Here's a primer on what sugar (or more precisely, fructose) does by Dr Lustig (of UCSF, if memory serves):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
I wouldn't be surprised if US agribusinesses ultimately end up on the receiving end of lawsuits across the world -- much like tabacco companies did.
In any case, I wouldn't count on that. Recent meta-studies (if we are to at least believe those) show that a majority of scientific papers are non verifiable and non reproducible BS, contain fabrications and alterations, etc -- and that's talking about the "hard sciences". And having been involved with researchers, I don't doubt that at all.
E.g:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-re...
and:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-t...
This is the "Experts were wrong before" dodge, which conveniently ignores how often individuals are wrong.
The problem with this is multi-fold:
Do you know what good information looks like, or are you going to be fed crap from a circle-jerk of sources which all repeat the same lies? This is a bootstrapping problem, ultimately: How do you know where to get the first info you use to tell crap from good information?
Experts largely agree with each other in most mature fields. This is part of what it means for a field to be mature. The problem is, a lot of the liars and scammers agree with each other as well, or at least the ones all selling the same scams do. How do you tell the difference?
Since I don't have time to become a Ph.D. in biology, medicine, or an allied field, I have to trust the experts. Nobody has time to be an expert in everything.
Also, 'make up your own mind' is predicated on the idea that you are making up your own mind, as opposed to baby-duck-like imprinting on someone who makes good-looking videos and can string words. The people who follow Alex Jones think they're thinking for themselves, too. Following a body of knowledge as opposed to a single charismatic guru is a hedge against this baby-duck effect.
And:
> without the need to appeal to expert consensus (which might as well be bogus and profit-driven?)
How do you know Lustig isn't bogus and ego-driven?
The way you do it for everything else you learn. Start small, explore the area, verify yourself what you can, talk to people and read from various sources.
>Experts largely agree with each other in most mature fields.
When it gets away from the core mechanics of some field, that agreement is based on some fundumental premises that not necesarrily you or everybody shares with them. A lot of that is also based on the prevalent paradigms and ideologies of a time -- phrenology was once accepted by "experts", as were electro-shocks for gay people. And don't get me started on economic "experts".
Basically anything that moves from an hard scientific explanation to a value judgement is suspect and should be scrutinized, whether experts agree to it or not.
I'd only accept a consensus of lots of independent experts with no state or corporate funding, but those are very hard to find (if at all possible).
>How do you know Lustig isn't bogus and ego-driven?
I don't. Hence I advocate for people to "make up your mind on your own based on information" -- not just trust Lustig or "the expert consensus".
Exactly. So, which other sources have you read from which confirm what Lustig said?
> phrenology was once accepted by "experts", as were electro-shocks for gay people. And don't get me started on economic "experts".
Oh, yes, the "Experts were wrong before" dodge, which is so beloved of quacks and alt-med nutballs in general. It so conveniently ignores the fact that lone people are wrong a lot more often.
> I'd only accept a consensus of lots of independent experts
So, where are all of the independent experts who agree with Lustig?
Dissent then came mostly between two extremes. Namely: "Interesting take, but the body can process a lot more sugar than Lustig suggests before becoming sick", and "NO NO NO! [That's not what I learned and believe is true!] Low-carb food is baaaad!"
Speaking personally, the first end of that spectrum stroke me as forming reasonable objections. The second end stroke me as quacks and curmudgeons on roughly the same level as economists -- i.e. they'll dismiss anything that won't fit their worldview, including evidence and reproducible facts.