Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Earth Science

Sugar Industry Bought Off Scientists, Skewed Dietary Guidelines For Decades (arstechnica.com) 527

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Back in the 1960s, a sugar industry executive wrote fat checks to a group of Harvard researchers so that they'd downplay the links between sugar and heart disease in a prominent medical journal -- and the researchers did it, according to historical documents reported Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. One of those Harvard researchers went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where he set the stage for the federal government's current dietary guidelines. All in all, the corrupted researchers and skewed scientific literature successfully helped draw attention away from the health risks of sweets and shift the blame to solely to fats -- for nearly five decades. The low-fat, high-sugar diets that health experts subsequently encouraged are now seen as a main driver of the current obesity epidemic. The bitter revelations come from archived documents from the Sugar Research Foundation (now the Sugar Association), dug up by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. Their dive into the old, sour affair highlights both the perils of trusting industry-sponsored research to inform policy and the importance of requiring scientists to disclose conflicts of interest -- something that didn't become the norm until years later. Perhaps most strikingly, it spotlights the concerning power of the sugar industry. In a statement also issued today, the Sugar Association acknowledged that it "should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities." However, the trade-group went on to question the UCSF researchers' motives in digging up the issue and reframing the past events to "conveniently align with the currently trending anti-sugar narrative." The association also chastised the journal for publishing the historical analysis, which it implied was insignificant and sensationalist. "Most concerning is the growing use of headline-baiting articles to trump quality scientific research -- we're disappointed to see a journal of JAMA's stature being drawn into this trend," the association wrote. But scientists disagree with that take. In an accompanying editorial, nutrition professor Marion Nestle of New York University argued that "this 50-year-old incident may seem like ancient history, but it is quite relevant, not least because it answers some questions germane to our current era."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sugar Industry Bought Off Scientists, Skewed Dietary Guidelines For Decades

Comments Filter:
  • Shocking! (Score:5, Funny)

    by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @10:32PM (#52876379)
    Fortunately for us, this does not seem to be happening in other industries. /s
    • by Greyfox ( 87712 )
      Nope! Not at all! [npr.org] No one's going around exposing entire generations of entire countries to neurotoxins and diabetes. And asbestos. And exploding cars. Hey here's an idea, what if we made the exploding cars... out of asbestos?
    • by Bongo ( 13261 )

      Yes the noble nuclear industry has no interest in pushing climate change to make us switch to a mix of renewables: wind! hydro! biofuels! oh and er... (whispers)... nuclear.

      Now if only we all had electric cars and they all had to be plugged into the grid to charge.

  • by EzInKy ( 115248 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @10:37PM (#52876397)

    What with the push by the FDA not to eat bacon and eggs in favor of vegetable oils and the creation of millions of diabetics by overloading their systems with sugar it is surprising any of us still live. We were made to eat meat, that is the bottom line.

    • by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Monday September 12, 2016 @11:04PM (#52876521) Homepage Journal

      "We were made to eat meat, that is the bottom line."

      To a small degree. Our teeth only have 4 canines, which are the teeth for tearing meat. Our digestive tracts are much longer than pretty much any other carnivore, even carnivores larger than us have drastically shorter digestive tracts, which means that we're more geared towards vegetation with some allocation for meat for our dietary requirements.

      • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @02:34AM (#52877145) Journal

        We also have salivary amylase, an adaptation specifically for being able to digest starchy vegetables and one that the other great apes don't posses.

      • by Oligonicella ( 659917 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @03:03AM (#52877215)

        Our teeth only have 4 canines, which are the teeth for tearing meat.

        Would you care to list any carnivores which have more than four canines?

        • by Khyber ( 864651 )

          Sharks. They're essentially nothing but canines.

          That you couldn't think of such an easy answer makes me wonder what point you were trying to prove with your poorly-thought question.

  • by ArtemaOne ( 1300025 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @10:39PM (#52876409)
    I remember a decade and a half ago there were scandals where false Global Warming data had been spread around. It took me a long time to trust future evidence because I saw it as a partisan battle, rather than legitimate science. This sort of thing is always bad for everyone involved. Obviously they had 50 years of good profits, so they may disagree. My point is simply that any level of deceit in science can totally scare people away from a subject entirely, and even oppose the idea in the future, whether valid or not.
    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @11:24PM (#52876591) Journal

      The whole point of the pseudo skeptic movements, whether they been anti-AGW, tobacco company "research", sugar industry "research" and the like isn't really to convince people that their dangerous products are safe, but rather to create just enough doubt so that people will continue their existing habits. It doesn't have to convince people the legitimate researchers are out and out wrong, it just has to create enough uncertainty to prevent people from wholesale change.

      Every year the sugar industry is pushing far more sugar into Westerners' digestive tracts than is safe, and every year the oil industry can stave off carbon pricing and other anti-fossil fuel initiatives, is another year of profits. Both industries know much as the tobacco industry must have known, that the reckoning will come, but so long as investors can make a return, and senior management can reap the bonuses, the tactic continues.

      • But do they know the reckoning will come? Will the reckoning, in fact, come in any meaningful way? Personally, I'm not convinced; as the old Wall Street maxim says, past results are no guarantee of future returns.

    • by KeensMustard ( 655606 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @11:39PM (#52876659)

      I remember a decade and a half ago there were scandals where false Global Warming data had been spread around.

      It happened more recently than that of course. Not so long ago (last year), on this site I had a guy claiming that there was no warming and pasted a link to a data site (woodfortrees.org) to prove it. Of course his link was carefully constructed to exclude regions where the warming signal was more obvious - in other words, he concealed the truth. Which did make me think how (or if) he actually believed there was no warming if he went to that much trouble to conceal the warming signal?

      I disagree though, that this ought to make me distrust the science. Yep, there's lots of liars out there. Plenty of the top level operatives (e.g. Judith Currie, Anthony Watts) are sponsored by PR companies to spread "a difference version of the truth" (in other words, lies) but how does that actually impugn the science of climate at all? It sounds counterintuitive to me, that the existence of bodies who are paid to disguise the facts actually means the facts themselves are in doubt.

    • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @12:53AM (#52876887)
      It was a partisan battle against legitimate science and it is still going on.
      The reason you are seeing it the way you are is because at one point some Republicans decided, with the help of a lot of donor money, to make it a point of difference between them and the Democrats. Prior to that other conservatives, such as Margret Thatcher in the UK, were on the side of reality and not inspired to drift off into the land of fantasy on that topic by large donations.
  • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @10:39PM (#52876411) Homepage

    So what is the statute of limitations on mass murder as a result of fraudulent practice. Have proof, let's see the convictions, let's demand the convictions (victims in the millions, seriously).

  • Now trying to deflect blame from carbs in general to all sugars. I mean, it's not like fructose is processed through the liver like other poisons or anything.

  • we have worse now (Score:5, Informative)

    by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @10:45PM (#52876443)

    High fructose corn syrup even worse. And it's not just fructose and glucose.

      That 42/58 and 55/45 is a bulk culinary description, the truth is there is about 3-5 percent saccharide polymers plus leftover reagents (which until very recently even included mercury)

    Food for thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • GMOs (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

    Read this story and think for a moment about all the "GMOs are perfectly safe" studies. You don't think it's possible some of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in the world might have a hand in that?

    Just follow the money.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Or all the studies saying vaccines are safe, when we know big pharma makes money, or all the ones saying climate change is happening, when we know there is political power to be had there, or the ones saying wifi is safe, when tech companies are making money. You don't think it's possible some of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in the world might have a hand in that too?

  • by TigerPlish ( 174064 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @10:50PM (#52876467)

    This is how the system works. Now it's up to us to break it.

    [company] or [industry] will liberally shower money on schools, politicians and scientists so they can spread the word of how wonderful their [thing] is.

    Break it. Break the goddamned system.

    Demand to know where the money for "studies" come from. Then act accordingly.

    Demand campaign reform that actually has fangs to bite with.

    Does it incense me that Big Sugar has been doing this? Nah. I'm not surprised in the least. This is exactly how America operates. Oh and don't get me started on the corn people, with their HFCS in our drinks and ethanol poisoning our gasoline!

    What I am incensed about is the absolute reluctance to question things. The People simply accept what is told to them in schools, churches and media. Ask. Fucking. Why. Every time.

    Or, you know, keep doing the same idiotic thing we've been doing for the past 200+ years. It works sooooooo well.. for the rich.

    • by bzipitidoo ( 647217 ) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @12:35AM (#52876835) Journal

      I've been wondering if Capitalism is fatally flawed. We've seen reckless, foolish greed destroy lives time and time again. It seems capitalism elevates psychopathic individuals to positions of great power and responsibility. Of course people of that sort abuse their power. Strip resources from everything within reach, leaving behind waste and destruction.

      We moved from monarchy to democracy because the former just doesn't work for long. Monarchy works okay until an idiot gets elevated to the kingship, solely because he's the oldest son of the previous leader, and not because he has any qualifications whatsoever. It's a horrible way to choose leaders. Even when a talented, vigorous, enlightened king comes to the throne, he's still just one man. If a monarchy has instilled passivity in the people, only the monarch himself can inspire action. These days, nations are far too large for that to work well no matter how talented the monarch is. Our nation is a democracy, yet many of our private corporations operate as feudal domains. And it shows in these incredibly short-sighted, anti-social moves they make.

      What Big Sugar has done is bad, but it's just another greedy corporate action that we, with our low expectations of corporate behavior, hardly notice. The one that will change that blase attitude is Big Oil, when all our coasts drown.

      • Please, let me know when you are aware of a "Capitalist" system?
        Because what we have ISN'T CAPITALISM.

        Think about it:
        - the subprime crisis happened for a number of reasons, but one of the primary ones was that 3 rating agencies have had the blessing in federal law since what, the 1920s(?) to be the "official" rating companies. Without that benediction, investors would have to actually scour the marketplace for reliable sources of information which would THEMSELVES be proven by market-testing over time.
        - ra

    • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

      but libertarians keep promising me that if we just left companies and industry alone they would be good actors because of the fear of the free market. that our dollar voting would deter them from nefarious acts. that the Invisible Hand cures all.

      cause they forgot to consider what happens when industry sees a way to manipulate the market.

      so much for that theory.

  • by mattwarden ( 699984 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @10:54PM (#52876481)

    So, you're trying to tell me that scientists are mere mortals, with human tendencies like the rest of us? That they are not divinely inspired conduits of the Truth, who can solely interpret the cryptic texts of the Journals de Academe?

    There are two major things ruining science. First, scientists are revered like priests, and the laypeople do not feel worthy to question them, even though at the end of the day it all boils down to logic and math. Laypeople even beat each other up for speaking out without the proper credentials. Are you less likely to be right about a study if you're a layperson? Of course. But this is still an important check on the system. Second, every clown PhD and pre-PhD who is avoiding the real world needs to publish publish publish in order to advance. This leads to ever more silly and esoteric journals full of silly and esoteric studies that nobody reads and very few can be bothered to try to replicate. And of course you get no credit for replicating a study, because credit = being published. So replication, another important check on the system, is diminished. And within the mainstream subjects, you have ever more pressure to come up with a new result, because there are many more PhDs looking to publish and only so many will. Scientific results, which were already susceptible to human biases, are victim to marketing spin and selective publishing. If nobody will ever try to replicate your results, who cares anyway. And if it's advancing interest in your field, which I'm sure you care about for at least some make-the-world-better reasons, then it's quite easy to convince yourself you're doing a neutral or positive thing.

    The scientific method is solid. We just don't follow it anymore. And the #ifuckinglovescience crowd isn't helping.

    • by The Evil Atheist ( 2484676 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @10:59PM (#52876499)
      And yet it's still other scientists who are pushing back against the bad studies and bought results. Scientists are mere mortals, but science is still the major, if not only, area of life where that introspection happens.

      That is why I Fucking Love Science.
      • And yet it's still other scientists who are pushing back against the bad studies and bought results. Scientists are mere mortals, but science is still the major, if not only, area of life where that introspection happens.

         

        You should talk to some golf players and fans. Someone watching a golf match on TV can call in and challenge a player's actions during the tournament. Let's see science match that level of scrutiny.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        > Scientists are mere mortals, but science is still the major, if not only, area of life where that introspection happens.

        [[Citation]]

        Because you're conveniently ignoring "people growing up".

    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @11:27PM (#52876605) Journal

      Most scientists are not frauds. In fact, the risks of sugar have been known for decades, with a large body of research behind it. A very small number of scientists on the payroll of the sugar industry allowed themselves to be corrupted, much as has happened with tobacco and fossil fuel researchers. The FUD's purpose isn't to convince everyone that legitimate research is a lie, it's to raise enough questions about legitimate research to make sure the public and the politicians change nothing.

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      Careful to avoid being "ignorant". Not knowing how things work but believing the good people is "enlightened". Not knowing how things work and believing the bad people is "ignorant". Don't be "ignorant".

  • by zm ( 257549 )
    Dr. Peter Attia: The limits of scientific evidence and the ethics of dietary guidelines — 60 years of ambiguity
    https://vimeo.com/45485034 [vimeo.com]
  • by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Monday September 12, 2016 @11:43PM (#52876677)

    If you haven't seen them, you should go watch the documentary films King Corn and Food, Inc. King Corn in particular goes into detail about the transition in the US from a diet with lots of fat and lower levels of sugar into one where eating fat is evil and will send you to hell and not eating sugar is evil and will send you to hell.

    Food, Inc is more general but it shows clearly why food production in the US is so screwed up.

  • by swell ( 195815 ) <jabberwock@poetic.com> on Monday September 12, 2016 @11:43PM (#52876679)

    This would be a good time to go after Kellogg, General Mills, Wonder Bread, and all the other purveyors of starchy foods that begin to turn to sugar the moment they touch your tongue. Yes, extreme athletes, insomniacs and a few others will turn these carbohydrates into energy and muscle, while the rest of us turn carbs into fat.

    The promoters start with the children and insidious advertisements for sugary cereals and high carb snacks. Children often don't immediately show the bad effects of excess carbohydrates. Once the children are hooked, they will remain so for the duration of their short lives. They can expect obesity, diabetes, dementia, other diseases, and a short lifespan.

    This huge industry knows that, as well as the governments of the world, but lobbyists have suppressed and cast doubts on scientific proofs. How many millions of deaths are the result of this corporate greed? Remember that a corporation has only one mandate- to provide profits for the shareholders.

    I'm one of those addicts. As I sit thinking how good a potato chip might be, or a tortilla chip; I settle for peanuts and the lesser satisfaction they give. It's 9PM and I avoid beer in favor of vodka with lemon water (no sugar). My diabetes is somewhat controlled, but when will I ever have a Ben & Jerry's ice cream again? I'm not happy about it because I grew up watching millions of advertisements promoting carbohydrates (and saying fat is bad). Turns out that's 100% backwards.

  • by serbanp ( 139486 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @12:53AM (#52876885)

    We all remember the incredibly eye-opening lecture named "Sugar: the bitter truth" from almost a decade ago. Robert Lustig, the presenter, is an Emeritus Professor at surprise surprise UCSF!

    The Sugar Association is full of it when blaming the researchers of bias.

  • by silentcoder ( 1241496 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @05:38AM (#52877621)

    And he studies nutrition and writes about sugar containing sweets and chocolates ?

    This, dear friends, is the theory of nominative inevitability at work.

  • by John Smith ( 4340437 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @07:17AM (#52877905)
    The way to fix this is to make importing sugar easier. Poor Caribbean farmers get more money, consumers get cheaper goods, the sugar lobby goes away. Everybody wins!
  • by ooloorie ( 4394035 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @08:26AM (#52878287)

    The blame for low-fat dietary recommendations pretty much exclusively fall on government: no matter how much the sugar industry paid for scientific spin, there has never been any objective evidence that sugar is harmless or that low-fat diets work. In fact, the government "bought off" scientists to push a low-fat agenda just as much as the sugar industry, selectively funding studies and preferring results that supported existing government dietary guidelines. To add injury to insult, not only has the US government pushed bad dietary guidelines, it has also manipulated the US sugar market to keep prices high, protect US sugar producers, and position HFCS as a common sweetener.

    The US government should simply not get involved in even suggesting to people what they should eat, let alone fixing or manipulating prices for foods. Yes, government can, in principle, some good when it gets nutrituional information right, but the risk of getting it wrong is simply too high. And these manipulations and scientific errors have persisted for decades, through every Congress and administration.

    And lest you think this doesn't matter much, millions of Americans died horrible deaths unnecessarily because of bad government dietary guidelines, which don't exhaust themselves in bad recommendations, but influence labeling and the kinds of foods both kids and adults are fed in institutional settings.

  • by xtronics ( 259660 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @10:41AM (#52879249) Homepage

    It is sugar + PUFAs

    They have also been protecting the vegetable oil industry - concentrated vegetable oils are not human food. Around 1960 they started selling veg oils to replace lard - it was also around that time that Americans started getting fat. We now know that eating PUFAs messes with the insulin system ( main source is LA linoleic acid ).

    It will be 10 years or more before the public becomes aware - people warned about sugar in the 1960's were ignored. only 50 years later is it common knowledge.

    https://wiki.xtronics.com/inde... [xtronics.com]

    The usual mantra is that PUFAs are good for you as they reduce cholesterol levels - but if we look at all cause mortality - this falls apart. PUFAs reduce cholesterol by making people ever fatter.

  • by LifesABeach ( 234436 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @12:17PM (#52879873) Homepage
    They use Windows.

The herd instinct among economists makes sheep look like independent thinkers.

Working...