4 ms·

"—a nutrition scientist at Archer Daniels Midland, a major food processing corporation—" Facepalm

• derleth 13y ago
  And you have nothing to say about the content, then?
  • donaldc 13y ago
    His comment says more about the content of the article than most of the other comments. An article about sugar funded by ADM is not an objective source of information, due to the very large conflict of interest.
    • derleth 13y ago
      Whether it's right or wrong is independent of where it comes from.
• darkarmani 13y ago
  And you'll note the link to John White is broken too. It should be this: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=63290138&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=Nbjk&locale=en_US&srchid=84040261374070462799&srchindex=7&srchtotal=16&trk=vsrp_people_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A84040261374070462799%2CVSRPtargetId%3A63290138%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=63290138&authType=NA... He's a consulting research guy for the same people that benefit from HFCS. He has a bunch of propaganda about HFCS, so he is seriously bending the conclusions as much as possible in favor of it. Here's the part where the article actually agrees that sugar is bad for you: > Even if Lustig is wrong to call fructose poisonous and saddle it with all the blame for obesity and diabetes, his most fundamental directive is sound: eat less sugar. WTF? It spent the whole article trying to show that sugar is ok, and then it concludes that?