Republican Corporations have been poisoning our food supply for Decades with Sugar

[Major Nikon]

5. He did include facts that show Lustig was just flat wrong

Calling fructose "toxic" is most certainly alarmist and has no basis in fact or even reality. No self-respecting scientist would describe anything as toxic without relevance to dosage. One need not include any more facts than this to show Lustig's argument is decidedly alarmist, but Aragon goes further by showing the data he relies on doesn't support his conclusions.

Americans undoubtedly eat too much sugar. There's also little doubt that excessive sugar consumption contributes significantly to the obesity epidemic. However, what Lustig tries to do is demonize an even smaller subset of sugar, namely fructose, and goes even further by alleging that HFCS in particular is significantly different than other forms of sugar. All of this is and always has been speculation with little basis in fact. The danger in this nonsense is it leads people to believe (like the poster above) that if they simply switch from a product sweetened with HFCS to one sweetened with sucrose, they will lose weight and be healthier.

The part Lustig gets right is that with few exceptions, people shouldn't be getting calories from what they drink, and they should avoid all sweetened beverages and processed fruit juices. Thanks to Lustig's alarmism, people tend to miss that very important message and incorrectly think that all they have to do is substitute HFCS with something equally as bad and they will magically become healthy.