The Sweetest Lie in the History of Nutrition

Newly released historical documents show that in the 1960s the sugar industry paid researchers at Harvard to produce two reviews in medical journals that downplayed the harmful aspects of consuming sugar, scapegoating fat as an explanation for various problems.

The internal sugar industry documents, could suggest that decades of research into the relationship of sugar and heart disease, as well of many of today’s dietary recommendations, and the science of nutrition in general, may have been largely influence not by unbiased research but by the sugar industry.

“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at U.C.S.F. and an author of the JAMA Internal Medicine paper. The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $48,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health while throwing dietary fats under the bus. Even though revelation  in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science. Likewise the public perception of fats and sugars are likely still impacted by the original studies. This is probably due to the academic clout of Harvard as an institution,  confirmation biases from later researchers, and because the paid-off scientists themselves went on to hold influential positions in their field.

The scientists were not only well qualified, but went on to hold positions that would have only further cemented their findings as expert and unmistaken. One of the scientists who was paid by the sugar industry went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where he helped draft what would later become  the federal government’s dietary guidelines. Another was the chairman of Harvard’s nutrition department. 

At the time of the report, most journals did not require funding sources to be disclosed. The New England Journal of Medicine did not begin to require such disclosures until 1984.

It is difficult to say just how far reaching the implications are of this historical case of nutritional corruption, but a story published this year by the Harvard Gazette calls out the original biased studies, and brings to light findings that leave little doubt about sugar’s role in nutrition, including links to diabetes and obesity.