Something being low cost does not mean it is necessarily damaging. Water is low cost, for example. I don't see why this should be mentioned, it's obvious that companies will do things to save money. On the other hand, producing dangerous products is not a good investment, so it's still up to you to prove it dangerous.

First off, do we still have much brown adipose tissue? I had thought it was more restricted to babies, as brown fat tissue is very metabolically active, I would love to have some, good for weight loss.

Secondly, for someone with a doctorate, you are very lacking in neutrality when describing compounds such as triglycerides, much too alarmist in a way that makes me think you're serving an agenda, or getting uppity. Fructose does not necessarily become fat. This would be more likely though, yes, when it is concentrated in HFCS, and not released slowly as happens from fruit, when it is tempered by fibre matrices.

Furthermore, this is not damaging if the fat is then released to fuel metabolic needs. What is dangerous, is consuming more calories than you use, at that is what leads to weight gain.

LDL or 'bad' cholesterol? Hasn't this myth been dismissed yet? These are produced when fat compounds are taken from the liver to the rest of the body, yes, but there's nothing exceptionally unique that you've described when this occurs with fructose as opposed to any other form of fat eaten, which occurs with ALL excess calories.

Fructose is converted to glucose in the bloodstream first, not triglycerides (which are also simply a method of storing fat in the lipid tissues, and only dangerous if levels remain elevated in the blood for long periods, not if they temporarily increase due to fatty acid redistribution. The same logic applies to afforementioned LDL.

The reason HFCS is labeled as glucose-fructose is that it is produced by treating corn syrup (which is mostly glucose) with glucose isomerase which converts a good deal of it to fructose. This still contains some glucose, however, so they are able to label it that, even if it is a bit misleading. I am not sure why there is an alarm though. As fructose is 2x as sweet as glucose, that means you can sweeten a soft drink the same amount with HALF of the calories than if you sweetened it with glucose, or 3/4 the calories of sweetening it with sucrose.

I do agree with your statement that simply because fructose is organic makes it safe. Organic status has absolutely nothing to do with safety.

I must say that your comments are speculous, and that fructose is fine when consumed in reasonable amounts, are you also against fructose in the form of fruit? Fructose products are not the biggest contributor to the damaging conditions you have described, and I challenge you to provide proof for that. This is not a misleading fructose-manufacturor machination, but rather a request that you back up these claims. What it is, is that fructose is often added to soda pops and juices, and that these are a source of fast calories, and since most people don't think of drinks as having calories, they overconsume them. This makes them fat, and it is this fatness which causes the diseases. Before HFCS, it would be added sucrose that would be the culprit.

I am unsure how the sweetness of sucrose compares to glucose and fructose (would it simply be halfway between?) so I'm not sure if the inclusion of fructose allowed a caloric reduction in added sweetener, or perhaps it just made soda pops sweeter. Overall, I think sucrose would be less metabolically strenuous than the same amount of calories from either glucose or fructose consumed individually. Not simply due to being a disaccharide to help space out the sugar release, but also that half of the calories are released initially, and the release of the other half is delayed while the liver processes it.

One risk that should be looked at in high fructose intake which Mercola mentioned, but you did not, is the potential for liver damage, since all of the fructose would flood the liver and need to be processed there, something we would not encounter so readily in eating fruits, as our metabolisms and liver would have adapted to. That is the only real risk here, the rest is superstition and magical thinking.