Here are some more mainstream sources. All "official" output on these subjects are heavily regulated and lobbied by corporate interests however. Further problem is that western culture is far too heavily empirical, whereas axiomatic/rationalist viewpoints on nutrition are often true and logical - it's just that nobody has paid the $$$ to "prove" them in a non-replicable study. However, my axiomatic broscience is frowned upon in the empiricist cult of the silicon valley so I have only linked to fairly establishment sources here. Still good for the basics
The problem here is broken nutritional epistemology and lack of education. Remember that as recently as the early 1970s, it was broadly promoted, almost as a nootropic. In my home town in Australia it was common to add spoonfuls of sugar over breakfast cereal, Nutella and Milo (chocolate milk drink) were promoted as healthy sports foods for children, and a tablespoon of sugar (I know!!) was promoted as a good way to fix hiccups. My mother was ostracised by the other mothers at my school (in the early 00's, not the 70s) for not giving me Nutella, Chocolates, Lollies etc in my lunch.
I'm not making excuses here - it's more that unless you come from a privileged or niche background, especially before the internet, you would think this is normal. Imagine as a woman going to your GP doctor for a checkup in the 1980s and having them suggest you start eating spoonfuls of pure refined white sugar to help you control your appetite. Similar modern examples include the popularity of "Bubble tea" which should almost be regarded as a poison
It's not that its hard to find non-sugar food - it's hard to KNOW that's what you're meant to do, even in the most educated first world countries.
Processed carbohydrates are harmful, however sugar is particularly harmful in its effects on the hormonal system, insulin resistance, concentration, dental decay (and tooth growth in children), psychology of child, irratibility etc. Humans are simply not designed to consume such vast amounts of industrial grade sugar in such quantities.
You can literally throw sugar canes into a juicing machine and it has less sugar content than a can of coca cola
It is not just Sugar, it's also the fact that most Americans live on a diet full of industrially refined sugar, hydrogenated vegetable oil, strange chemical preservatives, flavouring agents, artificial sweeteners to avoid the sugar, and "no fat' products that achieve this in strange way. For instance,
It's further complicated by the fact that there is no functional epistemology of nutrition in the US; previous attempts to create one such as the "Food Pyramid" were heavily financed by food lobbying groups and are now distrusted. This leads to things like people deciding that carbohydrates are universally bad because removing deep fried potatos from their diet makes them feel better; or people swearing by vegetarianism because for the first time since childhood they stopped eating "Meat.jpg" like you find in hotdogs etc. Or people swearing by low fat diets because they stopped eating icecream deep fried in margarine.
There is also no underlying national food tradition; I live in South East Asia and in this country there is a strong tradition of eating steamed rice and steamed chicken as a staple food, as well as steamed eggs and seafood (shellfish, pan fried fish,etc) This means that with no nutritional knowledge the diet here is considerably better than the average person in the US.
Why would I read online news when I can just have information streamed directly into my consciousness with a brain implant?
Why would I read the newspaper that comes in a few weeks when I can get instant information online?
Why would I wait for the town crier to come through in a few days when I can get instant information from this "news-paper"
Why would I wait until Sunday afternoon at the cathedral to get the town news when we're all assembled together in the middle ages when the town crier is coming past later this week?
The 1619 should have been in time magazine or national geographic, not the new york times. Because its not news, its pseudo-anthropology designed to create a legitimate citation source for teachers and academia in general.
Now high school students can write nonsense in an essay and cite the New York Times as a source, and get A+ from their teachers. This is the real purpose of it
https://www.thedailymeal.com/travel/american-foods-banned-ot...
or being told that common healthy foods we enjoy in Europe, Australia etc are dangerous and to be avoided;
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/oysters-and-vib...