emphasis:
"High fructose corn syrup (IIFCS) is fed before moving colonies for pollination or in the early springto stimulate ... also can affect the growth of symbiotic fungi, de- pending on the corn syrup manufacturer "

This reminds me of the findings of the Dufault study, Manufacturer A was clean while B and C had different Hg levels.

So, different syrups from different manufacturers affect fungi to different degrees.

I think something is unravelling the more I pull on the thread.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

*Mercury in HFCS: a potent fungicide impacting hive health.*

Between the Dufault et al., and DeGrandi-Hoffman/D Sammataro study, we can now recognize that a 'pesticide' had, in fact, already been found in HFCS.

It didn't come from corn, but came from HFCS processing.

So, we were wrong to say that no pesticide had ever been found in HFCS.

It had.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Mercury in HFCS: a potent fungicide impacting hive health.*



WLC said:


> Between the Dufault et al., and DeGrandi-Hoffman/D Sammataro study, we can now recognize that a 'pesticide' had, in fact, already been found in HFCS.


...are you trying to get a job at the Harvard School of Public Health?

The Degrandi-Hoffman/D Sammataro study says nor implies nothing about pesticides found in the HFCS. Fungi growth rates are easily altered by things like ph, concentration of sugars, balance of different sugars, available nutrients, etc....none of these factors were measured or compared. These do not add up to pesticides.

You might as well call a glass jar full of vacuum a pesticide, as it does not promote the growth of microbes. 

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

BMAC said:


> Folks Randy Oliver is advertising if you have HFCS you want tested for heavy metals and pesticides send him a sample. He will fund the analysis of the sample and report back what is found in the HFCS besides HFCS.


Randy never said that he would have the HFCS samples tested for heavy metals. He said that he would send them to the USDA for pesticide testing. I just checked his post elsewhere.

It is NOT the same. >:-#

These 'fun and games' need to stop.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

how can you test HFCS for lead...doesn't it gum up the machine because it is sticky?

deknow


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Dean: 

Mercury can act as a fungicide. Mercury based fungicides were banned in the U.S. .

And yes, different levels of mercury were found in HFCS from different manufacturers.

Interestingly, HFCS from different manufacturers, that was fed to bees, inhibited symbiotic fungi at different levels.

It's not proof, just something that needs to be examined more closely.

It's part of the hypothesis.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

"how can you test HFCS for lead...doesn't it gum up the machine because it is sticky?"

You test for many 'heavy' elements at the same time.

You have to incinerate the sample in some mass spectrometers. Nothing left to 'stick'.


----------



## onthekeg (Sep 19, 2011)

I worked in the Corn Wet Milling industry in the 90's. We made HFCS as well as standard corn syrup and other products. HFCS will not have much for any contamination from heavy metals as it is carbon filtered more than a standard syrup. At the time I was a QA Chemist and was responsible for running the AA (atomic absorption) instrument with a graphite furnace to measure the levels of any heavy metals in the HFCS. (PPB levels).
We usually had to spike a sample to get within the detection levels of the instrument at that time. Spike with 20 ppb and I read three samples and averaged. If it read 23ppb average, we would record 3ppb.
To minimize the color on HFCS, it was carbon filtered many times otherwise over time it would yellow, and customers did not want that. The filtration also removed the impurities. It is made with RO water to begin with, if any HG was left, it would probably have come from the HCL, H2SO4 or the NaCl that was used during the production of the product.

-Opinion from an old lab rat.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

I would call 3 ppb lead background.

So we know that the plant that you worked in used filtration to remove contaminants from HFCS.

That's a good thing.

However, it doesn't explain why Dufault et al. were able to get mercury readings (as high as 570ppb) from some manufacturers. 9 out of 20 samples measured mercury levels above background in 2005. Mercury cell production of caustic soda (one of the sources of the mercury) may have been phased out here in the U.S. . I don't know for sure though.


----------



## psfred (Jul 16, 2011)

Lead at 3 ppb will have been analyzed by ICPMS, with a prior digestion in mixed nitric/sulfuric aicd to remove the organic matter by oxidation. The sugars are gone, no problems.

Carbon filtration can add as much as it removes if the carbon is "dirty", and activated carbon is notorious for leaching heavy metals, depending on the source (usually tropical hardwoods) and preparation (i.e. not acid treated to remove heavy metals).

Contamination post manufacture is a significant problem with everything, to say nothing of a tanker truck sitting for a day in the sun in Texas, say, or being hauled through the desert southwest on a day when the temps exceed 120F. Gonna be more HMF in that load than when it left the plant, eh? 

Any area near a coal fired power plant will have elevated Hg backbround levels, the mercury is very volatile and descends with rain or snow out of the plume from the plant. 

Peter


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

WLC said:


> However, it doesn't explain why Dufault et al. were able to get mercury readings (as high as 570ppb) from some manufacturers. 9 out of 20 samples measured mercury levels above background in 2005.


"To imply that there is a safety concern based on this incomplete and flawed report is irresponsible," stated Audrae Erickson, President of the Corn Refiners Association. The article and the report are based on outdated information of dubious significance," Erickson added. "Americans should know that no mercury or mercury-based technology is used in the production of high fructose corn syrup in North America. It is important to put these questionable findings into context. Trace amounts of mercury can be found in the air, water, soil, and many other foods. The authors admit that they cannot determine the source of the mercury cited in the report." http://www.sweetsurprise.com/news-and-press/press-releases/hfcs-mercury-study-fails-standards


----------



## onthekeg (Sep 19, 2011)

The carbon was regularly regenerated in the carbon furnaces on site. We would measure the density of the carbon 3 times a day (each shift) and would regularly pulse a portion of the carbon out of the bed and it would go through the carbon furnaces.
Yes Fred, we would extract any minerals in the HFCS then we would use the extract for the AA. We mainly had to verify that we didn't have levels that were measurable, if we could quantify it with the AA there would be issues larger than the Hg in the HFCS.


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Bluediamond:

If you go to post #7 and download the Dufault response to the CRA, you'll see that the Stopford study was paid for by the CSA, involved one investigator who received samples from the CSA, and there was no peer review.

onethekeg:

9 out of 20 samples from different manufacturers came back positive for mercury in 2005.

That's the problem. There were detectable differences for different manufacturers. Other studies on HFCS showed something similar for HMF, # of beneficial fungi in hives, and reactive alpha dicarbonyl compounds.

PS-Did anyone else detect an edit? Or, was it just me?


----------



## BlueDiamond (Apr 8, 2011)

WLC said:


> Bluediamond: you'll see that the Stopford study was paid for by the CSA, involved one investigator who received samples from the CSA, and there was no peer review. onethekeg: 9 out of 20 samples from different manufacturers came back positive for mercury in 2005.
> That's the problem. There were detectable differences for different manufacturers.


 Source of funding for the Stopford study and it's lack of peer review are irrevalent to these CRA claims: "Americans should know that no mercury or mercury-based technology is used in the production of high fructose corn syrup in North America. Trace amounts of mercury can be found in the air, water, soil, and many other foods."


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

As I've said before, mercury cell caustic soda production was cited as a possible source of the mercury since it was used in HFCS production in 2005.

Why would U.S. Senator, Barrack Obama, have sponsored a bill to phase out mercury cell caustic sode production by Jan. 2012 otherwise?

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s1818/show

I don't doubt the detection because of the chain of evidence provided by the FDA field agent. However, we can't say for sure how the mercury got into the HFCS.

I wasn't there either Bluediamond.

570 ppb isn't a trace amount by any stretch of the imagination. It's alarming.


----------

