sciencehabit (1205606) writes "Wood is great for building and heating homes, but it's the bane of biofuels. When converting plants to fuels, engineers must remove a key component of wood, known as lignin, to get to the sugary cellulose that's fermented into alcohols and other energy-rich compounds. That's costly because it normally requires high temperatures and caustic chemicals. Now, researchers in the United States and Canada have modified the lignin in poplar trees to self-destruct under mild processing conditions—a trick that could slash the cost of turning plant biomass into biofuels."
The point is, none of the funding bodies wants to pay the extremely large sums required for *real* nutritional science, so researchers make do with lots of observational studies and a lot of data massaging that will get treated as SCIENCE by an uncritical and generally scientifically-illiterate press, and by not rocking the boat by coming out with articles that challenge the status quo, they're able to continue to receive funding.
Please bear in mind that HFCS (in mainstream use) is either 55% Fructose/42% Glucose (used mainly in drinks) or 42% Fructose/53% Glucose (typically used in food and baked goods). Table sugar consists of Sucrose, which when absorbed by the body breaks down into 50% Fructose/50% Glucose.
Any difference between the two is a matter of marketing.