Today, there’s no question that our daily intake of sugar can seriously affect our health. This wasn’t the case about 50 years ago, and it wasn’t because science was less advanced. Or research on the issue under developed. Here’s what actually happened and why profit had everything to do with it.
In the 1960s, the sugar industry stopped funding research that would reveal the negative impact of sugar on people’s health.
What they actually wanted to hide was the link between high levels of sugar consumption and heart disease or even cancer.
The sugar industry trade group called International Sugar Research Foundation (ISRF) funded a research at the University of California in San Francisco. When the preliminary findings suggested a link between eating lots of sugar and heart disease or even bladder cancer, the funding was suddenly cut. The aftermath of the entire research was that the results were never published.
Today, there is evidence that ISRF even paid Harvard students to not reveal the tight relationship between sugar consumption and heart problems.
The main objective was to keep this connection from reaching the ears of consumers.
Sadly, this speaks volumes on the attempts of industry groups, such as the sugar one, to influence nutrition and health science. The chase for profit went so far that Coca-Cola had paid researchers to distract people from the undeniable connection between sugary drinks and obesity.
So suppressing research findings so as to favor particular industries is not an isolated event. Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at New York University agrees on this matter: that study results often coincide with the sponsors’ interests.
It may have started with the sugar industry, but it went further. They just seem to have advanced and the best example to support that is the giant pharmaceutical industry.
Although there isn’t concrete evidence today that shows the link between sugar and heart disease, we know it’s bad for our health. That’s for sure. We also know that the sugar industry cancelled the study because it wasn’t in their best interest.
This is how professor Nestle sums it up:
“This wasn’t about science. This was about marketing.”
Marketing can be deceptive and dangerous if we allow it to. People deserve to know the truth! Please share this!