Understanding high fructose corn syrup in popular snacks: Consumption, perceptions and labeling preferences

Oscar Sarasty; Modhurima Dey Amin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341607

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 22, 2025
19 Nov 2025 Decision Letter - Edwin Hlangwani, Editor Dear Dr. Sarasty, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 03 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Edwin Hlangwani, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found. 3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed a very timely topic in this manuscript, at a time when nutritional challenges such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) are increasingly recognized as detrimental for health. They have supported the consumer perception, consumption pattern, and valuations with crisp data. The following comment may be incorporated to improve the manuscript further: When discussing about concerns due to consumption of HFCS, the authors may include a statement on HFCS in relation to FODMAPs and their impact on GI motility disorders such as IBS, post prandial distress, as well as inflammatory conditions such as IBD. These conditions afflict a lot of people around the world. Reviewer #2: This study explores the links between high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) consumption, public perception, and labeling preferences for popular snacks. The findings offer valuable insights for food manufacturers, policymakers, and health educators working to address the divide between the science of HFCS and consumer views. The methods are well-designed, and the results are clearly presented, contributing meaningful understanding to this often-debated ingredient. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341607.r001
Revision 1
19 Dec 2025 Author Response Dr. Edwin Hlangwani Academic Editor PLOS ONE Dear Editor, We would like to thank the Editor and reviewers for the time spent reviewing this manuscript and the important suggestions. After revising all the comments provided by the reviewers, the following changes in the manuscript were addressed: Editor Comments 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Response: We thank the editor for this comment. We made changes to the manuscript to follow the PLOS ONE style requirements, including those for file naming. 2. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found. Response: We appreciate the editor’s comment and reviewed the data access statement. Now data and supplementary materials are publicly available and included in the submission. 3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. Response: We appreciate the editor’s suggestion. We have now included a full ethics statement in the Methods section, specifying the name of the IRB and institution that approved the study, consent procedures, and data confidentiality. Please see page 8, lines 156-162 of the revised manuscript “Ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Texas Tech University (Approval no. IRB2021-972). The study protocol and survey instrument were reviewed and approved prior to data collection. Participants provided informed consent electronically before beginning the survey, and they were informed that participation was voluntary, responses would remain anonymous, and they could withdraw at any time. Data were collected from January 24, 2022, until June 17, 2022, and analyzed shortly after data collection was completed. All identifiers were removed before the formal analysis.” 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. Response: We thank the editor for the guidance on supporting information. We have included a Supporting Information section at the end of the manuscript, identifying and labeling the supplementary tables according to PLOS ONE formatting guidelines. Please see page 32, lines 639-645 of the revised manuscript. Specifically, we added “S1 Table. Mixed logit model estimation results” and “S2 Table. Random-effects regression analysis of sociodemographic characteristics.” 5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. Response: We appreciate the editor’s clarification on this topic. The reviewers did not request specific previously published works. However, we reviewed the relevant literature regarding the reviewers’ comments and added references to strengthen the revised manuscript to address the comments. 6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Response: We address the editor’s comment for the reference list. We made sure that the references follow the journal guidelines. Reviewer #1 The authors have addressed a very timely topic in this manuscript, at a time when nutritional challenges such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) are increasingly recognized as detrimental for health. They have supported the consumer perception, consumption pattern, and valuations with crisp data. Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review the manuscript and the positive comments. We are pleased that the reviewer found our research well supported. The following comment may be incorporated to improve the manuscript further: When discussing about concerns due to consumption of HFCS, the authors may include a statement on HFCS in relation to FODMAPs and their impact on GI motility disorders such as IBS, post prandial distress, as well as inflammatory conditions such as IBD. These conditions afflict a lot of people around the world. Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion, which helped strengthen the justification for studying HFCS and provides a clearer context of the health implications of HFCS consumption. We included the statement in the introduction section describing the relationship. Please see page 4, lines 67-74 of the revised manuscript “While all sweeteners have potential health implications, the primary difference between HFCS and sugar is their fructose content. HFCS is often considered a high-FODMAP sweetener because it contains a higher proportion of fructose relative to glucose. Excess fructose can be rapidly absorbed by the body and has been associated with inflammation, insulin resistance, increased fat production, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [20]. In addition, many individuals may have difficulty absorbing excess fructose, which can worsen symptoms such as bloating, abdominal pain, or post-meal discomfort, and may contribute to inflammatory conditions, including inflammatory bowel disease [21-23].” Reviewer #2 This study explores the links between high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) consumption, public perception, and labeling preferences for popular snacks. The findings offer valuable insights for food manufacturers, policymakers, and health educators working to address the divide between the science of HFCS and consumer views. The methods are well-designed, and the results are clearly presented, contributing meaningful understanding to this often-debated ingredient. Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for taking the time to review the manuscript and the positive comments. We appreciate the acknowledgment of the relevance of this topic and the contribution of our findings to understanding consumer perceptions and labeling preferences regarding HFCS. Finally, we thank the editor and reviewers for their time and thoughtful feedback. We hope that our revised manuscript satisfactorily addresses their comments and meets the publication criteria of PLOS ONE. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response letter.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341607.r002
11 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - Edwin Hlangwani, Editor Understanding High Fructose Corn Syrup in Popular Snacks: Consumption, Perceptions and Labeling Preferences PONE-D-25-45729R1 Dear Dr. Sarasty, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Edwin Hlangwani, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341607.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Edwin Hlangwani, Editor PONE-D-25-45729R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Sarasty, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Edwin Hlangwani Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341607.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .