You know, instead of a Google search maybe you can explain, in your own words, how it is that fructose creates insulin resistance, metabolic dyslipidemia and why that's deleterious to the human body given the normal diet. I ask, because as someone who has understands this issue and can, in my own words, refute the nonsense in this research, I'd like just one of the people here who make these claims to defend what they post without linking me to studies they don't understand.
First you should understand that most research today is undertaken to find more research money. They create a problem and perpetuate it through questionable methodology that delivers the desired results leading to more grants.
Here's the simple problem with all this research: Sugar (sucrose) is hydrolized into 50% glucose and 50% fructose. High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. HFCS is used as a sugar substitute. Where there was once sugar (or would be sugar) there is HFCS. Fructose is 1.3 times sweeter than sucrose so less HFCS is needed than sugar to achieve the same sweetness. The amount of additional fructose the body is consuming, using HFCS instead of sugar, is almost negligible, yet they claim it's causing all these afflictions. Why are they picking on HFCS when sucrose is essentially made up of the same two ingredients in almost equal proportions?
If HFCS is evil then so is sucrose. Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than the body needs. Obesity, in most cases, is what causes diabetes. The problem, IMO, is that today too many people are drinking sweetened beverages instead of water when the body wants liquid. So they end up getting additional calories they don't need. It doesn't matter whether or not you use sucrose or HFCS, the same result will occur. If you overwhelm the body with anything your health will suffer.
These researchers are attempting to blame obesity and the resulting afflictions on something other than the cause and because the average person is unable to look at this research and distinguish fact from fiction, they buy it all hook, line and sinker. The end result is that we willingly give the government more power to regulate what we consume. I find it ironic that so many on this thread willingly buy into this nonsense then decry government control over some other part of our lives in the very next post.
As for your linked article.... Humans rely mostly on starch for their glucose which stimulates insulin. Humans don't rely on fructose for a large part of their caloric intake. The last study I saw showed that, on average, less than 8% of the total calories we consume comes from fructose. Most of the research has animals (and now people apparently) consuming large quantities of fructose that has no relationship whatsoever to the real world. I have also noticed that they never seem to do a blind study feeding another group the same amount of glucose. I guess it would be hard to create alarm with identical results. If you feed massive amounts of fructose (or anything else for that matter) to humans or animals all sorts of bad things can happen. If you drink too much water it can be lethal.
Most research today is filled with charlatans and BS. It's nothing more than a money grab by people who manage the results to generate alarm and more money. It's unfortunate that more here don't realize this so they would be more skeptical when someone tells them that HFCS is dangerous, but not sucrose, even though it's made up of the very same ingredients. I've spent a great deal of time on FR refuting bogus research over the past year posted by folks who believe what they don't understand. If any of it was legitimate HFCS would be regulated or removed from the market.
In fact, though I'm not an expert in this matter, much less play one on Free Republic, I have studied some on dietary intake--which is why I try to keep my consumption of certain refined foods to a minimum ( such as table sugar, things made with refined flour, ready-made meals ). This is not because I am a diabetic, but because it is a sensible thing after studying a bit of literature.
Now, this is wonderful, but it gets away from the main topic of the article--which is the states having their authority infringed by the Federal government. And, you have to admit, its easier to grease the palms of 536 ( I'm including the President here ) people in Washington DC, than it is across 50 states.
I am of the belief that this, in conjunction with certain other things like NAIS, and a few other data points are due to the actions of certain industries like Con-Agra, ADM, and large producers is a way to maintain a lock.