Sugar Industry Shifted Heart Disease Focus to Fat

Historical documents reveal that the sugar industry influenced scientific research in the 1960s to shift the national focus on heart disease away from sugar and toward dietary fat. The Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) funded a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine that minimized the link between sugar and heart health while emphasizing the risks of saturated fat.

Records indicate the SRF paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of $50,000 for this review. The industry group also planned to sponsor human metabolic studies to challenge findings that sugar was harmful. These documents were discovered by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), providing a clear view of industry tactics during that era.

In the 1960s, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) took action to address emerging concerns about sugar's role in heart disease. Documents show that the SRF identified potential threats to the industry's reputation and sought to counter them through scientific influence. The organization specifically targeted the growing body of research linking sugar intake to coronary heart disease.

The SRF initiated a project known as Project 226. The goal was to review the literature regarding sugar and fat in relation to heart disease. Records indicate that the SRF corresponded with three prominent researchers at Harvard to commission this work. The industry group was looking for a review that would support their position.

The correspondence reveals that the SRF was not merely seeking information but actively steering the research direction. The organization expressed a desire to shift the focus of the national dietary conversation. This effort was part of a broader strategy to protect the sugar industry's market share and public image.

The collaboration between the Sugar Research Foundation and the Harvard researchers resulted in a literature review published in 1967. The review appeared in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. The SRF paid the scientists the equivalent of $50,000 for their work.

The content of the review reflected the industry's interests. The paper concluded that there was no evidence linking sugar to heart disease. Conversely, it cast doubt on the role of saturated fat, suggesting that the evidence against fat was not conclusive. This conclusion aligned perfectly with the SRF's objective to deflect blame from sugar.

By funding this specific review, the industry ensured that a high-profile scientific publication supported their narrative. This influenced the medical community's understanding of diet and heart health for years to come. The review helped cement the idea that fat was the primary dietary villain, a narrative that benefited the sugar industry significantly.

Beyond the literature review, the Sugar Research Foundation had plans for further research. Documents show the SRF discussed sponsoring a research program on the metabolic effects of sugar. The objective was to investigate how the body processes sugar and to challenge the negative findings associated with high sugar intake.

The SRF specifically considered studies that would look at the relationship between sugar and blood cholesterol levels. At the time, cholesterol was a key marker for heart disease risk. The industry hoped to find data showing that sugar did not negatively impact cholesterol, thereby weakening the argument against sugar consumption.

While the specific outcome of these planned studies is not detailed in the available records, the intent is clear. The Sugar Research Foundation was prepared to invest in research that would generate favorable results. This approach represents a proactive strategy to manage scientific uncertainty and protect commercial interests.

The details of the sugar industry's influence were brought to light by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). The team unearthed internal correspondence and documents from the Sugar Research Foundation. These documents provide a historical record of the organization's activities in the 1960s.

The findings illustrate a significant conflict of interest. By funding research and influencing the publication of results, the industry compromised the objectivity of the scientific process. This historical example serves as a cautionary tale regarding the intersection of industry funding and public health research.

The revelation underscores the importance of transparency in scientific funding. It highlights how industry groups have historically sought to shape public opinion and health guidelines to their advantage. The documents confirm that the shift in focus toward fat and away from sugar was not solely based on independent science but was also driven by industry strategy.