This kind of "teach the controversy"† response is exactly what I'd expect big sugar to embrace once they realise they can't win on the facts.
That the paper explicitly says we should hold off on taxing sugar because of their very weak evidence that sugar alternatives might have issues supports this
† To explain the reference, once evolution had clearly taken the lead over creationism in the struggle to be taught in American schools they shifted to "Intelligent Design" (creationism dressed up as science) and "Teach the Controversy" i.e. position them as equals because who can say which is more correct, as strategies to manage the retreat and keep a foot in the door.
Comments
The simple answer is not to drink sweetened beverages - period, regardless of what it is sweetened with.
This kind of "teach the controversy"† response is exactly what I'd expect big sugar to embrace once they realise they can't win on the facts.
That the paper explicitly says we should hold off on taxing sugar because of their very weak evidence that sugar alternatives might have issues supports this
† To explain the reference, once evolution had clearly taken the lead over creationism in the struggle to be taught in American schools they shifted to "Intelligent Design" (creationism dressed up as science) and "Teach the Controversy" i.e. position them as equals because who can say which is more correct, as strategies to manage the retreat and keep a foot in the door.