SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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the links between sugar and heart disease in a prominent medical journal—and the researchers did it, according to historical documents reported Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine [open, DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394].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)
(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.