According to The New York Times’ Gary Taubes, who isn’t a scientist but is a journalist obsessed with the topic, the recent uptick in anti-sugar sentiment in nutritional (and lay) circles isn’t without basis. In fact, he goes so far as to essentially answer his headline question “Is Sugar Toxic?” in the affirmative.
Taubes also uses the findings of California-based medical researcher Robert Lustig to back up his rather alarmist message, connecting sugar and HFCS (that would be high fructose corn syrup) consumption to a slew of undesirable conditions and killer diseases. Take heed, sugar junkies. —KA
The New York Times:
This brings us to the salient question: Can sugar possibly be as bad as Lustig says it is?
It’s one thing to suggest, as most nutritionists will, that a healthful diet includes more fruits and vegetables, and maybe less fat, red meat and salt, or less of everything. It’s entirely different to claim that one particularly cherished aspect of our diet might not just be an unhealthful indulgence but actually be toxic, that when you bake your children a birthday cake or give them lemonade on a hot summer day, you may be doing them more harm than good, despite all the love that goes with it. Suggesting that sugar might kill us is what zealots do. But Lustig, who has genuine expertise, has accumulated and synthesized a mass of evidence, which he finds compelling enough to convict sugar. His critics consider that evidence insufficient, but there’s no way to know who might be right, or what must be done to find out, without discussing it.
If I didn’t buy this argument myself, I wouldn’t be writing about it here. And I also have a disclaimer to acknowledge. I’ve spent much of the last decade doing journalistic research on diet and chronic disease — some of the more contrarian findings, on dietary fat, appeared in this magazine —– and I have come to conclusions similar to Lustig’s.
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
By Personal Trainer, July 22, 2011 at 4:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks for the great post, I will send a link to my
personal training clients. Would it be okay if I
printed out this article and hand it out to my clients?
Cheers :D
By question, April 15, 2011 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m so tired of these arguments. I actually believe that HFCS & refined sugars are terrible for our health. Yes, I believe they’re tied to a number of horrific illnesses. However, I can’t understand WHY we’re being buffeted daily with horrors about our diets at the same time that our financial ability to determine our diets is being flushed down the crapper. Do they think that desperate people losing jobs, benefits, homes & retirements give a rat’s ass about sugar if the affordable calories keep their kids alive?
““as far as toxology goes, it appears, according to the piece, that
no one is allowing anyone to properly study it without being
considered a bit of a nutjob just for saying sugar may be behind
the collective disease that is white/western.”“
****************
There are people who study this and for at least the century. Just
as there are people who study the curious rise of ‘the disease of
civilization’ not long after the agricultural age came along. But
because the idea of conspiracies is so abhorrent to those who
are trying to use unhealthy substances to make a buck, there
begins a huge outcry from those people against those who do
find the problems and try to inform people of those problems.
Gary Taubes’ ‘Good Calories, Bad Calories’ demonstrates this on
how the evidence of how bad the ‘refined carbohydrates’ (think
anything white and powderly) are to the human body. From
somewhere in the middle 20th century when doctors and
scientists were trying to bring attention to the deleterious affects
of those refined carbohydrates there were even more in ploy
naysaying that those carbs were not the problem and were
somehow allowed to set government standards that ostensibly
said so and threw the blame on the health issues to the other 2
major food groups, fat because people were fat and getting
fatter which created the mantra the fat makes people fat which
is nothing of the sort, if it is good fat and not trans fats.
Ancel Keys was one of those promoting the this mantra and time
and time again was able to persuade the government to declare
that a high carb diet with little or no fat was the healthy way to
eat. Time has proven that wasn’t right as when the intake of
carbs increases to ‘improve’ ones health, for some reason people
just still kept getting fat and fatter. Studies and research have
shown to be the case, carbs are the reason people get fat and
incur the ‘diseases of civilization’.
Here is an hour and a half video of Robert Listig explaining in
rather minute detail about the affects of ‘refined carbohydrates’
and mostly high fructose corn syrup in the body.
By ronjeremy, April 15, 2011 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
the article was interesting, but quite scientific, quite enjoyable, though. for
anyone interested in the topic of sugar and how it affects people, the book SUGAR
BLUES by William Duffy is a great read and more for the layman. andy kaufman
said the book killed him. i highly recommend it, but recommendations do not
come with any qualifications
The brain gets addicted to the sugar like it does a drug and craves it.
There is no scientific evidence that explains adequately this phenomenon.
There is much talk about sugar in this blog; but if one is not concerned about carbohydrate intake, then body-health is not really bettered in any significant manner by singling out sugars as the unique culprit.
We are eating ourselves to death, with one of the highest Caloric Intakes on earth. Moreover, it is the nature of that intake that is harmful. Have a look at the facts here in per capital Kcalory consumption - the US is at the top of the list. Don’t look for kudos, however.
Moreover, see here of what those calories consist:
Veg. oils & animal fats 18%
Fruits & vegetables 5%
Starchy roots & pulses 4%
Sugar & sweeteners 18%
Cereals 23%
Meat & poultry 16%
Milk & dairy 10%
Other
(from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization )
Sugars in our diet are important causes of overweight, yes, but they are no magical wand by which divesting oneself of sugar intake that wonders happen. It is by reducing caloric intake to 2000 kcal a day, with enlarged nutritional variety, that weight wonders are observable.
Cocktails with the girls. Wine with dinner. A
nightcap before bed. Drinking may seem harmless, but
drug experts recently said that alcohol is more
dangerous than crack and heroin combined. In
recognition of Alcohol Awareness Month, find out if
you’re drinking too much…
It’s a lovely evening. You’re relaxed and having a
good time with friends, so you signal the waiter for
a second cocktail.
That extra glass or two won’t hurt, right? Wrong, say
medical and addiction experts. Actually, it’s a fine
line between moderate and excessive drinking and it’s
easier to slip than you think.
Nationally, more women are being arrested for driving
under the influence of alcohol and drugs, up 28.8% in
2007 from 1998, the FBI recently reported. About 5.3
million women in the U.S. threaten their health and
safety with drinking, says Roy David Eskapa, Ph.D.,
author of The Cure for Alcoholism (BenBella Books).
By web development, April 15, 2011 at 5:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Like you’ve said I wouldn’t buy this either. For centuries sugar have been in the pantry of almost every home. I do mean centuries and hundreds of span of years.Diabetes is one thing out of question.
By ronjeremy, April 15, 2011 at 1:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
the article was quite scientific, but still great. if this kind of thing interests you, i highly recommend SUGAR BLUES by william duffy. it is a great read and very interesting. andy kaufman said it ruined his life. sugar is definitely not good for you, but it is not the adults making decisions about what to eat that is at issue. as far as toxology goes, it appears, according to the piece, that no one is allowing anyone to properly study it without being considered a bit of a nutjob just for saying sugar may be behind the collective disease that is white/western. i think that the main issue that could really be affected by this kind of knowledge is what is allowed to go into school-served meals(breakfast and lunch), which more and more children and families depend upon each year. that, i believe is neither conservative, liberal, progressive, or any other label. ‘you know, for the children.’ Sugar Blues is a fun read that will get you thinking
Not only is sugar very bad for your health but it’s also highly addictive, like a drug. The one episode of Seinfeld were Elaine had the “4 o’clock sugar rush” is true to life. The brain gets addicted to the sugar like it does a drug and craves it. I’ve had a life-long love affair with sugar and it made all the sense to find this out and I can now understand why the cravings and why it feels like I ‘detox’ when I get off it. It truly is a powerful addiction.
By question, April 14, 2011 at 10:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Well, I found the entire article highly informative & I look forward to the next dietary evil medical science can identify & use to scare the bejeebers out of those who eat & drink. This research also creates jobs because these medical studies keep their incomes up. They’ve about beaten tobacco & alcohol to death; I mean those 2 horses are out of the barn & beyond road kill. However HFCS & refined sugar obviously have a lot of potential. IMO, the corporate overlords want Americans to resume living as in past centuries (thatched huts, common wells, indentured labor, early death-no need for Medicare) in order to keep profits high & deficits low. Reverting to 18th century diets would, of course, be part of that plan. I look forward to chewing on whole grains, sucking on sorghum canes, & the annual boucherie for a little pork belly at the Independence Day Picnic. Now what else about achieving first-world prosperity should we be terrified of? I’d better go check with Beck.
The conservative always has complete faith in the self reliance and basic common sense of his fellow man—except when it comes to regulating what we do with our tingly parts and such. I’d respect their beliefs more if there was some consistency, such as supporting drug legalization, gay marriage, abortion, birth control, and other matters of personal choice. So that argument is null.
The heart of the matter is that food producers sneak sugar into almost every processed food on the store shelf. When you can’t buy a loaf of bread that doesn’t have added sugar, you don’t have the option to exercise self-reliance and common sense, unless the conservative definition of self-reliance is growing and milling your own wheat. Let’s be practical: we live in the 21st century, in which most of our food is produced by others, and we have very little control over what goes in to it—which is why we need laws to protect us. Please read “The Jungle” and tell me we don’t need government intervention in the food-production chain to safeguard our food supply.
From my own 2-year experiment in avoiding sugar, I’m convinced that 1) sugar is deadly and 2) we need government intervention to severely limit its use in many foods. Expecting business to self-regulate demonstrates a naive faith in the common sense of your fellow man; even though these companies’ CEOs have to eat the same crap, they will poison themselves for an extra dollar. Expecting individuals to avoid sugar when it’s EVERYWHERE is a childish denial of the reality of how we obtain food in 2011 America.
Just remember, there was a time when doctors advised patients with respiratory infections to smoke cigarettes to “cut through the phlegm.” Not everything that we think of as poison today has always been considered dangerous.
“I do wish; however, that more conservatives take it upon themselves to eat as much sugar and fat as possible….to excess actually, smoke cigarettes,abuse alcohol and crank, not wear helmets or seat belts,engage in unprotected sex with animals (that means engaging in sex with fellow conservatives of either gender)and to basically become as unhealthy as possible”
rico, suave - As usual, your ability to reduce all of Life’s issues to incredibly sophomoric political dichotomies is…..simply put….boring me to death.
I do wish; however, that more conservatives take it upon themselves to eat as much sugar and fat as possible….to excess actually, smoke cigarettes,abuse alcohol and crank, not wear helmets or seat belts,engage in unprotected sex with animals (that means engaging in sex with fellow conservatives of either gender)and to basically become as unhealthy as possible…..Not only would this be a test of our supposed “best health care system in the world,” but it would also put money in the hands of the true patriots who are entrepreneurial enough to take the money of an insatiable public. Ah, how heartwarming.
This also demonstrates what having ‘complete faith’ of either or
both groups will do; prove that either is capable of stop eating it
or just let the people who want it to keep eating and drinking it.
And the way this issue is treated will perfectly illustrate the difference between progresives and conservatives.
Having complete faith in the stupidity and gullibility of his fellow man, the progressive will want to regulate the hell out of sugar and tell everybody they can’t use it.
Having complete faith in the self reliance and basic common sense of his fellow man, the conservative will just stop using it and that will be the end of it.
A misinformation from the food industry, in particularly the carb
industry, is the identifier ‘sugar’ on the label. This should
identify the different types and the amounts, but I would bet the
bribery(lobbying) won’t let that happen. As mentioned in the
video ‘anti-sugar’, is that most any sugar consumption of
pregnant women tends to fall on through to the developing fetus
thus preconditioning the fetus to a large attraction to sugar. As
pointed out, just sugar is a health liability but the different kinds
present differing more unhealthy affects.
Once again a department in the government, usda or usfda, is
subverted to disinform people about health issues in food.
A Cooler Century? Wait and See
 . '/' . substr('9780805083385',-6,3) . '/' . '9780805083385' . '.jpg'; ?>)
 . '/' . substr('9780230611337',-6,3) . '/' . '9780230611337' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
By Personal Trainer, July 22, 2011 at 4:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks for the great post, I will send a link to my
Report thispersonal training clients. Would it be okay if I
printed out this article and hand it out to my clients?
Cheers :D
By Alan, July 21, 2011 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Dont think I could live without sugar. but if proved I may cut down.
Report thisBy DailyHealthBlitz, July 20, 2011 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Wow! I always knew sugar was bad…but toxic? If I am going to give up sugar I need a replacement. Splenda? Stevia? there’s got to be something!
Report thisBy Queenie, April 15, 2011 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment
I wish the article had touched on the subject of artificial sweeteners like Splenda, which is what I use instead of sugar. (and very little of that)
Report thisBy question, April 15, 2011 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m so tired of these arguments. I actually believe that HFCS & refined sugars are terrible for our health. Yes, I believe they’re tied to a number of horrific illnesses. However, I can’t understand WHY we’re being buffeted daily with horrors about our diets at the same time that our financial ability to determine our diets is being flushed down the crapper. Do they think that desperate people losing jobs, benefits, homes & retirements give a rat’s ass about sugar if the affordable calories keep their kids alive?
Report thisBy samosamo, April 15, 2011 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment
****************
By ronjeremy, April 15 at 5:36 am
““as far as toxology goes, it appears, according to the piece, that
no one is allowing anyone to properly study it without being
considered a bit of a nutjob just for saying sugar may be behind
the collective disease that is white/western.”“
****************
There are people who study this and for at least the century. Just
as there are people who study the curious rise of ‘the disease of
civilization’ not long after the agricultural age came along. But
because the idea of conspiracies is so abhorrent to those who
are trying to use unhealthy substances to make a buck, there
begins a huge outcry from those people against those who do
find the problems and try to inform people of those problems.
Gary Taubes’ ‘Good Calories, Bad Calories’ demonstrates this on
how the evidence of how bad the ‘refined carbohydrates’ (think
anything white and powderly) are to the human body. From
somewhere in the middle 20th century when doctors and
scientists were trying to bring attention to the deleterious affects
of those refined carbohydrates there were even more in ploy
naysaying that those carbs were not the problem and were
somehow allowed to set government standards that ostensibly
said so and threw the blame on the health issues to the other 2
major food groups, fat because people were fat and getting
fatter which created the mantra the fat makes people fat which
is nothing of the sort, if it is good fat and not trans fats.
Ancel Keys was one of those promoting the this mantra and time
and time again was able to persuade the government to declare
that a high carb diet with little or no fat was the healthy way to
eat. Time has proven that wasn’t right as when the intake of
carbs increases to ‘improve’ ones health, for some reason people
just still kept getting fat and fatter. Studies and research have
shown to be the case, carbs are the reason people get fat and
incur the ‘diseases of civilization’.
Here is an hour and a half video of Robert Listig explaining in
rather minute detail about the affects of ‘refined carbohydrates’
and mostly high fructose corn syrup in the body.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Report thisBy ronjeremy, April 15, 2011 at 8:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
the article was interesting, but quite scientific, quite enjoyable, though. for
Report thisanyone interested in the topic of sugar and how it affects people, the book SUGAR
BLUES by William Duffy is a great read and more for the layman. andy kaufman
said the book killed him. i highly recommend it, but recommendations do not
come with any qualifications
By Lafayette, April 15, 2011 at 6:37 am Link to this comment
JUST THE FACTS, MA’AM
There is no scientific evidence that explains adequately this phenomenon.
There is much talk about sugar in this blog; but if one is not concerned about carbohydrate intake, then body-health is not really bettered in any significant manner by singling out sugars as the unique culprit.
We are eating ourselves to death, with one of the highest Caloric Intakes on earth. Moreover, it is the nature of that intake that is harmful. Have a look at the facts here in per capital Kcalory consumption - the US is at the top of the list. Don’t look for kudos, however.
Moreover, see here of what those calories consist:
Veg. oils & animal fats 18%
Fruits & vegetables 5%
Starchy roots & pulses 4%
Sugar & sweeteners 18%
Cereals 23%
Meat & poultry 16%
Milk & dairy 10%
Other
(from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization )
Sugars in our diet are important causes of overweight, yes, but they are no magical wand by which divesting oneself of sugar intake that wonders happen. It is by reducing caloric intake to 2000 kcal a day, with enlarged nutritional variety, that weight wonders are observable.
How To Stop Sweet Cravings
Report thisBy Nostraden62, April 15, 2011 at 5:55 am Link to this comment
Cocktails with the girls. Wine with dinner. A
nightcap before bed. Drinking may seem harmless, but
drug experts recently said that alcohol is more
dangerous than crack and heroin combined. In
recognition of Alcohol Awareness Month, find out if
you’re drinking too much…
It’s a lovely evening. You’re relaxed and having a
good time with friends, so you signal the waiter for
a second cocktail.
That extra glass or two won’t hurt, right? Wrong, say
medical and addiction experts. Actually, it’s a fine
line between moderate and excessive drinking and it’s
easier to slip than you think.
Nationally, more women are being arrested for driving
Report thisunder the influence of alcohol and drugs, up 28.8% in
2007 from 1998, the FBI recently reported. About 5.3
million women in the U.S. threaten their health and
safety with drinking, says Roy David Eskapa, Ph.D.,
author of The Cure for Alcoholism (BenBella Books).
By Nostraden62, April 15, 2011 at 5:42 am Link to this comment
Thats strange My Grandfather live to be 89 Years
Report thisOld,and he Smoked too….........
By web development, April 15, 2011 at 5:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Like you’ve said I wouldn’t buy this either. For centuries sugar have been in the pantry of almost every home. I do mean centuries and hundreds of span of years.Diabetes is one thing out of question.
Report thisBy ronjeremy, April 15, 2011 at 1:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
the article was quite scientific, but still great. if this kind of thing interests you, i highly recommend SUGAR BLUES by william duffy. it is a great read and very interesting. andy kaufman said it ruined his life. sugar is definitely not good for you, but it is not the adults making decisions about what to eat that is at issue. as far as toxology goes, it appears, according to the piece, that no one is allowing anyone to properly study it without being considered a bit of a nutjob just for saying sugar may be behind the collective disease that is white/western. i think that the main issue that could really be affected by this kind of knowledge is what is allowed to go into school-served meals(breakfast and lunch), which more and more children and families depend upon each year. that, i believe is neither conservative, liberal, progressive, or any other label. ‘you know, for the children.’ Sugar Blues is a fun read that will get you thinking
Report thisBy MK Ultra, April 14, 2011 at 11:47 am Link to this comment
Not only is sugar very bad for your health but it’s also highly addictive, like a drug. The one episode of Seinfeld were Elaine had the “4 o’clock sugar rush” is true to life. The brain gets addicted to the sugar like it does a drug and craves it. I’ve had a life-long love affair with sugar and it made all the sense to find this out and I can now understand why the cravings and why it feels like I ‘detox’ when I get off it. It truly is a powerful addiction.
Report thisBy question, April 14, 2011 at 10:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Well, I found the entire article highly informative & I look forward to the next dietary evil medical science can identify & use to scare the bejeebers out of those who eat & drink. This research also creates jobs because these medical studies keep their incomes up. They’ve about beaten tobacco & alcohol to death; I mean those 2 horses are out of the barn & beyond road kill. However HFCS & refined sugar obviously have a lot of potential. IMO, the corporate overlords want Americans to resume living as in past centuries (thatched huts, common wells, indentured labor, early death-no need for Medicare) in order to keep profits high & deficits low. Reverting to 18th century diets would, of course, be part of that plan. I look forward to chewing on whole grains, sucking on sorghum canes, & the annual boucherie for a little pork belly at the Independence Day Picnic. Now what else about achieving first-world prosperity should we be terrified of? I’d better go check with Beck.
Report thisBy Joyanna, April 14, 2011 at 10:31 am Link to this comment
The conservative always has complete faith in the self reliance and basic common sense of his fellow man—except when it comes to regulating what we do with our tingly parts and such. I’d respect their beliefs more if there was some consistency, such as supporting drug legalization, gay marriage, abortion, birth control, and other matters of personal choice. So that argument is null.
The heart of the matter is that food producers sneak sugar into almost every processed food on the store shelf. When you can’t buy a loaf of bread that doesn’t have added sugar, you don’t have the option to exercise self-reliance and common sense, unless the conservative definition of self-reliance is growing and milling your own wheat. Let’s be practical: we live in the 21st century, in which most of our food is produced by others, and we have very little control over what goes in to it—which is why we need laws to protect us. Please read “The Jungle” and tell me we don’t need government intervention in the food-production chain to safeguard our food supply.
From my own 2-year experiment in avoiding sugar, I’m convinced that 1) sugar is deadly and 2) we need government intervention to severely limit its use in many foods. Expecting business to self-regulate demonstrates a naive faith in the common sense of your fellow man; even though these companies’ CEOs have to eat the same crap, they will poison themselves for an extra dollar. Expecting individuals to avoid sugar when it’s EVERYWHERE is a childish denial of the reality of how we obtain food in 2011 America.
Just remember, there was a time when doctors advised patients with respiratory infections to smoke cigarettes to “cut through the phlegm.” Not everything that we think of as poison today has always been considered dangerous.
Report thisBy mrfreeze, April 14, 2011 at 9:09 am Link to this comment
Face it rico, you bring out the “best” in me!
You’re still a bore. Not an original thought in that head of yours. Just the same old, tired-out conservative cliches…..........
(what, you didn’t like the unprotected sex with animals comment???)
Report thisBy rico, suave, April 14, 2011 at 8:03 am Link to this comment
mrfreeze:
“I do wish; however, that more conservatives take it upon themselves to eat as much sugar and fat as possible….to excess actually, smoke cigarettes,abuse alcohol and crank, not wear helmets or seat belts,engage in unprotected sex with animals (that means engaging in sex with fellow conservatives of either gender)and to basically become as unhealthy as possible”
Sophomoric indeed.
Report thisBy The Prophet Nabob, April 14, 2011 at 7:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
If this really represents what Taubes thinks, then he is very confused. I hate to say that about a guy who can write 500 pages about food.
EVERY substance is “toxic” at a certain DOSE. That is basic toxicology.
Paraphrasing Paracelsus: “The dose makes the poison.”
Taken in the right quantities, then, sure, sugar is toxic. But so is salt and pepper.
Report thisBy mrfreeze, April 13, 2011 at 10:55 pm Link to this comment
rico, suave - As usual, your ability to reduce all of Life’s issues to incredibly sophomoric political dichotomies is…..simply put….boring me to death.
I do wish; however, that more conservatives take it upon themselves to eat as much sugar and fat as possible….to excess actually, smoke cigarettes,abuse alcohol and crank, not wear helmets or seat belts,engage in unprotected sex with animals (that means engaging in sex with fellow conservatives of either gender)and to basically become as unhealthy as possible…..Not only would this be a test of our supposed “best health care system in the world,” but it would also put money in the hands of the true patriots who are entrepreneurial enough to take the money of an insatiable public. Ah, how heartwarming.
Report thisBy samosamo, April 13, 2011 at 9:35 pm Link to this comment
****************
Report thisThis also demonstrates what having ‘complete faith’ of either or
both groups will do; prove that either is capable of stop eating it
or just let the people who want it to keep eating and drinking it.
By rico, suave, April 13, 2011 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment
And the way this issue is treated will perfectly illustrate the difference between progresives and conservatives.
Having complete faith in the stupidity and gullibility of his fellow man, the progressive will want to regulate the hell out of sugar and tell everybody they can’t use it.
Having complete faith in the self reliance and basic common sense of his fellow man, the conservative will just stop using it and that will be the end of it.
Report thisBy samosamo, April 13, 2011 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment
****************
A misinformation from the food industry, in particularly the carb
industry, is the identifier ‘sugar’ on the label. This should
identify the different types and the amounts, but I would bet the
bribery(lobbying) won’t let that happen. As mentioned in the
video ‘anti-sugar’, is that most any sugar consumption of
pregnant women tends to fall on through to the developing fetus
thus preconditioning the fetus to a large attraction to sugar. As
pointed out, just sugar is a health liability but the different kinds
present differing more unhealthy affects.
Once again a department in the government, usda or usfda, is
Report thissubverted to disinform people about health issues in food.