I encourage each reader to challenge the information based on its study size. Here is an example that can confuse a reader who trusts the source-the NEW YORK TIMES, with a quick read they may not learn the study has a common flaw. The amount of a nutrient consumed is 3-4 times what the average american eats daily, making the study irrelevant. If the conclusion made is intended to direct the readers thinking that a nutritional they understood to be beneficial is not, then the study did what it was intended to do. Now the consumer may decide, there is no advantage spending the extra dollars to seek out and purchase local honey, and purchase the high fructose corn sugar containing product instead since the article directed their thinking to believe there is no nutritional advantage to consume honey.
So the take home message you decide what works for you, if your family has noticeable health benefits using honey continue to consume honey.
Here is the misleading journal article in the NY Times, that trys to correct the flawed nutritional journal article.
All the best,
New York Times October 27, 2015
By Aaron Carroll
2 2 1695 44
Just a few weeks ago, a study was published in the Journal of Nutrition that many reports in the news media said proved that honey was no better than sugar as a sweetener, and that high-fructose corn syrup was no worse.
This shocked people on all sides of the sweetener debate. It has become an article of faith among many that natural sweeteners like honey are better for you than engineered sweeteners like high-fructose corn syrup, especially for people concerned about diabetes.