Talk:Agave syrup

"healthful" sweetener

I have yet to see the results of a single clinical trial on the consumption of Agave Nectar as an ingredient or a table-top sweetener that supports any of these claims: "Agave syrup has been marketed as a "healthful" sweetener, but this fact has been the subject of criticism due to its very high fructose content (which is even more than high fructose corn syrup in its fructose content by weight) and its potential to lead to insulin resistance and significantly increased triglyceride levels (a risk factor for heart disease)." My point is that fructose in excessive amounts may be linked to these health issues but is there ANY evidence that consumption of fructose on the scale of consumption that one might associate with sweetening tea or coffee, as an ingredient sweetener in a variety of common foods would result in a deleterious effect? One might make the same arguments about consuming fruit juices of any kind. In the mid-nineties I initiated the preparation of a self-affirmation GRAS report on Agave Nectar; we enlisted the professional services of a well known toxicology and regulatory agency called The Weinberg Group. It is interesting to note that not a single commercial manufacturer or distributor of Agave Nectar has shown interest in completing this report. Furthermore none of these companies has dedicated any funding to genuine and comprehensive clinical trials on consumption. And finally, there are massive inconsistencies with respect to basic information about the method processing and the glycemic index associated with Agave Nectar. In short, there is little or no RELIABLE science available on the subject. Feel free to contact me should you care to discuss these issues. I have been involved in the commercial development of Agave syrups since 1995. See our website at www.agavenectar.com. Sabra Van Dolsen, President and CEO of The Colibree Company, Inc.

[3][4]==Sources (or lack thereof) for health claims in article== Anybody want to say what the constituents (sugars & sweet tasting substances in particular). I had a bit of look around on the web but the suggestion seems to be that some are adulterated with sugars not naturally found in agave. Is there an expert who can write some info on this. I ask for this in particular reference to diabetic and low GI/GL diets. 212.32.87.199 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Nutritionally and functionally, agave syrup is similar to high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose (Karo) syrup."

"...the American Diabetes Association lists agave along with other sweeteners (table sugar, honey, brown sugar, molasses, fructose, maple sugar, and confectioner’s sugar) that should be limited in diabetic diets."

source: http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/the-truth-about-agave?page=1

"According to Bianchi, agave “nectar” and HFCS “are indeed made the same way, using a highly chemical process dependent on genetically modified enzymes". The manufacturing process also calls for caustic acids, clarifiers, filtration chemicals and so forth in the conversion of agave starches. The result is a high level of highly refined fructose in the remaining syrup, along with some remaining inulin."

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org/modern-foods/agave-nectar-worse-than-we-thought

and

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5846333/fulltext.html

Just as in the cases of many other substances official opinions will vary, and the ability to prove one side or the other may boil down to interpretation. The former post is, in it's limited form, true, but what it doesn't tell us is that although agave nectar is made in the same chemical process as HFCS, it doesn't require a genetically modified substance to begin with. HFCS is almost exclusively chemically processed genetically modified corn. The process for making agave nectar can be compared to cooking carrots or processing coffee. They have to be cooked or boiled to prepare for extraction. Grossly toxic chemicals aren't always used where less dangerous chemicals will do. Granted, this is not always the case, but saying agave nectar and HFCS use the same method is irresponsible and inaccurate.MR2David (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

--thomas 75.85.116.31 (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is full of nonsense (come on, "insulin is not needed to break it down"???), almost certainly due to the "facts" being derived in part or in whole from commercial websites whose primary purpose is to sell the product. It needs a major overhaul and links or references that inspire more confidence. MrDarwin 18:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

A scan of Lexis-Nexis shows a few articles that mention this product, but so far none in depth. Similarly, a Google search unfortunately shows that the pages describing the syrup are primarily those producing, distributing, or marketing it. The important thing is that the harvesting and production, and photographs showing the various types (light, dark, etc.) be shown, and thus the sales sites can't be avoided; that is why I looked for ones that had a lot of detailed information about the production, the plant from which it's made, etc. On the other hand, the person who keeps adding the "volcanic nectar" site throughout the article, at the top of all other links, etc. seems to be doing it primarily to promote that particular product. Badagnani 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

And why shouldn't he? Having other commercial links in the article just invites such additions. He just wants to get in on the free publicity that his competitors are getting. It's one of the reasons why I believe it's a bad idea to have links to commercial websites in an article in the first place, and why I strongly disagree with the suggestion that that having commercial links is better than having no links at all. In fact, I believe that such links are the worst possible kind to have in an article because they have no incentive to be NPOV or even truthful. MrDarwin 21:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to extrapolate like that. Everything we do must be reasonable, and reasoned. Badagnani 22:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the different types of agave nectar sold in the U.S. it's no wonder that company Volcanic Nectar keeps putting links on the site. I've been to Mexico and have visited the different facilities manufacturing the agave and I've seen what is going on down there. All of the brands you see sold here in the U.S. are being labeled in the same 2 facilities other than the Volcanic Nectar brand. The labels for the different brands were being put on the same agave in different bottles. Each label seems to say different things too. They vary from calories to carbs and from raw to standard. This industry really needs to be cleaned up because it appears that our friends south of the border are just out to make a buck.

As for the shortage in agave... not so. There are thousands of acres in Mexico of this stuff. Where do all of the shortage rumors come from? The major tequila manufacturers. They are trying to declare shortages of agave to the world so they can keep increasing the price of their tequila. With the introduction of agave as a sweetener, they are starting to lose their grip. We saw dying farms because they can't sell their agave fast enough. Mexico better clean up the monopoly or there might really be a shortage some day. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.41.189.17 (talk • contribs).

That's funny, 67.41.189.17, because you seem to be the same individual adding the links! Badagnani 18:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What links are you referring too exactly? Whenever I read something on the internet about agave, I refer them to the only company I know that is providing a good source of agave. I'm related to many diabetics that can't handle dangerous additives. That was one of my reasons for visiting the facilities in Mexico. I have no affiliation with any agave company. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.41.189.17 (talk • contribs).

See the page history, and you'll see that it's you who has been adding the Volcanic Nectar website. Above, you said "it's no wonder that company Volcanic Nectar keeps putting links on the site," but it's you who is doing it. Badagnani 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit, I'm not very computer savy. I thought I had done something wrong when I came back to the site and saw them removed. I thought you were referring to someone from their company adding the links. Who is the one removing mine? Would it be better for them to add the links? I can send them an e-mail to see if they want to add a link. I just thought it would be a good idea since Wikipedia was so high on the search engines for the word agave. If there is a better way or if I'm doing something wrong, let me know.

I contacted Volcanic Nectar and told them they should have an expert make a change on the Agave Syrup page with correct information. For example it says something silly like "the best agave for you is high in fructose." What sense does that make? At what point did more sugar equal healthy? Who wrote that? Anyway, they sent me an e-mail saying they corrected some of the information. When I checked today, I see it has been erased and the old incorrect information has been added back in. Any idea why Badagnani? --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.189.17 (talk • contribs)

The best agave syrup for your body must be low in fructose (less than 50%), low in glucose and cannot contain any other sugars. How can the best agave syrup be both low in fructose and glucose if these are both their main constituents? Also, if fructose is less than 50% that means glucose will be near 50%. Given that it is fructose that has a low glycemic index compared to sucrose and glucose, how its percentage being low and glucose relative high be "best" for your body? Alephone 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Glucose and fructose are both bad for your body, but there was a time when medical doctors thought fructose might be better for diabetics, before we understood fructose well. Glucose is processed via insulin and increases hyperinsulemia in type 2 diabetics but might not be processed completely in type 1 diabetics. OTOH fructose doesn't raise insulin, but is more likely to be stored as fat and interferes with the appetite-regulating hormones like leptin. I think that as an isolate, glucose might be better because it fits into the feedback mechanisms better but I can't find proof of medical consensus, especially as new research is changing the analysis. That said, isolated sweeteners are not healthy at all and the small amount of levulose (nonrefined levorotatory D fructose with associated compounds) in fruit is a better source. However Alephone, the amount of water affects the "healthiness" of agave syrup, in which case the amount, not the percentage of fructose is important. Ksvaughan2

The USDA database shows Raw Agave (presumably the same as Agave Nectar but I could be wrong) as having a very different Glucose to Fructose ratio than what is stated in this article. Can anyone verify that Raw Agave and Agave Nectar are the same thing? If so, the Composition section of the article may be inaccurate. --Jlgillam (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The term Raw Agave is probably aguamiel, which is used as a drink. Agave nectar is a cooked or vacuum processed fluid from the pina which is enzymatically converted to a syrup. Ksvaughan2

Inaccuracies in the methods of processing

The article tells how Agave salmiana is cut to extract the aguamiel, but in fact this can be done with most species of agave (for instance see the Tequila article)and the manufacturer of Madhava Agave Nectar has said in his rebuttal to the Weston A. Price article that they use the piña rootstalk from A. salmiana. See http://alteredplates.blogspot.com/2008/12/madhavas-craig-gerbore-responds-to.html although I don't buy his unsourced information on the relative constituents of blue and salmiana agave on the grounds of common sense.

The description of obtaining aguamiel is different from how agave nectar is made. (The link in the parent Agave article perpetrates this misinformation)Ksvaughan2

Unsubstantiated commercial "knocking copy"

Unless they can be substantiated these statements should not be here. NPOV please!

One of them (from Cuquio) does not use blue agave, but instead uses maguey to produce their syrup, which gives a poor quality product. For some reason the products from Guadalajara and The best agave syrup for your body must be low in fructose (less than 50%), low in glucose and cannot contain any other sugars.

Michael Fourman 05:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection

OK, you guys exhausted my patience - any more reverting and the article gets protected. Work out an agreement on the talk page, that's what it's for. Stan 15:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected now. I'm half-inclined to stub it too, so that all parties have equal incentive to cooperate; I'll be watching to see how the discussion goes. Stan 18:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Commercial links

A brief look at the history will show why this page is protected. Discussion is required to resolve this issue.

Badagnani created this page, and it included wholesale quotes from commercial sites engaged in marketing agave syrup, together with links to the homepages of these sites. One of these homepages was devoid of factual information, but the justification for including it was apparently the (not NPOV) information buried deeper in the site and lifted for inclusion. Furthermore, there was a paragraph of unsubstantiated assertion denigrating two producers, to the benefit of a third.

My initial intervention was prompted by these unsubstantiated commercial comparisons. Subsequent reversion led me to question the NPOV status of the entire article and the spam status of the commercial links. I have tried to improve this article, and have been frustrated by constant revertion ("justified" by irrelevant or false assertions in the edit log). Michael Fourman 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is editor Bagdani? The two links presented for users to further their knowledge about the production of agave syrup (which are actually used as sources for much of the information in this article), though commercial, are the best links on the Internet as far as a complete description of the production process, region, etc. This discussion should have taken place before the editor blanked them in the presumed aim of "improving" the article. Reversion ("constant," at that) did take place on the parts of no fewer than two editors, including the one writing above. However, reasoned discussion usually does lead to reasonable results, often involving compromise. Badagnani 21:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the site referenced above the Volcanic Nectar site? If so, I am largely in agreement with what you say about it. Badagnani 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Since you seem to be implying that I included wholesale quotes from sales sites, please give me the diffs showing that I added such quotes. I don't believe they exist. There do appear to be editors that were doing that, but I wouldn't have been one of them. Badagnani 22:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been actively involved in editing this article, but I and several other editors have tried to remove the commercial links. Each time they have been re-added by Badagnani, with the exception of the Volcanic Nectar link, which another editor keeps re-adding. I have already explained above why I think such links are a bad idea and have no place in a Wikipedia article. It's my opinion that this article should be stripped more or less to a stub unless better references can be found. I am very much in favor of providing less information rather than more, if that information is unsubstantiated, unverifiable, and suspect. MrDarwin 02:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Of the two repeatedly deleted links, there is much information--and not much to object to-- in this link. I don't support deleting it from the article, though the editor "protecting" the article seems to have chosen carefully to do so at the moment the links were gone, rather than still there. The article, after all, is primarily about a modern consumer product and thus the link is quite appropriate in describing that product, as well as something about its history and production. Badagnani 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's always at The Wrong Version. My offer to stub out pending consensus is still open. Why not just stick to using the noncommercial links as sources? As an encyclopedia, WP is a compendium of knowledge, it doesn't have to record every shaky factoid found on every website. Stan 05:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Because as yet there is no comparable noncommercial link that describes the product, its production method, region of production, with photos, etc. in such detail. I've said that here, in so many words, many times now. Badagnani 06:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If the links are to remain in the article, then at the very least they should be labeled as "commercial links" or "commercial sources" rather than as "external links" and certainly not as references. But I'm still opposed to including them in the first place--doing so is providing free advertising for the companies, and opens Wikipedia to accusations of commercial favoritism if others are not also included. MrDarwin 14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happiest if we could remove all the commercial links. I've looked at the pages for other foostuffs — corn syrup is a good example. There is no reason that agave syrup should have a more extensive article than that. Google searches for aguamiel and agave sap lead to plenty of non-commercial information, certainly sufficient for such an article. Michael Fourman 19:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

MrDarwin, there is no intrinsic problem with WP having commercial links, and no policy against commercial links that offer some kind of valuable information not already in WP. For instance, if a commercial site had a section with a detailed walkthrough of their processing facility, including pictures, and description of how it all works, I would consider that a perfect external link. If it's free advertising for them, well that's a very nice quid pro quo that encourages other commercial sites to provide more factual information on their sites. Stan 20:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To take the specific example of the ELF link above, about the only thing of value to us is the half-dozen sentences describing their process - they supply interesting details like temperatures and times. It's really borderline as to whether it's worth making an external link for that alone. From a bit of Googling I note that two different websites use the exact same process description, which makes me wonder who's copying whom, and maybe that the real source of the process description is only in printed form, not online at all, and has been typed in without attribution. Stan 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

However, if there is a choice between sites, one with more information and less marketing is preferable. See the following (copied from User talk:Badagnani#Agave syrup where I made this point earlier):

For information on growth to maturity try [1]

For some historical use Agave may have been cultivated for aguamiel as early as 1239 CE, according to archeological records. [2]

Aguamiel is available as a drink in some areas, as are various agave syrups. [3]

Aguamiel The sweet sap extracted from the piña (heart) of the agave plant ... is sold as a regional drink in the states of Zacatecas, San Luis Potosi, Hidalgo (where sellers generally add chile). [4]

Michael Fourman 01:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Aguamiel

Okay, we now know that agave sap in its natural state was called aguamiel in Spanish. An English translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article on aguamiel ( http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aguamiel ):

Aguamiel (translated as "Mead") is the sap that is contained in the heart of plants known like magueys; pertaining to the family of the agaves, specially of the pulqueros magueyes. The aguamiel is the basic material from which pulque is made, a spirit of pre-Hispanic origin that is still consumed in the states of central Mexico. Numerous properties of that country experienced a bonanza derived from the culture of the magueys for the extraction of aguamiel, although as of the 1930s, the aguamiel was displaced by the masificación in beer consumption. In order to extract the aguamiel it is necessary to hope to that the maguey matures approximately by eight years. The heart of the succulent one is drilled with a knife, and the tlachiquero -- the person dedicated to the extraction of the aguamiel -- introduces his acocote -- a bule of form extended -- in the orifice, from which aguamiel flows. In some regions of Mexico, the aguamiel is a drink of daily consumption, specially in the regions of the semi-empty hidalguense and potosino. It contains great amounts of sugars and proteins. Also one is used in the bread elaboration and other culinary creations to him of the settlers of the Mexican High plateau.

See also:

• Pulque
• Maguey
• Mayáhuel Badagnani 23:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Mead" is a bad translation of "aguamiel" in this context. Mead is a drink made by fermenting honey and water: in Spanish, Hidromiel. Michael Fourman 20:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Aguamiel is not mead, and it is not the commercial agave nectar which more properly ought to be called syrup. Ksvaughan2

If aguamiel is indeed drunk as a beverage in Mexico, is it produced in the same way, and the same viscosity as what is sold in the U.S. as agave syrup/nectar? I couldn't imagine drinking an undiluted, syrupy liquid such as agave syrup. Badagnani 08:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mayáhuel

From the Spanish Wikipedia article on Mayáhuel, who was apparently the goddess of the agave, and agave beverages:

Mayáhuel was the Mexican goddess of the maguey, and by extension, of the embriaguez. She is one of the deities related to the Earth, and in that sense, she is hermanada with others like Tonantzin (mother of the Gods), Cihuacóatl (the pattern of the women died in the childbirth) and Tlazoltéotl (the hungry lady of inmundicias, that so are the meaning of its name). In tatno that divinity of the vegetal world, is also a goddess of the fertility. For that reason, it shares attributes with Xilonen and Ilamatecuhtli, patterns of the maize; and with Chicomecóatl, Seven lady Serpent and patron of the maintenances (also Earth goddess). Mayáhuel was represented like a young person with the body painted of blue that was shown by one penca of maguey. Their attributes were the double cord in one of the hands, malacate of cotton without spinning, and the yellow spots in their face. Some times she was represented with a nariguera of jade and loading one vasija of mud. All these attributes share them with other divinities like the indicated Tlazoltéotl, and specially with Chalchiuhtlicue, the pattern of terrestrial waters. Like these two divinities, Mayáhuel was sign of the bad luck. That one that it was born in a day related to this goddess, insurance would have to finish badly: malacate of cotton and the two cords mean adultery and perdición, derived in cosmogonía mexica with the embriaguez. The husband of the goddess of the maguey was Patécatl, that designated in náhuatl some grass that added itself to the mead of the agave to produce pulque. Their children were the Centzon Totochtzin, or the Four hundred and Countless Rabbits, which he nursed (with pulque, of course) through the many chests that supposedly he had. [ to publish ] Legend of the creation of the maguey In principle Mayáhuel was a beautiful young person who lived with his grandmother, a Tzintzimitl stars that to try to prevent that it leaves the sun. In an occasion, Quetzalcóatl it convinced it so that it lowered to the Earth to love itself turned the branches of a branched off tree. But when her grandmother awoke and not vió to Mayáhuel, it called to other Tzintzimitlis so that they lowered to the Earth to help to look for him its granddaughter. When they approached the tree separated in two, then the grandmother, discovering to her granddaughter like a branch, breaks and leaves it the rest so that she devours another Tzintzimitl. Nevertheless the branch which Quetzacóatl had become remained intact. When the rest of the young virgin moved away to Quetzacóatl volume and it buried them. Of it it brought forth the plant of the maguey, of which pulque is extracted, used in the ceremonies like ritual drink and offering for the Gods. Thus, after its death, Mayáhuel became goddess.

See also

• Ve'ase Ometochtli God of pulque. Badagnani 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Just removed the link added to references since it doesn't link to information about processes (as claimed). Here is the text from the linked page.

Volcanic Nectar's Blue Agave Nectar is a low glycemic sugar substitute that is 4 times sweeter than table sugar. You can pour it over pancakes or mix it in with recipes as a great natural sweetener!

Recent studies of our Agave Nectar have proven that Volcanic Nectar is Diabetic Friendy, contains no artificial fillers (like other mislabeled brands) and is the only agave that has been tested in the United States by an FDA recognized company to have a Glycemic Index of 27! Learn more about our test results or visit our FAQ for common questions about Agave Nectar.

We offer Agave Nectar in many shapes and sizes. Our packages make great looking gifts for the casual cooker while others come in economy squeezable bottles, gallons or 55 gallon drums. We manufacturer our Blue Agave Nectar in Mexico, import and store it in Texas and Utah.

Michael Fourman 04:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Michael, that link was supposed to go to http://www.volcanicnectar.com/agavenectarmanufacturer.html Sorry about that. This page gives the most precise description and photos of extracting the agave I've found. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pa1ntsm1l3 (talk • contribs)

WP:SOFIXIT. Badagnani 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the external link (http://www.bodybydesignonline.com/diet/is-agave-nectar-a-health-scam/) spam? I'm leaning towards "yes", but I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SerialJaywalker (talk • contribs) 20:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Vitamins and minerals

I just removed a part about supposed mineral content that does not check out. Here's the nutrition data for agave syrup: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/custom/757544/1?quantity=3.0. It's got a little dietary fibre but the rest is just sugar. --InformationalAnarchist (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Agave nectar (also called agave syrup) is a sweetener... Why not the other way around: "Agave syrup (also called agave nectar)"? Technically, nectar is the sugared plant product secreted by the organs called nectaries, located either at the base of the perianth (floral nectaries) or outside of the flowers (extrafloral nectaries). Agave syrup is artificially created from the juice extracted from the core of the agave (or from its quiote) so it's not a nectar. Why do we have to use an incorrect and presumably invented for commercial purpose terminology?--Mirrordor 02:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I think the key line in Wikipedia's naming policy is "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms". "Agave nectar" seems more common than "agave syrup", both on the internet as a whole and in the sources of this article. So that should be the article title, and the first line ought to reflect the title. A similar case was made at High performance liquid chromatography that the "P" in "HPLC" should really stand for "pressure", and that "performance" was coined as a marketing tool... But nevertheless, the marketing name has stuck, so that's the name of the article. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm way late to this party, but I'm wondering: is it acceptable to refer to the product as "syrup" throughout the article, since that's technically what it is? I'm trying to copyedit this article, and for consistency would like to refer to it as either "syrup" or "agave nectar" (both words together instead of just "nectar"). Divine (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems appropriate (consistent with Wikipedia policy) to use "Agave nectar" in the title (since that is the more common usage, and it also seems appropriate (factually accurate) to refer to the substance in question as "agave syrup" throughout the rest of the article, in acknowledgement of the fact that in this case "nectar" is essentially a marketing term that, while popularly understood, is clearly a misnomer. I would suggest that the article should make this clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explic8 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that a careful reading of Wikipedia's naming policy suggests that "Agave syrup" might be an appropriate name. In particular, it says "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources", and meets all the naming criteria. I'd thus suggest renaming it to "Agave syrup", which will also address Contortrix's concern. —Quondum 19:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Allergen?

It seems that there are allergens in the water of some species of agave, it'd be nice to find more information on the potential for allergens with the components involved (or a good source for the lack of it) in the syrup... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I could have been mistaken about any allergen being present, they'd more be calcium oxalates, which might well be eliminated in the sugar-reduction process, especially if an analysis shows the nectar content is mostly sugar. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Raw - mild, neutral taste?

That statement is highly dubious. Raw agave nectar has a somewhat bitter taste. I put it in my coffee and my coffee tastes about as bitter as a grapefruit. It really accentuates the naturally bitter taste of the coffee. Please taste something before you put in the odd statement of "fact." Lighthead ^þ 21:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Histamine in Agave?

Does anybody know if agave (plant or syrup) contains histamine or is a histamine-liberator? I could not find nothing about it in the web. Histamine is triggering in some people with "histamine intolerance" a pseudo-allergic reaction. Thanks! --Horia mar (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Agave nectar. 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/20070926220317/http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5846333.html to http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5846333.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~rdb/opa-gras.html

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) 22:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)