> If I'm understanding that correctly, I'd think this would count as a motive for various food industries to intentionally use excessive fructose in various food products to manipulate people to buy excess food/drink against their will/better judgment. It would also probably count as evidence of harm caused by including it in food/drink products. One would need harder evidence to prove that they deliberately and knowingly did so, though.

80% of packaged foods (in some mini-markets, it's closer to 100%) have added fructose. They are not adding it accidentally. They're adding it because they know it increases sales.