Curious reader should always look for biases (like alpha-error or beta-error), that is true! However it is absolutely stupid to deny unfavorable results in a properly conducted study based upon who funded the study or what was the situation on market at hat time.
BTW, calling back to the first article. What type of research was that? Does this type of research establish cause-effect relationship? That's a question to answer to you.
Second, regards the quality of the article. The authors say:"... excessive fructose intake (>50 g/d)..." - does this mean overall quantity of fructose ingested during a day including fruits, vegetables etc, or additions only (like sweeteners added to tea, cakes etc), or including fructose derived from depleting sucrose as well? I don't know, do you? Because if it is only sweeteners - it's A LOT. Considering the fact that I put 1 tblspoon of sugar to 1 cup of tea it'll put me at about 15 cups a day! The glucose or sucrose in this quantities will most likely cause the same effect.
Aha, now we ran to the fact that it would be wise to have a research that has statistically significant number of people assigned to each "sugar group" and have a control group. Plus the type of study that allows establish a "cause-effect" relationships. Not a lit. review!
Not a case control! Not descriptive study! Show me 3 prospective or retrospective cohort studies and I'll be first to agree with you. 
What you are doing is pulling first few articles on google that have hypothesis on potential harm of fructose and make certain assumptions. There is no easier way to be wrong than to assume something. The authors nowhere had said that fructose is more dangerous than glucose.
Sorry, but you are misleading people on the forum with your assumptions.
А в составе ингридиентов они указывают, что там краситель? Или подло скрывают?
Бедные люди, которые такое с детства едят. 
