[lmm]

> I don't think the science is conclusive that HFCS is any worse than sugar.

The science is rarely conclusive about anything. There is enough evidence to suggest risks from high HFCS consumption to warrant caution.

> 3) They make many varieties, some which use cane sugar instead of HFCS. 4) What does this have anything to to with the US?

The US is associated with high HFCS consumption. I would suspect that these points are related and those non-HFCS varieties are more popular outside the US.

[infecto]

You did not prove it’s materially more harmful. Yes science is rarely conclusive but we have enough studies on both sides and it’s unclear how harmful it is in low quantities. I think we all can generally agree that higher consumption quantities of any type of sweetener is generally not healthy.

The point about the US is the parent pointed it out as a jab when in reality they were wrong on multiple accounts.

[lmm]

> You did not prove it’s materially more harmful. Yes science is rarely conclusive but we have enough studies on both sides and it’s unclear how harmful it is in low quantities. I think we all can generally agree that higher consumption quantities of any type of sweetener is generally not healthy.

All true, and all beside the point. The best available evidence suggests - not proves, but suggests - that HFCS consumption is more harmful than the alternatives.

[infecto]

Going back to my original point. I don't think any of the science suggests that HFCS in moderate amounts has any material difference. But...like I also keep saying, none of the science is really conclusive on any of this but what I think is a generally agreed, sweetners are not healthy in frequent larger quantities.