> The others I agree with, but there's no evidence that HFCS or GM crops are bad.

That's a clever slight-of-hand.

Sure, GM crops are not intrinsically bad... it's just that they enable the farmer to spray pesticides and herbicides which are very clearly linked to bad outcomes in people who consume the food.

So the only way to ensure you're not eating food sprayed with those things is to choose a non-GM alternative.

What? On HFCS:

While glucose is used by nearly every cell in the body and has tight regulation by insulin, fructose is largely processed by the liver, where it more easily is converted into fat, triglycerides and uric acid.

Intrinsically this messes with our bodies insulin resistance, for a start, contributing to diabetic issues, as well as increased fatty liver disease, and elevated triglycerides.

It bypasses our body's normal appetite regulation, as fructose also (in addition to insulin) does not stimulate leptin, providing the body with no/less feeling of satiation, and is also less effective at stimulating ghrelin (hunger hormone).

You feel less full, you keep eating, calories and obesity go up.

This is at its worst in liquids, as liquid fructose is absorbed rapidly, and leads to effective weight gain even at small amounts of consumption.

Carrying on from that, contrary to your statement, HFCS has absolutely been linked in multiple studies to increased obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

I can't imagine where you're hearing that there's "no evidence that HFCS is bad" other than those in the production pipeline or their lobbying.