In nutrition, bashing sugar is all the rage. Over roughly the last 20 years, many researchers and health commentators have moved beyond implicating sugar as a cause of life-threatening disease, to blaming it for more mild concerns, even acne. Is it true? Let's find out. In the insane universe of dietary fads and fears, at any given time there's always a food that is "super" and another that is a "killer." With rare exceptions, both descriptions are wrong. One of the perennial "bad guys" is high fructose corn syrup. Nutritionist Angela Dowden explains why the reputation of HFCS is not deserved. The food crazies are now warning us about a new "threat": fruit. One of them, a physician, says that modern fruit has been bred to contain 100 times more sugar than ancient varieties, so therefore it's not a healthy snack. Let's see what Angela Dowden, a real nutritionist, has to say about this. Nutrition facts labeling is changing. Coming soon to a product near you, there will be a new information line telling you how much of the total sugars content is added. But will the new labels make any sense? Angela Dowden weighs in. Errors in our scientific beliefs are not always due to Big Industry and its evil intent. Science is a human enterprise, constrained by human foibles. Sometimes we just get it wrong. Added sugars are the focus of the latest nutrition culture wars, with articles helping us find "hidden" sugars. You know, the ones listed on the ingredients labels. The problem isn't really added sugar — it's over-consumption. Anti-sugar activists have gone so far as to require warning labels about the health risks conferred by sugar-sweetened beverages — in San Francisco. Fortunately, the District Court of Appeals has struck down that ruling because the label wasn't based on validated scientific findings. Whew!C-diff is a bacterium that causes a life-threatening infection. Though the bacterium can infect healthy individuals, it is of particular concern to those who are hospitalized or are taking antibiotics. We want to hear what kids around the nation (and globe!) want to know about science and health. Kicking off our new segment, #KuriousKiddos, are Isaiah and Gabriel who ask us this: Our mom dilutes our juice with water because she says too much sugar is bad for us. Is it healthier to drink diluted juice or the real deal? Watch the video to hear our answer! If you'd like to submit a question to #KuriousKiddos, please e-mail us at: email@example.com Many groups blame sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages for the epidemic of obesity. Some have argued that a tax on them would lower consumption, and thus decrease the prevalence of obesity. But a recent Australian study showed that decreasing intake of these drinks was actually accompanied by an increase in obesity prevalence. Soda taxes aren't racist, yet precisely that case was made by a reporter for the newspaper. His position: Blacks and Hispanics consume more sugary beverages than whites and Asians, while whites and Asians drink more diet beverages than blacks and Hispanics. Because the tax does not apply to diet beverages, it is racist. Let's break this down. Food and nutrition companies always capitalize on whatever fad diets are currently in fashion to shamelessly promote their products. Science is usually of secondary concern. Now, Nestlé wants in on the action, promoting an alleged nutritional drink, claiming that it's low in FODMAPs. Huh? What are those?