How did the sugar industry downplay the role of sucrose in causing coronary heart disease? The latest research on historical data revealed that in the 1960s, the American Sugar Association paid Harvard professors and other researchers to publish articles that suited their interests, diverting the government and even the public's attention from cane sugar.
This finding is significant not only because of the ongoing debate surrounding the role of dietary sugar in coronary heart disease, but more importantly because the last fifty years of research on nutrition and heart disease, including many of today's dietary recommendations, may have been largely influenced by the sugar industry.
In the past few years, reports of other industries such as beverages and tobacco asking academics to "make wedding dresses" for them have also appeared frequently in the press. In June, the Associated Press reported that trade groups representing Hershey and other sugar manufacturers funded a study that concluded that children who ate candy weighed less than those who didn't. Last year, a New York Times report revealed that Coca-Cola provided millions of dollars to researchers in an effort to downplay the link between sugary drinks and obesity.
This study was published in the American journal JAMA Internal Medicine on the 12th. One of the authors, Laura A. Schmidt, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California, discovered a large number of correspondence and internal documents related to the Sugar Industry Research Fund from the archives of Harvard University and university museums such as the University of Illinois, which formed the basis of this study.
These data show that the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF, now renamed the Sugar Association) paid scientists to lead a literature review aimed at downplaying the role of sucrose in heart disease. This study was eventually included in the famous medical journal New England Journal of Medicine in 1967.
The Sugar Industry Research Fund set the goals for the study, provided funding and previous research used in the literature review, and reviewed it more than once before final publication. For this, the authors of this study, three Harvard professors, received a compensation of US$6,500 from the former, equivalent to US$49,000 today.
From an academic perspective, this is a literature study; but from the US sugar industry perspective, this is part of their industry strategy. According to the JAMA study, as early as 1954, Henry Hass, then chairman of the Sugar Research Foundation, stated in a speech that it would cost US$600,000 (equivalent to about US$5.3 million today) to "teach people who have never taken a biochemistry class...(teach them) that sugar can allow everyone to live and face the troubles of daily life with energy."
By 1962, as more evidence emerged that high-sugar diets might increase serum cholesterol levels and cause heart disease, the Sugar Research Foundation became visibly anxious. To this end, John Hickson, the fund's then vice chairman and director of research, suggested "starting a major project" to counter this trend in academia. He suggested setting up an "opinion pool" to study which "public concepts" should be "strengthened" and launching seminars "to allow critics to expose themselves in front of their peers."Expose their mistakes."
The final suggestion is that the Sugar Research Fund fund coronary heart disease research. The "226 Project" was born: Harvard professors Hegsted and Robert McGandy were responsible for writing it. Fredrick Star, chairman of the Division of Public Health Nutrition at Harvard University, serves as supervisor.
The correspondence between Hickson and Hegsted from the beginning of the project in 1965 to the publication of the study in 1967 fully demonstrates the leading role played by the Sugar Research Fund and the bias of the study. For example, Hegsted assured Hickson in the letter that it was "very aware" of the Sugar Research Fund's "special interests" and would "do all we can" to cover them in the study. Before the study was submitted for publication, he told Hickson: "I promise you, this is what we want, let's wait and see what it looks like when it's published. ”
“This is a very smart thing the sugar industry has done because a literature review, especially if it is published in a very prestigious journal, can influence the discussion throughout the scientific community. "They were able to derail the sucrose discussion for decades," Dr. Stanton A. Glantz, another author of the JAMA study, told the New York Times. ”
In this literature review signed by three professors from Harvard University, saturated fatty acids are regarded as the largest cause of heart disease, while sucrose is largely regarded as a simple empty calorie food that may cause dental caries. The New York Times pointed out that today, eating less saturated fatty acids is still the most important part of the government's dietary recommendations. In the past few decades, U.S. government officials have encouraged Americans to reduce fat intake, resulting in a large number of Americans consuming low-fat, high-sugar foods. Some experts believe this is a major factor in America's high obesity rates.
At the same time as the JAMA report was released, Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, published a commentary.
“Today, from manufacturers of highly processed foods, beverages and supplements, to producers of dairy, meat, fruit and nuts, food companies fund research on a scale that is almost impossible to fully observe, and the results of these studies are often favorable to the funders,” said Nestle. “Food company funding, whether intentionally manipulative or not, undermines public trust in nutritional science, leaves people unable to choose what to eat, and distorts government dietary guidance so that it is not in the best interests of the public. ”
Regarding the practices of the U.S. sugar industry in the 1960s, she said, "This is a very appalling practice," and said, "I have never seen such a blatant case (of manipulating medical research)."
According to the New York Times, several Harvard professors who collaborated with the U.S. Sugar Research Fund at the time are no longer alive. Hegsted later became head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s nutrition division, and in 1977 he helped draft the early version of U.S. federal dietary guidelines.version first.
After the JAMA study was published, the American Sugar Association responded. The association said that when this literature review was published in 1967, medical journals did not generally require authors to disclose funding sources. The New England Journal of Medicine did not require disclosure of funding sources until 1984.
The author of the JAMA study stated that in the literature review written by the Harvard professor, industry and non-industry funding sources were disclosed, but the financial support and participation level of the Sugar Industry Research Fund were not mentioned.
The American Sugar Association acknowledged in a statement that the industry should "give more transparency to all research activities," but said industry-funded research plays an important role in the debate. As for the causes of coronary heart disease, it said decades of research have concluded that sucrose "does not play a unique role in heart disease."
