The Sugar Industry Paid Scientists to Downplay Sugar’s Health Risks

It's widely accepted that sugar is not good for us. Last year, the World Health Organisation called on countries to reduce their sugar intake and research continues to show that the white stuff is making us fat, which is turn can contribute to cancer-causing obesity.

But there wasn't always such an obsession with the sweet stuff and its associated health risks—and new findings suggest that this could be down to the underhand intervention of the sugar industry.

A report from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) reveals that industry body The Sugar Association (formerly known as the Sugar Research Foundation) lobbied scientists in the 1960s, allegedly to downplay the link between sugar consumption and coronary heart disease.

Published in the Journal of the American Medicine Association Internal Medicine on Monday, UCSF researchers reviewed 346 documents found in library archives, looking for correspondence between the Sugar Research Foundation and scientists. It came to the conclusion that: "The sugar industry sponsored its first CHD [coronary heart disease] research project in 1965 to downplay early warning signals that sucrose consumption was a risk factor in CHD."

That Sugar Association isn't sounding so sweet now.

However, the UCSF report acknowledges that the documents "provide a narrow window into the activities" and that "there is no direct evidence that the sugar industry wrote or changed the […] review manuscript."

While the Sugar Research Foundation employees named in the review have now passed away, The Sugar Association is, unsurprisingly, a little pissed off with the report.

In a statement on its website, the Association said: "When the studies in question were published funding disclosures and transparency standards were not the norm they are today."

It added: "It is not only unfortunate but a disservice that industry-funded research is branded as tainted."

It's not the first time that lead author of the UCSF study and health policy researcher, Cristin Kearns, has made enemies in the sugar industry.

Last year, Kearns published findings about the industry's role in downplaying the link between all that pick 'n' mix and tooth decay (yep, really). Other researchers have found similar trends: last year, the New York Times uncovered Coca Cola's role in funding research that swayed blame for obesity away from bad diets and onto a lack of exercise.

Food industry bodies could even have had an effect on the outcome of the UK's recently released obesity strategy.

In the lead-up to the publication of the Government plan for tackling childhood obesity, some industry bodies, including the Food and Drink Federation, were very vocal in their opposition to the introduction of the tax on sugary drinks. When the plan was finally unveiled last month, it was heavily criticised by health campaign groups for not including tough enough measures to limit sugar consumption, especially among children.

While there is no direct evidence of food industry influence over the obesity strategy, Kawther Hashem, a nutritionist from the health campaign group Action on Sugar, told MUNCHIES that food companies know what is at stake from a Government crackdown on sugar.

She said: "I don't have concrete evidence that food companies have influenced the obesity plan but it is inevitable that some companies don't want to be regulated and will do everything in their power to stop regulation, e.g. by scaremongering that the sugar tax will result in job losses. It won't if companies reduce the amount of sugar in their products."

Whatever goes on behind closed doors, let's be honest: cutting down on the sweet stuff won't do us much harm.