Yeah, there's some differences due to different types of sugars, but for "bad for you" purposes, they're all basically alike. It's like blowing up a building wi

Yeah, there's some differences due to different types of sugars, but for "bad for you" purposes, they're all basically alike. It's like blowing up a building with plastique instead of dynamite. Sure, plastique is technically worse, but the building is getting blown up either way. A lot of this boils down to marketing, as Michael Pollan describes so well. HFCS is a "science word" (and worse, a science/corporate word - there's nothing attractive-sounding about "high fructose corn syrup"), and a great deal of food woo comes from culturally anti-corporate feelings rather than any strong reasoning about biology. Don't eat the science words, they'll give you the autism cancer! It's especially absurd because HFCS is seen as an evil "agribusiness" product, yet somehow cane sugar is not, even though sugarcane is a far nastier business in many ways. Say what you will about corn, but at least it doesn't have a long history of slavery tied to it. And food manufacturers, sensitive to these abstract feelings, latch on to "real sugar" as opposed to evil HFCS, and encourage a belief that "real sugar" is "natural", while HFCS is "artificial" - a science word, full of science cancer. We live in a soup of marketing and nonsense. It's very hard to not be affected by omnipresent marketing campaigns that are carefully designed to manipulate our feelings rather than our reason.