As nutrition debates raged in the 1960s, prominent Harvard nutritionists published two reviews in a top medical journal downplaying the role of sugar in coronary heart disease.
In a study reported in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine on September 12, researchers revealed how a sugar industry group downplayed the link between sugar and heart disease and shifted more of the blame on fat.
"Food company sponsorship, whether or not intentionally manipulative, undermines public trust in nutrition science, contributes to public confusion about what to eat", wrote Nestle, a longtime critic of industry funding of science. In a JAMA Internal Medicine commentary, Marion Nestle, a professor in the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU, writes that similar practices are going on today. It was delayed, according to the newly uncovered documents, because more and more studies raising concerns about sugar were being published even as the scientists were working on their rebuttals.
The Sugar Association said it was a "disservice" that industry-funded research in general is considered "tainted".
Research sponsored by a sugar industry trade group manipulated the scientific argument over drawbacks of sugar and blamed dietary fat for heart problems instead, according to a report by American researchers released Monday.
Kearns, Schmidt and their colleague Stan Glantz, a professor of medicine at UCSF, analyzed the letters and other heart disease research-related public documents - from symposium proceedings to annual reports - from the 1950s and 60s. It paid Harvard scientists to produce a study downplaying the role of sugar in coronary heart disease. It was published in one of the nation's leading journals, the New England Journal of Medicine.
Scientists began to uncover a link between sugar and heart disease about 60 years ago, and now, the general consensus among experts is that sugar intake is associated with heart disease risk.
New research, published today in JAMA Internal Medicine, shows that the sugar industry may have done more than just advocate for favorable policies. In the end, the Sugar Research Foundation was happy with McGandy, Hegsted, and Stare's work. And this demonization of fat actually helped increase US sugar consumption, as health conscious Americans replaced morning eggs and sausage with carbs like bagels, or turned to low-fat and fat-free offerings where added sugar helped fill the taste void.
"We are well aware of your particular interest and will cover this as well as we can", read Dr. Hegsted's response to Hickson.
Sarah Bolin
Today, researchers' views on the role specific macronutrients play in the diet have changed.
The sugar industry has a long history of skewing nutrition science, a new report suggests.
"There is now a considerable body of evidence linking added sugars to hypertension and cardiovascular disease, which is the No. 1 cause of premature death in the developed world", Schmidt said.
The internal industry documents, which were found in public archives, showed that a sugar industry trade organization recognized as early as 1954 that if Americans adopted low-fat diets, then per-capita consumption of sucrose would increase by more than one-third.
The Sugar Association says it is "challenging" to comment on documents its members have not seen.
The 1965 review appeared in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal-a distinction that numerous other sugar papers Kearns has analyzed lack. That's what a new study is saying, and the reason why is fascinating: they're trying to get you to focus way too much on fatty foods and ignore how much sugar you're consuming.
NEJM spokeswoman Jennifer Zeis said the journal also asks authors to report all financial conflicts during the 36 months prior to publication and conducts a rigorous peer review that "aids us in guarding against potential conflicts of interest".
The authors of the analysis note they were unable to interview key actors quoted in the documents because they are no longer alive.
More news: Clinton: IS extremists hoping for Trump victory
