If fructose is the enemy then you'd have to demonize sucrose as well. There are two formulations of HFCS being commercialized today. The formula used mostly in soft drinks is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Sucrose, of course, is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Does anyone really think a 5% variance is responsible for all the alleged maladies?
The other commercialized formula of HFCS is just 42% fructose and 58% glucose. This formula is commonly used in baked goods, cereals, and other processed foods. If fructose is really the enemy, then the anti-HFCS crowd should be touting the benefits of this particular formula of HFCS over sucrose.
There's 10 percent more fructose than glucose, but fructose is sweeter so you can use less by weight to sweeten the same drink. Hypertension, obesity, and type II diabetes are huge risk factors for morbidity and mortality as well as the cost of healthcare. If the the increase use of HFCS is behind it, the sooner that is determined, the better.
The other commercialized formula of HFCS is just 42% fructose and 58% glucose. This formula is commonly used in baked goods, cereals, and other processed foods. If fructose is really the enemy, then the anti-HFCS crowd should be touting the benefits of this particular formula of HFCS over sucrose.
Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity
It's a pretty good article, IMHO. The HFCS in solid processed foods wasn't related to obesity, IIRC. Maybe they would be better off using just glucose as a sweetener? That's what your brain uses as fuel. BTW, do you work for the food industry? I'm a family practice doc. My undergraduate major was chemistry.