'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, however, when the studies in question were published funding disclosures and transparency standards were not the norm they are today,' the association said. In a statement, the Sugar Association - which evolved out of the SRF - said it is challenging to comment on events from so long ago. Sugar lobby: 'Transparency standards were not the norm' The Harvard researchers then turned to studies that examined risks of fat - which included the same kind of epidemiological studies they had dismissed when it came to sugar.Ĭiting 'few study characteristics and no quantitative results,' as Kearns, Glantz and Schmidt put it, they concluded that cutting out fat was 'no doubt' the best dietary intervention to prevent coronary heart disease. One study that found a health benefit when people ate less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because that dietary change was not feasible.Īnother study, in which rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because 'such diets are rarely consumed by man.' Experimental studies were dismissed for being too dissimilar to real life. But, she says, 'the authors applied a different standard' to different studies - looking very critically at research that implicated sugar, and ignoring problems with studies that found dangers in fat.Įpidemiological studies of sugar consumption - which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world - were dismissed for having too many possible factors getting in the way. 'It is always appropriate to question the validity of individual studies,' Kearns told Bloomberg via email. In some cases the scientists alleged investigator incompetence or flawed methodology.

The review minimized the significance of research that suggested sugar could play a role in coronary heart disease. Hickson was certainly happy with the result: 'Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print,' he told one of the scientists. The project wound up taking longer than expected, because more and more studies were being released that suggested sugar might be linked to coronary heart disease. 'We are well aware,' one of the scientists replied, 'and will cover this as well as we can.' In a letter, SRF's Hickson said that the organization's 'particular interest' was in evaluating studies focused on 'carbohydrates in the form of sucrose.' America's per capita sugar consumption could go up by a third. If Americans could be persuaded to eat a lower-fat diet - for the sake of their health - they would need to replace that fat with something else. In 1954, the researchers note, the president of the SRF gave a speech describing a great business opportunity. 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.įor one thing, there's motivation and intent. Other organizations were also advocating concerns about fat, they note. The researchers note that they worked under some limitations - 'We could not interview key actors involved in this historical episode because they have died,' they write. They say the documents reveal the sugar industry attempting to influence scientific inquiry and debate. 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. The Salt How The Food Industry Manipulates Taste Buds With 'Salt Sugar Fat'

The sugar story documentary