from the no-sugar-tonight-in-our-coffee dept.
Conspiracies aren't real, are they?
The Sugar Research Foundation paid Harvard researchers $6,500 (2016 equivalent: $48,900) to write a literature review, published in 1967, that downplayed sugar's links to heart disease. One of the researchers went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture:
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the links between sugar and heart disease in a prominent medical journal—and the researchers did it, according to historical documents reported Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine [open, DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394].
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 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.
See the accompanying editorial: Food Industry Funding of Nutrition Research: The Relevance of History for Current Debates (open, DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5400) (DX)
Related Stories
The best science CO2 can buy:
Do studies show that soft drinks promote obesity and Type 2 diabetes? It depends on who paid for the study.
Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, looked at studies of soft drink consumption and its relationship to obesity and diabetes published between 2001 and 2016. They found about 60 studies that were fairly rigorous in their methodology. When the studies were led by independent researchers, they showed a clear link between soda consumption and obesity or metabolic disease. But notably, 26 of the studies reported no link between sugary soft drinks and poor health.
What was different about the studies that found no connection to health problems? They were all carried out by researchers with financial ties to the beverage industry. The findings were published Monday [DOI: 10.7326/L16-0534] [DX] in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Also at LA Times and Houston Chronicle.
Previously: Sugar Industry Secretly Paid for Favorable Harvard Research in 1960s
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:06PM
why is the FDA setting "how much you should stuff your face with" limits?
The FDA daily limits are pure fantasy - gathered from data 50 years ago.
The sugar bribes are not surprising, but it doesn't stop there.
The whole process of lobbying for profit at the cost of public health has to be stopped.
Perhaps it would help if lobbying was stopped...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:08PM
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:46PM
The US constitution was written by people who assumed that good God-fearing slaveholders would not corrupt their governments to allow themselves to profit from injuring their fellow citizens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:22PM
Even if that's true, the Constitution remains as it is. You can change the Constitution through the amendment process, but outright ignoring it isn't (shouldn't be) an option.You might think Citizens United had and continues to have terrible effects on our political system, but the logic they used to decide that case wasn't wrong if you actually read the highest law of the land.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @02:30AM
The logic they used was terrible becomes it all depends on the notion that money = speech. Allowing that association violates the equal protection clause because money is not evenly distributed. It also fucks the value of the first amendment. Free speech value lies in ideas thriving or dying based on their inherent merit not the political power wielded by those who like it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:46PM
The logic they used was terrible becomes it all depends on the notion that money = speech.
Most of it is about political advertising and running smear campaigns against particular candidates, which is all speech.
It also fucks the value of the first amendment.
The value of the first amendment is that it allows people to speak freely. Whether or not people accept your ideas or even bother to listen to them is an entirely separate matter. You seem to be focused on the practical value of freedom of speech, but freedom of speech would still be a fundamental human right without it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:26PM
There is no way around the simple concept of lobbying. What really needs to happen is government funded campaigns. All information for candidates is housed on a government website, so one easy place to read everything. No private ANYTHING allowed, they can attach any media items on the central website, so if you want to put a sign in your yard just take the promo image file from the website and get it printed at whatever size you want. No political commercials, at all. Publicly funded and OPEN debates, get rid of party nominations.
This way the main method for lobbyists to affect the election is nullified, no candidate will need to promise anything to anyone in order to properly run for office.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:33PM
While we're at it, change the voting system so that voters can vote for as many candidates as they wish to vote for, rather than just one. And make the electoral college proportional, rather than winner-take-all. But all of these incredibly obvious measures would require the two parties to essentially give up the duopoly they have, which is just a pipe dream.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:23PM
There is no way around the simple concept of lobbying. What really needs to...
If there's no way around it, then why did you just try?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:59PM
The US constitution was written by people who assumed that good God-fearing slaveholders would not corrupt their governments to allow themselves to profit from injuring their fellow citizens.
The First Amendment is pretty absolute in its restrictions on Congress and the laws they can pass, but that doesn't mean that the supporters of the amendment could not conceive of ways that it could be abused, including expediting bribery and such. I suspect if we looked at the writings of the people involved, we'd find that they were for the most part a lot more clued in about potential abuses of the amendment that they had than you are now, despite you having more than a couple centuries of hindsight on your side.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:20AM
Of course it would be you coming to defend the lobbyists. You've stupidly conflated corruption with the right to speak. You do have the right to speak. You don't have the right to speak harmful lies that simply hide deceitful avarice.
Lobbying stopped being speech the moment the lobbyists started putting money in front of politicians in the form of gifts, campaign contributions, that off-the-record add-on to their house.
I bet you fucking support Citizens United too huh? Piece of shit.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:16PM
You've stupidly conflated corruption with the right to speak.
You're the only one who has said anything like that. No one else has done that conflating.
You do have the right to speak. You don't have the right to speak harmful lies that simply hide deceitful avarice.
The First Amendment doesn't make that distinction, let us note. So now, you're selectively interpreting laws to your advantage.
I bet you fucking support Citizens United too huh?
Of course. I'm a very strong proponent of free speech. I doubt you understand the consequences of suppressing speech of groups or of selectively enforcing laws on people you don't like. The biggest problem is that can easily be turned on you.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:13PM
The First Amendment doesn't make that distinction, let us note. So now, you're selectively interpreting laws to your advantage.
Yes it DOES you stupid, stupid, stupid, odious, deceitful piece of shit!!
Can you yell fire in a theater? WHY?
There are plenty of laws against slander, libel, etc. that govern speech and create consequences for it. Technically, the right may be there, but then again so are the consequences for saying it. You have the right to go to jail for yelling fire in a theater, and we have the right to put your deceitful ass in jail when you lie to cause harm.
No, you stupid fuck. What you support are millionaires and billionaires having extra votes. That's what Citizen's United DOES.
It makes corporations PEOPLE, and they're NOT FUCKING PEOPLE. Corporations are groups of people, and they ALREADY have the fucking right to speak and donate money.
So fuck you. Don't you fucking dare say it's about suppressing speech you odious fucker. I'm not suppressing any right right to speech, but absolutely fucking refusing to give Apple the right to speak. Apple is not a person, but a group of executives that already have it all, including the right to vote and donate money to campaigns. They CAN speak, but they MUST SPEAK AS INDIVIDUALS. We need to instantly pierce the corporate veil every single time and illuminate the individuals speaking. Period.
Fuck you. Get hit in front of a bus today. That would be a gift to the world.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 14 2016, @07:57PM
Can you yell fire in a theater? WHY?
Excellent! Show us where the First Amendment says that one can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Once you've done that, then we can continue with the discussion by considering how petitioning for redress of grievances, that is, "lobbying", is so much like your example above.
Don't you fucking dare say it's about suppressing speech you odious fucker.
And yet, you still don't get that it is about suppressing speech you don't like.
They CAN speak, but they MUST SPEAK AS INDIVIDUALS.
Classic Orwellian doublespeak for suppression of speech.
We need to instantly pierce the corporate veil every single time and illuminate the individuals speaking.
That is drivel. Your "need" would not have pierced the alleged lying of these scientists. The same government that allegedly has harmed US citizen health for 50 years is also the same entity you'll rely on to enforce your laws on lobbying. I'm sure that will turn out well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @05:04AM
And their propaganda machine is so successful that moronic bovines such as yourself will jump to their defence.
They don't even have to do it themselves anymore.
Such is the disease of ignorance and stupidity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:08PM
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:35PM
So they sugar-coated their research when the sugar industry sweetened the deal.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Dunbal on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:49PM
The low-fat, high-sugar diets that health experts subsequently encouraged
[CITATION NEEDED]
I cannot recall ANY "high sugar" diets being recommended. How about low fat BALANCED diets. Those I've always heard and read as recommended.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:01PM
that pyramid thing....had carbs on the bottom.
It's amazing in 2016 how much dogma there is - I guess that's the problem when school stops at 16/18/....
A nice point made by Ken Robinson on Ted "In the most interactive age of our history, we are pushing kids out by data of manufacture". I'm paraphrasing but you get the drift...
Put simply. Where you get your information from determines who's bias is on it and their agenda. The fact the FDA is involved in drugs and food is fine as far as safety and quality. But they should have no role in quantity, it's a clear conflict of interest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:30PM
It's amazing in 2016 how much dogma there is - I guess that's the problem when school stops at 16/18/....
To be honest, most people aren't cut out for formal education beyond that (and perhaps even somewhat before that), because their main priority seems to be making money rather than getting a top-class education. Trade schools are another thing.
Besides, schools are unnecessary for many subjects in the 21st century. Self-learning is more possible than ever. Rather than bemoaning the fact that schooling stops at 16/18, you should bemoan the fact that education stops around that time, or more accurately, education never happened in the first place since schools offer an abysmal-quality education.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:56AM
I think you are on to something there. Maybe we should really bemoan the fact that the education of most stops right after graduation from high school or college, if it had ever begun at all. No, I'm not urging everyone to continue on to a graduate or professional degree. Rather, it seems to me that people should be urged to make self-education a life-long endeavour. Why stop learning once you have graduated? Is there really nothing more for you to learn once you have that diploma? Did school never really awaken in you an urge to explore further, even if it was merely for your own edification? Are there really so few who take the learning skills they acquired in their education and apply them to new areas of study after they have graduated? Maybe we should start a new mini-revolution. The next time you are at a party and making small talk, instead of discussing sports, or politics, or the weather, or the antics of celebrities, or whatever, maybe...just perhaps...we should ask our conversation partners about what new and interesting things they have learned lately. These days, continuing that self-education is easier than ever. So much is on-line now, a lot of it completely free; it's a waste not to take advantage of it. Just an idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:02AM
FTFY. Yes, there is a difference between getting an education and getting a certificate that says you are "educated". It may be subtle, but the difference is there. And, yes, it does tie back in to making money.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:34AM
No, they should be involved in quantity too. While an interesting point about the conflict of interest, review it from a technical perspective.
It's all corrupt. The FDA recommends an "allowance" for mercury in our food that is approx. twice that of the EPA. These are both quantities in that both organizations have recommended no more than x parts per billion. Although with mercury the EPA was quick to point out that there was no SAFE threshold for mercury in the body, just like there wasn't actually any safe threshold for lead in the body (Keyhoe is burning in Hell for stating otherwise against known science).
How can two government organizations not agree on the quantity again? That's right! Only the FDA governs food, and they were the only ones requiring a bribe to get Tuna not taken off the market. Which there should be no tuna allowed on market... according to the EPA. Yet not only is it still on the market, but the industry sued the state of California and blocked them from putting warnings on the cans.
There is definitely a reason to want them to stop screwing with quantity, and that is the quantities recommended being corrupt and derived by junk science itself having a genesis of pure avarice. In that light, I don't think we need to be complaining about the quantities being recommended, but we need to be complaining about the science itself and that policies are inconsistent across government when scientifically based policies need to be universally enforced.
The conflict of interests occur purely because men and women that should be responsible scientists and administrators guided by moral and ethical principles to serve humanity serve avaricious executives first, and the willfully blind shareholders INSTEAD.
We've never had an FDA that served the people, or a scientific community that does either. That's what this article tells me.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by opinionated_science on Wednesday September 14 2016, @02:17AM
Well for food, the technology is widespread and available. Build a ton of clinics with treadmills, CO2/O2 measurment equipment, and give everyone a free test every year or so. Well at least 18,21,25,30,35.... For children we have to be careful not to interfere with natural development, so this methodology would not be appropriate.
I have a friend (6'1", was 280 lbs) that lost 100 lbs in 18 months by getting his metabolism measured - 1200 kCals, and adapted his diet to match.
Everyone can get a personal kCal number to do what they want - but here's the rub - it's an objective, repeatable , known quantity. No guessing FDA daily rates, a real number for every person alive. There will be those in denial (like the smokers today), but the science is done. The vast majority of the population could be given sufficient information to manage themselves. And probably as we learn more, we will find the medical "edge" cases that have specific problems making it hard to gain healthy equilibrium.
My preference is to burn an extra 3-4kCals/week to make the equations easier to balance!
(Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday September 14 2016, @02:42AM
I completely agree with you. The FDA should adopt the stance of explaining the equations and that people should be measured. All charts are approximations, or even better, averages of actual reports and demographics. That would be useful.
Thanks for the tip.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:37AM
Sugar was always "restrict use", but TFA has a point that fats were made public enemy #1. They were the ISIS of the American diet from mid-70s to the early '90s.
They were probably right about the evils of trans fat, but that is fortunately being phased out of the grocery store shelves. And I personally still watch how much saturated fat I eat. But yeah, sugar, sodium, and "empty calories" from refined grains are really bad.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:57AM
Transfats are being replaced by "modified" fats. Triglycerides are being ripped apart and reassembled at random, so that instead of having three glyceride chains of the same length, they are lopsided. We have evolve to handle fats whose chains are the same length. The body has different mechanisms to handle each chain length of fats,
We have not evolved the handle fats whose chains are of different lengths. We do not know what they do, where they are metabolized in the body, or even whether they can be metabolized. And there seems to be precious little effort being expended to find out.
They may well be as dangerous as the transfats they are replacing, but they have one advantage -- they don't require the package to say it contains transfats.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:43AM
I cannot recall ANY "high sugar" diets being recommended. How about low fat BALANCED diets. Those I've always heard and read as recommended.
While this is true, for many years having "low fat" or "no fat" versions of processed products was all the rage, to satisfy the urges of those trying to follow FDA dogma.
The problem with this was twofold: (1) having lower fat in your diet frequently led to lower satiety, causing people to chow down more on these "low-fat" foods (leading to higher caloric intake), and (2) food companies who did taste tests quickly realized that "no fat" products were frequently unpalatable... so they needed to add something else to give flavor, and one of the easiest options was sugar (made suddenly cheap around the same time by corn subsidies).
So, no -- there wasn't an official "high sugar" diet. But you did have a high-carb diet (which was encouraged, and which quickly metabolizes into sugar) coupled to foods that contained added sugar to offset the reduction in fat and flavor. The result was a diet high in carbs and sugars. Per capita sugar consumption grew by something like 40% in the U.S. in the second half of the 20th century.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:12AM
To be fair, what was and is actually encouraged by the FDA is a diet high in whole grains, which were and are still thought to have cardioprotective effects. But the destructive anti-fat crusade resulted in people eating lots of simple sugars ... which the FDA didn't say was good, but didn't say was bad, either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @08:52AM
> BALANCED diets
This doesn't mean anything. Every diet is balanced according to their own criteria.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday September 14 2016, @03:06PM
the lemonade diet (emphasis mine):
According to www.themastercleanse.com [themastercleanse.com], one of the most comprehensive Master Cleanse websites, the lemonade drinks are made from fresh lemon or lime juice, genuine organic grade B maple syrup, cayenne pepper, and distilled or purified water. You can swap out the maple syrup for freshly squeezed sugar cane juice or molasses, but no other substitutions are allowed.
--https://web.archive.org/web/20130203015550/http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/master-cleanse-lemonade-diet/recipes [archive.org]
Many Eastern traditions make use of raw juice from cane grass stalks, because of its natural cleansing ability. Detox cleanses and the Master Cleanse are two ways to fast properly using natural ingredients.
--http://sugarcanejuice.org/fasting-html/ [sugarcanejuice.org]
"Juicing," the practice of consuming only fruit and vegetable juices, is a thing. Carrots, beets, most fruits, and of course sugar cane have a great deal of sugar in them.
http://www.justonjuice.com/7-day-juice-fast-plan/ [justonjuice.com]
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/juicing-health-risks-and-benefits [webmd.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/22/do-juice-cleanses-work_n_1372305.html [huffingtonpost.ca]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:41PM
i dunno.
proteins are like replacement gears. fat and oils are like coating for the gears.
vitamins and minerals (calcium, kalium, magnesium and iron, but don't forget lithium) are like secret sauce.
and suger *tada* is what makes it all GOOO!!
with our high-tech society, methinks why go thru the trouble of eating other stuff then (high-tech) refined sugar, if the other stuff has GMO, pesticides and un-needed plastic waste and heavy metals (some of them not sure of themselves
and what they really are thus still in the process of finding themselves -aka- decaying -aka- radioactif) floating in the ocean?
ofc, even in sugar land there is evil and anything not sugar cane is evil sugar.
a white crystal, pure and beautiful and will probably keep you alive for a long time (maybe add some tea leafs).