Yes, but you're cherrypicking changes based on what feels like should be relevant. A good deal has changed in the last 50 years, we can't (and don't want to) roll everything back, and it's unclear what should be rolled back.
Seriously, there's a reason epidemiology is a field smart people dedicate lifetimes to. This shit is difficult.
Anyway, my point wasn't that current levels of sugar consumption are fine, it's clearly not. I'm saying that the article is being dishonest which should be relevant even if their recommendations are good.
Type II diabetes used to be rare. Obesity was not uncommon however the incidence was stable.
Now both have become prevalent in the last 50 years.
You know what I do when faced with a poorly understood system that used to behave before a bunch of changes were made but now does not?
I revert back all the suspicious changes.