[OA] Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA Intern Med. Published online September 12, 2016. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research
Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s.
We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study.
The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor.
The SRF set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts.
The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed.
Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD.
Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.
How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html
How the sugar industry has distorted health science for more than 50 years
How the sugar industry has distorted health science for more than 50 years
The sugar industry has a long history of shaping nutrition policy in the United States, working to mask the potential risks of consuming too much of the sweet stuff.
It wasn’t until this year, for instance, that the US Dietary Guidelines finally recommended people reduce their consumption of added sugars — decades after health advocates began pressing for the measure. The sugar lobby had fended off this recommendation all the while.
New research, published today in JAMA Internal Medicine, shows that the sugar industry may have done more than just advocate for favorable policies. Going back more than 50 years, the industry has been distorting scientific researchby dictatingwhat questions get asked about sugar, particularly questions around sugar’s role in coronary heart disease.
The paper focuses on a debate that first popped up in the 1950s, when the rate of heart disease started to shoot up in the United States. Scientists began searching for answers, and zeroed in on dietary fat as the leading contributor. (The energy we get from food comes in three kinds of nutrients: fats, carbohydrates, and protein.)
This may not have been an accident. Through an examination of archival documents, theJAMA paper shows how a sugar trade association helped boost the hypothesis that eating too much fat was the major cause of the nation’s heart problems, while creating doubt about the evidence showing that sugar could be a culprit too. …
Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s.
We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study.
The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor.
The SRF set the review’s objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts.
The SRF’s funding and role was not disclosed.
Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD.
Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.
How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html
How the sugar industry has distorted health science for more than 50 years
How the sugar industry has distorted health science for more than 50 years
The sugar industry has a long history of shaping nutrition policy in the United States, working to mask the potential risks of consuming too much of the sweet stuff.
It wasn’t until this year, for instance, that the US Dietary Guidelines finally recommended people reduce their consumption of added sugars — decades after health advocates began pressing for the measure. The sugar lobby had fended off this recommendation all the while.
New research, published today in JAMA Internal Medicine, shows that the sugar industry may have done more than just advocate for favorable policies. Going back more than 50 years, the industry has been distorting scientific researchby dictatingwhat questions get asked about sugar, particularly questions around sugar’s role in coronary heart disease.
The paper focuses on a debate that first popped up in the 1950s, when the rate of heart disease started to shoot up in the United States. Scientists began searching for answers, and zeroed in on dietary fat as the leading contributor. (The energy we get from food comes in three kinds of nutrients: fats, carbohydrates, and protein.)
This may not have been an accident. Through an examination of archival documents, theJAMA paper shows how a sugar trade association helped boost the hypothesis that eating too much fat was the major cause of the nation’s heart problems, while creating doubt about the evidence showing that sugar could be a culprit too. …
