Replies

Well, since it provides calories to those consuming it I suppose, like all foods containing calories, it can contribute to obesity. However, it doesn't contribute to obesity any more than sucrose does -- or any other carb for the sake of this discussion.

Now, if you can prove otherwise then have at it. No one yet has been able to prove that glucose and fructose from hydrolyzed sucrose is different than glucose and fructose from HFCS.

The digestive and absorptive processes for glucose and fructose are different.

When disaccharides such as sucrose or maltose enter the intestine, they are cleaved by disaccharidases. A sodium-glucose cotransporter absorbs the glucose that is formed from cleavage of sucrose. Fructose, in contrast, is absorbed further down in the duodenum and jejunum by a non-sodium-dependent process. After absorption, glucose and fructose enter the portal circulation and either are transported to the liver, where the fructose can be taken up and converted to glucose, or pass into the general circulation. The addition of small, catalytic amounts of fructose to orally ingested glucose increases hepatic glycogen synthesis in human subjects and reduces glycemic responses in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (12), which suggests the importance of fructose in modulating metabolism in the liver. However, when large amounts of fructose are ingested, they provide a relatively unregulated source of carbon precursors for hepatic lipogenesis.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/4/537

First, I’m against a tax on it, and if people want to drink it, they should be able to.
However, it’s easier to consume more calories in a drink than in a food, I think that is the problem (if you want to see a problem in soft drinks). But, so, people may make stupid choices, it’s up to them. I’ve made a few myself.