system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
If HFCS is fructose and glucose, and raw honey is also mostly fructose and glucose, what makes HFCS *that* bad?

Honey is often hailed as having medicinal benefits (or at least being not as bad as table sugar), whereas HFCS is in multiple nutritional black lists (figuratively) and is feared by many for its harmful effects being much worse than straight up table sugar.

Often the explanation is that HFCS has higher fructose which is the bad thing about it, when honey usually have similar if not even higher fructose content compared to glucose. So what gives?

I know that honey has enzymes, minerals and vitamins making it somewhat beneficial, but this doesn’t change how the body absorbs and metabolizes fructose whether in HFCS or honey. So what’s the deal here?

Is honey just as bad as HFCS or is HFCS not as bad as it is made out to be? Or am I missing something?
gpt
The problem is not that HFCS is itself bad for you, the problem is that it is cheap and easy to put in foods so manufactures tended to put it in \*everything\*.  It's gotten better over the past few years, but for a while every processed food had HFCS in it -- potato chips, canned fruit, sausage, bread products, and every single beverage.

Think of it as pouring honey over everything you eat and in the water you drink.  That would be pretty unhealthy for you.