Robert Lustig, while having great science to back up his claims, is very alarmist and has been derided for some of his outright demonization of fructose. Which, when you think about it, is opposite to many demagogues out there; they'll talk up a big storm with very little to back it up. Here, Lustig has plenty to back up what he's saying, but just does it in the wrong way unfortunately. I also thoroughly disagree with his legislation ideas. Legislating society's habits rarely ever works. This is an incredibly complex societal problem that won't be solved by removing sugar from the Generally Recongnized as Safe list.
I think for some things to gain attention being alarmist is needed, and then people will hopefully come to their own conclusions after researching it. Sugar is pretty much in everything we eat. It covers over a lot of other issues, mainly that we don't eat as much fresh food as we should - otherwise we wouldn't need sugar to make it taste good. This is profitable for business, not profitable for a person's health.
