You should be as skeptical (if not more so) of science that agrees with your own prejudices as ones that disagree.
That study Reuters: Cancer Cells Slurp Fructose dose not really indicate anything at this stage. Its just a bunch of cancer cells grown in a dish being fed different pure sugars.
I think that if someone produced a similar study showing that saturated fat is bad because it poisoned some pancreas cells grown in a petri dish it would not be looked kindly on here.
Try this for a more reasoned view of what the study actually showed: Fructose and pancreatic cancer
As I mentioned before, there very well
may be legitimate, science-based
reasons to be worried about fructose
and high fructose corn syrup. Steve
Novella recently wrote a good review
of the topic in which he wanted to
point out that glucose and fructose
are sugars, as is the main component
of high fructose corn syrup. It's a
high calorie, highly processed
substance that has no other
nutritional value other than as pure
fuel. What Heaney's study doesn't
really answer is just how different
from the case in normal pancreatic
cells is fructose metabolism in
pancreatic cells or if it's even
different? In the current study, HPDE6
cells, which are a cell line derived
from normal pancreas cells, behaved
the same as all the pancreatic cancer
cell lines. Fructose supported its
growth and was used primarily for
ribose and nucleic acid synthesis.
There's a lot of hard work that needs
to be done to validate the cell
culture findings reported by Heaney's
group, not the least of which is
testing it in animal models. It's far
too early to make any sort of
recommendations about high fructose
corn syrup and diet based on this
study, and Heaney should have known
better. Next up, I can see an article
on NaturalNews.com touting this study
as "proof" that high fructose corn
syrup is pure, concentrated evil and
that food manufacturers are out to
kill us all, and Heaney will have
given Mike Adams some choice quotes to
use for that article.