Here is a link to the original article referenced in the "Science Daily" piece, I discovered that it is open-access:

http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140717/srep05726/full/srep05726.html

I think the question about why they used honey instead of nectar as a comparison to HFCS and sucrose is a good one.  After all, sucrose and HFCS get processed into a type of "honey" also by the bees, and this process adds enzymes, micro organisms, and some micronutrients just as it does when bees convert nectar to honey.  According to the "Methods" section, they fed individual bees.  This means that the ones fed HFCS or sucrose didn't get a "processed" form but rather got the raw deal.  It does seem curious that the authors didn't feed "processed" HFCS or sucrose but they did feed "processed" nectar in the form of honey.

I agree the study would have been better had they used bee-processed forms of HFCS and sucrose.

The conclusion that honey is best makes sense when we realize that normally honey (meaning processed forms of carbs like nectar, HFCS, or sucrose) is what bees eat, and honey is what they have evolved to eat.  The fermentation/augmentation process is important in converting the carbs to a "whole food" for the bee.  Certainly the bee's immune system is better supported by such a diet, and certainly the average older worker in a hive isn't eating "raw" HFCS or sucrose....at least, that is my understanding.  They specifically tested older workers, who don't have the physiology to process the raw foods.

So I don't see that this study has contributed much beyond an understanding of the types of genes that are activated when consuming the "whole food" vs the raw, unprocessed carb.  I often wonder if all reviewers are qualified experts in the areas that they are expected to review these days?  In my own case I have tried to apply "a grain of salt" when making this criticism, because, of course, when you're the author it is easy to complain about your reviewers.  However, in the case of this honey-vs-HFCS/sucrose study, anybody knowing a bit of bee biology would have recognized that the three foods given to the three groups of bees were not functionally equivalent.  I know that the sheer numbers of papers coming up for publication these days creates a huge need for good reviewers, and those folks are all volunteers with other, paying jobs to do.  I imagine there's a shortage of adequate review and that makes it all the more important that readers learn to recognize good science for themselves.  I'd conclude that this is a case of poor reviewing prior to publication....and for a "Nature" publication, too....shame!!

Christina

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html