I don't doubt the numbers they're using, and I agree with them on the point that there is a lot of sugar in many processed and pre-made food items. I also agree with the linkage between diabetes/obesity and sugar (carbs) rather than fat intake. In the US, we eat less fat than we did 50 years ago, yet heart disease and obesity are all climbing.
My main issue is that the article is basically accusing business of killing it's customers (which isn't their intended analogy to tobacco, but it also fits). I really think these companies are doing what they can to meet demand. Often, if you study the evolution of these products, you find that years ago they made different versions -- and the ones with sugar sold better. So they stopped making the sugarless varieties.
Ketchup is that way. I think it's something like a fourth of a bottle of Hienz is sugar. But, the markets are changing again and you can now find reduced sugar ketchup. It's all about demand. Educate people, create a demand for something healthy, and businesses will respond or lose money. Wow! Free markets work without the regulations sometimes. Go figure.
I think the purpose of the article is to demonize sugar and the companies who use it by associating it with tobacco. They're hoping for government intervention where none is needed. I think we're on the verge of some major food regulations in the US -- targeting fast food. It's coming... And when my previously cited lunch starts costing $20 due to taxation, it'll likely be effective. But it'll be a sad day too.
