Sugar industry suppressed connection to heart disease for decades, report claims

Newly uncovered documents indicate findings of unfavourable study were kept from public

Marwa Eltagouri
Thursday 23 November 2017 09:24

In the 1960s, a debate began over the effect of sugar and fats on cardiovascular disease. Researchers say that the sugar industry, wanting to influence the discussion, funded research to look into sugar consumption.

And when it found data suggesting that sugar was harmful, the powerful industry pointed a finger at fats.

In an investigation published Tuesday in the journal PLOS Biology, researchers from the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) claim that newly uncovered historical documents indicate the industry never disclosed the findings of its work and effectively misled the public to protect its economic interests.

After examining the sugar industry's internal documents, UCSF researchers said that in 1968 the Sugar Research Foundation, which has organisational ties to the Sugar Association, funded animal research to explore the link between sugar consumption and cardiovascular disease. Rats were fed a high-sugar diet - and were found to have increased levels of triglyceride, fatty substances in the bloodstream. In humans, high triglyceride levels can increase the risk of heart attack or stroke.

The research also found a connection between sugar consumption and an enzyme associated with bladder cancer.

In their investigation, the UCSF researchers said it is likely that the Sugar Research Foundation was unhappy with findings associating sugars with chronic disease, and what those findings could mean for humans. So it chose to end the study and did not publish its results, the researchers said.

One of the investigation's authors, Stanton Glantz, told The New York Times that while the documents are several decades old, they are significant, as they show how long the sugar industry has spent de-emphasizing sugar's effect on health.

“This is continuing to build the case that the sugar industry has a long history of manipulating science,” he said.

Glantz could not be immediately reached for comment.

The Sugar Association criticised Tuesday's report and said in a statement that it was not a study but a perspective, “a collection of speculations and assumptions about events that happened nearly five decades ago.” It also called the researchers “known critics of the sugar industry.”

The sugar industry has long denied that sugar has any specific role in chronic disease, though research suggests otherwise. The Sugar Association issued a statement in early 2016 criticising a University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Centre study suggesting that sugar in Western diets increased the risk of breast cancer tumours and metastasis.

The researchers' claims that the sugar industry misled the public mirror accusations the tobacco industry faced. A trial was held in 2004 to determine whether tobacco industry officials had intentionally deceived Americans for years into thinking that smoking did not cause cancer, despite acknowledging the dangers of smoking among themselves.

Eight months later, the tobacco industry was asked to pay $10 billion over five years to help millions of Americans quit smoking. The penalty was less than eight percent of what the government had asked for when proceedings began.

Tuesday's report isn't the first time that decades-old documents appear to show that the sugar industry distorted medical research. A 2015 report published in the journal PLOS Medicine described a national campaign in the 1960s to boost cavity prevention and a government research program created to curb tooth decay by the 1970s. But instead of encouraging people to eat less sugar, the government - swayed by sugar industry interests - pushed alternative methods such as ways to break up dental plaque and vaccines for fighting tooth decay.

In 1964, the group now known as the Sugar Association looked for ways to soften “negative attitudes toward sugar” after studies began linking sugar with heart disease. The group approved “Project 226,” in which it paid Harvard researchers today's equivalent of $48,900 to write an article reviewing those studies. The article, published in 1967, concluded that there was “no doubt” that the only dietary intervention needed to prevent heart disease was reducing cholesterol and saturated fat. The researchers played down the effects of sugar, according to an analysis of historical documents published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Sugar Association said the 1960s research cited in Tuesday's report ended for three reasons: It was too expensive, it was “significantly delayed,” and the delay interfered with the organisational restructuring of the Sugar Research Foundation, which would eventually become the International Sugar Research Foundation.

Cristin Kearns, an author of the investigation, told NPR that the sugar industry continues to have “a lot of money and influence,” which it uses to downplay nutrition guidelines, such as those limiting added sugars to no more than 10 percent of daily caloric consumption.

Had the data found in the 1968 study been made public, sugar may have been looked at under a more critical lens in the years since, she said.

The Washington Post

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies


Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in