- REVEALED: The sugar industry paid scientists in 1967 to downplay the role of sugar in cardiovascular disease – while singling out saturated fats.
- The sugar industry commissioned the scientific review after growing evidence showed sugar was increasing the risk of heart attack.
- The “findings” influenced nutrition guidelines for decades, with the sugar industry’s bribes remaining undisclosed.
We’ve always known that the sugar industry funds research to divert attention from the health risks associated with sugar intake, but we’ve never known the full extent. Until now.
A new report published in JAMA Internal Medicine reveals that the sugar industry paid scientists $64,000 AUD (in today’s money) to manipulate a review of hundreds of studies on coronary heart disease in 1967. The result? Scientists downplayed the role of sugar, while singling out fat as the scapegoat… and the rest is history.
Hush money.
In 1965, an article claimed sugar (particularly fructose) raised markers for cardiovascular disease. It backed up a string of studies that suggested sugar was problematic. Two days later, the Sugar Research Foundation’s executive committee approved the “review” of science on sugar, fat and coronary heart disease. The finger was squarely pointed at fat as the root cause of coronary heart disease, while sugar’s health effects were swept under the rug. Coincidence? We think not.
“We are all seeing that this is no longer a matter of the ‘crazy fringes’ crying ‘conspiracy’,” says Sarah. “We now have the rock-solid proof, and governments and the oft-skeptical mainstream media are starting to accept.”
Big fat lies.
It wasn’t until 1984 that SRF’s involvement in the study was disclosed (and certainly not to the detail that it is now). But the damage had already been done. SRF’s “research”, along with a now-debunked study by prominent scientist Ancel Keys, had set the low-fat movement in motion.
Today, more and more research proves a link between sugar and cardiovascular disease (while showing that fat isn’t quite the devil we thought it was). But official nutritional bodies still base their guidelines on shonky evidence from the 1960s.
“It’s not an outrage of the distant past,” says Sarah. “Our nutritional guidelines continue to be guided by this corrupt science. I will rest easy only when governments address this in full.”
Are you shocked by the sugar industry’s corruption or did you suspect it was this bad all along?
0 comments :
Post a Comment