I read three interesting articles on the health effects of sugar, which can be found linked below:
It is generally acknowledged that Americans eat too much sugar. But what types of sugars and how much, if any, is considered good for your health? We go to the internet for the answers, but who can you believe? Our job as scientifically literate citizens is to be able to figure out the accuracy and bias of any new information we come across.
I found "Is Sugar Toxic" to be free of errors or logical fallacies. Everything discussed had clear references to scientific studies, and all the names involved with them. Gary Taubes thoroughness made me confident that what I was reading didn't have a strong bias.
In "Sweetener Myths" I was reading the answer to a question about what the difference was between sucrose, fructose, and other types of sugar. Their answer was "sugars are all the same" at which point they referenced "a New York University nutritionist and author Dr. Marion Nestle admits, "the body can hardly tell them apart." The fact that the doctor had to use the word hardly tells me that there is a difference, and the motivation of the author is to get me to ignore that difference.
When I was reading "Sugar Is Bad For Your Health" I noticed the line "The body's attempt to use [refined sugar] results in the formation of toxic substances such as abnormal molecules containing five carbon atoms." To me, mentioning abnormal molecules is a way to confuse the reader and talk over their heads, thus making them believe your argument without understanding it. This lessens the credibility of this article, whether it's true or not.
I'm not trying to argue one way or the other on this topic, because if everyone approaches the available information scientifically, little argument is needed.
For a more in-depth and scientific look at this topic you can watch a very popular lecture given by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology.