How the Sugar Industry Bribed Scientists to Conceal the Truth About Sugar's Dangers

We all know that sugar, especially in significant quantities, is unhealthy. But if you had asked people in the 1960s to name food groups they considered unhealthy, the vast majority wouldn't have mentioned sugar; they would have pointed to saturated fats.

A shocking revelation of internal documents from the sugar industry reveals that this wasn’t accidental or due to a lack of scientific understanding at the time. It turns out the sugar industry bribed scientists in the 1960s to avoid writing about the link between sugar and heart disease, promoting saturated fat as the main culprit instead.

The article that exposed this scandal was recently published in the medical journal JAMA and was based on thousands of pages of correspondence and other documents uncovered by a researcher named Christine A. Kearns in the archives of Harvard University, the University of Illinois, and other libraries. These documents prove that in 1964, John Hickson, a senior executive in the sugar industry, discussed plans with others in the industry to sway public opinion through research and dissemination of information that served the industry’s interests. At that time, research was beginning to show a link between sugar-rich diets and heart disease. Other scientists were investigating an alternative theory that saturated fat and cholesterol were the main risk factors for cholesterol. The sugar industry decided to tip the scales in favor of the second theory by generously funding researchers who agreed to write scientific reviews debunking the allegations against sugar and placing the blame on saturated fat. For example, Hickson transferred a sum equivalent to $49,000 in today’s money to Harvard researchers. In return, Dr. Hegsted, a senior researcher, shamelessly wrote back, "We are well aware of your particular interest and will cover it to the best of our ability." During the drafting of the scientific review, the researchers sent their drafts to Hickson to ensure the sugar industry's benefactors were pleased with the work. "Indeed, this is what we thought, and we indeed expect the article to appear in print," Hickson responded. When this scientific review was published, the debate over sugar's impact on heart disease faded. Many health authorities wholeheartedly adopted the recommendations to beware of fat instead.

The revealed documents lead to an inevitable conclusion: Five decades of official dietary recommendations were shaped by vested interests. Hickson and his colleagues weren’t the only ones playing this game. For example, last year, the New York Times reported that Coca-Cola, the world's largest producer of sweetened beverages, donated millions of dollars to researchers who were asked not to focus on the connection between soft drinks and obesity. Last June, the Associated Press reported that candy manufacturers funded studies that claimed children who eat candy weigh less than those who don't.

The Harvard University scientists who collaborated with the sugar industry are no longer alive. But one of them, Dr. Mark Hegsted, mentioned above, advanced his career to become the head of the Nutrition Department of the United States Department of Agriculture. In 1977, he helped write the federal guidelines for healthy eating. Another notable researcher who received bribes from sugar manufacturers was Dr. Frederick J. Stare, chairman of Harvard's Nutrition Department.

In a statement released in response to the article in JAMA, the American Sugar Association said these studies were published during a period when medical journals didn’t typically require researchers to disclose their funding sources. "The sugar industry should have acted more transparently in its research activities, but these studies indeed played an important role in scientific debate." The association reiterated its claim that "decades of research have concluded that sugar does not play a role in the development of heart disease."

Why are these discoveries so important, years after the unethical researchers and greedy businessmen have long departed? They matter because the debate over the harm caused by sugar and saturated fat isn’t over yet. For decades, health officials have encouraged Americans to reduce their fat intake, causing many to consume foods low in fat but high in sugar. According to many experts, this is what fueled the current obesity crisis.

The sugar industry certainly invested its money wisely when it paid scientists to skew research results. As noted, Dr. Hegsted was among those who drafted the official dietary recommendations in the United States. Studies like his and his colleagues' drew attention to saturated fat as a significant factor in the development of heart disease while completely ignoring sugar. They labeled it as 'empty calories,' but did not point to any significant health damage it could cause. Of course, health damages begin to accumulate when the result of avoiding fat is high sugar consumption: obesity already has proven effects on heart health, as well as on blood pressure, body sugar management, and the risk of a wide range of diseases.

Only in recent years have clear scientific voices begun to say that the issue of fat isn't so simple and that, in any case, the link between high sugar consumption and cardiovascular diseases cannot be ignored. Four decades late, the public is finally allowed to know the truth that the sugar industry tried to hide through dishonest means. And as for those researchers who were willing to cooperate in the deception? Today's researchers agree, of course, that their behavior was disgraceful. Standards at the time were different, they say. Academic research conflict-of-interest laws have been significantly revised since then. Today, this couldn’t happen.

One can hope they are right, but it is certainly advisable to maintain a healthy skepticism. Bottom line, before rushing to believe studies, it is always crucial to check their funding sources.