Being tentative about drawing conclusions is not the same as being content free. Considering how often past dietary advice has been wrong, it seems like this topic could use a little more tentativeness.
One might say that given a health crisis, sitting back not saying anything would be irresponsible. Ben Goldacre chronicles bad science journalism, and this is not an example of it.
(edited)
The fact that you misread me is your problem. I did not write there was conclusive evidence that sucrose is toxic. I said _conclusive evidence of a problem_ - which is different thing and is clearly true.
Responding to a comment referring to a specific lack of evidence about sugar/toxicity by saying that there is conclusive evidence of "a problem" implies relevancy, which implies that you are confusing the two issues.
Let me try a different tactic: what is your specific problem with this article? Do you object out of hand to non-peer reviewed science articles regardless of quality? Do you have specific objections to the quality of this article?
From my point of view, there has been a long standing public health problem in the US with obesity and related pathologies. The public has been understandably interested in the outcome, and so there is demand for press coverage. The scientific progress in identifying the cause of the problem has been uneven and there have been some incorrect conclusions about the root cause, even among experts in the field. As a result, the media coverage has also been incorrect. However, this article seems reasonable. It makes clear references to current scientific work, presents the subject evenly (barring the title), and the author makes efforts to explain to an educated but non-scientific audience.
In general? I find it distasteful but I don't really give that much of a shit.
Topics like nutrition or medicine have a large potential to cause bodily harm however, and I firmly believe that non-rigorous studies should not be shared with populations that don't have the capacity to understand the limitations present.
Example: Shoddy studies about vaccines and the general public mix with disastrous results.
All so this journalist can make a quick buck, instead of finding something more appropriate to "report" on.
As someone that believes in accurate science and honest journalism, I would call that irresponsible.
Did I say that?
I guess the big issue I have with his advice is that obesity is really most strongly correlated with increased intake of calories, and less so with the macronutritional source of those calories.
In his books, Gary Taubes makes an argument that the causal relationship is reversed. It's not that eating too much causes your body to store the excess as fat. Rather it's that your body is storing necessary energy as fat before your body can use it, so you need to eat more to make up the deficit.
He explains this in his comments: "Again, one common theme here is that because sugar has gotten more or a less free pass from the federal authorities for the past forty years, little meaningful research has been done."
Supposing readership gets scared enough to eliminate these "added sugars" from their diet, like Soda and candy and cookies cease to exist. How is that harmful? Oh yeah, some companies would disappear and people would be, at least temporarily, out work. These "added sugars" didn't even exist not that long ago, so worst case we would be eating more like we did in the 1800's. Perhaps some new information I don't know about suggests that the added sugars are now indispensable for our well being?. "Downright harmful" is I think, a little exaggerated.
This goes back to the rule about news articles with question headlines: The answer to the headline is "no." If it were "yes," they wouldn't couch it in a question.