As Carol mentioned, Mintz states that the demand and growth of the use of sugar must be due to more than just the human attraction to "sweetness". Mintz lists 5 uses of sugar, all of which would lead to higher demand and growth of consumption as more and more people used it and a could afford it after it became a free-trade market. The chapter on consumption begins by discussing how the English diet was starch based and "meager". Sugar provided not just more (empty) calories but also made the porridge, for example, more palatable. The 5 uses mentioned are: medicine, spice-condiment, decorative material, sweetener, and preservative. Spice-condiment and sweetener seem obvious to me, that's what I think of when you say "sugar". Decorative material must have been an indulgent way to use a valuable resource. As a medicine, I can only suspect it had a great placebo affect. And as a preservative, of course, we have jams and preserves.  I found it interesting that fresh fruit was considered dangerous at the time and was a cause of death among infants. All of these uses demonstrate that it was more than the pleasant "sweetness" that made sugar so attractive to people.

In general, I think Mintz's arguments became a bit repetitive. I was a bit perplexed about why he was so insistent that the plantation systems were actually an early form of factories. It seemed like a matter of pride...