The authors of the new study say that for the past five decades, the sugar industry has been attempting to influence the scientific debate over the relative risks of sugar and fat.
Advertisement
Anthony Devlin/ZUMA Press/NewscomNewly released historical documents show how the sugar industry essentially bribed Harvard scientists to downplay sugar’s role in heart disease-and how the USA government ate it up.
Then, a year later, the group passed “Project 226”, which involved paying researchers at Harvard an amount equivalent to present day’s $48,900 for an article reviewing the scientific literature, providing materials they wished to get reviewed, and for getting the article’s drafts.
There’s no evidence that the SRF directly edited the manuscript published by the Harvard scientists in 1967, but there is “circumstantial” evidence that the interests of the sugar lobby shaped the conclusions of the review, the researchers say.
In the article, published Monday, authors Glantz, Cristin Kearns and Laura Schmidt aren’t trying make the case for a link between sugar and coronary heart disease.
Stare, joined by his Harvard colleagues D. Mark Hegsted and Robert McGandy, reviewed multiple medical studies, according to the JAMA report.
The article draws on internal documents to show that the Sugar Research Foundation, a sugar industry group, wanted to “refute” concerns about sugar. Sugar is the number one ingredient that dietitians and nutritionists want you to nix, and it’s being blamed for awful skin, messed-up metabolisms, and increased risk of obesity and heart disease. They also concluded that sucrose consumption should not be considered in a patient’s risk assessment for developing heart disease.
In the early 1960s, there was mounting evidence demonstrating that a diet low in fat and high in sugar could cause in increase in serum cholesterol levels (a.k.a. the bad cholesterol that raises your risk of heart disease). A few years after he was paid by the sugar industry to demonize fat and cholesterol, he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences and edited its Nutrition Reviews for a decade.
The Harvard researchers did not disclose they had been paid by the Sugar Research Foundation since the New England Journal of Medicine did not require researchers to disclose their funding until 1984.
Glantz said the 1967 review helped sidetrack any discussion of the link between heart disease and sugar consumption.
Hickson proposed countering the alarming findings on sugar with industry-funded research.
“As the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune”, said co-author Stanton A. Glantz, a professor of medicine at UCSF.
“Generally speaking, it is not only unfortunate but a disservice that industry-funded research is branded as tainted”, the statement continues.
“We acknowledge that the Sugar Research Foundation should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities”, the Sugar Association responded in a statement.
Heck, it wasn’t until a few months ago – about 50 years after the fact – that the United States government pumped the brakes on the whole “cholesterol causes heart disease” narrative.
Advertisement
The American Heart Association now advises limiting added sugars in a diet to help avoid obesity, which can reduce heart health.
