LAGOS, Nigeria – A published article in JAMA Internal Medicine reveals how the sugar industry manipulated scientific research to downplay the risks of sugar and emphasize the dangers of fat in the 1960s.
The 2016 article exposes that an industry group, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), sponsored research by Harvard scientists to refute concerns about sugar’s role in heart disease, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.
The SRF-sponsored project was a literature review examining various studies and experiments.
The review, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, raised questions about the credibility of studies implicating sugar and concluded that eliminating fat from American diets was the best approach to tackle coronary heart disease.
Co-author Stanton Glantz told The New York Times, “It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion.”
Authors of the JAMA Internal Medicine article, Stanton Glantz, Cristin Kearns, and Laura Schmidt, suggest that the sugar industry has been attempting to shape the scientific debate over sugar and fat for the past five decades.
Their research indicates that while the sugar industry’s influence on the research is circumstantial, it points to a concerted effort to influence scientific inquiry and debate.
According to the article, there’s a hint of motivation and intent behind the industry’s actions.
In 1954, the SRF’s president gave a speech describing a promising business opportunity. If Americans could be convinced to eat a lower-fat diet for health reasons, sugar consumption could increase by a third.
This insight led the SRF to fund its own studies to “refute our detractors,” when concerns about sugar’s role in dietary health began to emerge in the 1960s.
One of the scientists involved in the review was the chairman of Harvard’s Public Health Nutrition Department and an ad hoc member of the SRF’s board.
In a letter to the SRF, he assured that they were aware of the organization’s “particular interest” in evaluating studies focused on “carbohydrates in the form of sucrose.”
The researchers found evidence that the review selectively critiqued studies implicating sugar while ignoring issues with studies highlighting the dangers of fat.
This double standard cast doubt on the validity of studies implicating sugar and shifted the narrative towards blaming fat for coronary heart disease.
In a statement, the Sugar Association admitted that the SRF should have been more transparent in its research activities but argued that industry-funded research has contributed significantly to addressing key issues.
However, as noted by Marion Nestle in a commentary in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, the practice of food companies manipulating research in their favor is not a thing of the past.
She cited recent examples involving Coca-Cola and a candy trade association that sponsored research to downplay the role of sugary drinks and sweets in obesity.
In light of these findings, the authors of the JAMA Internal Medicine article suggest that policy-making committees should give less weight to industry-funded studies and call for new research to investigate the link between added sugars and coronary heart disease.
