🔍
How the Sugar Industry Lobbied Harvard Scientists to Blame Saturated Fat - YouTube
Channel: Analyze & Optimize
[0]
Yes or no? Do you believe nicotine is not
addictive? I believe nicotine is not addictive,
[5]
yes. Mr. Johnson? Uh, congressman, cigarettes
and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic
[13]
definitions of addiction, there is no
intoxication. We’ll take that as a no
[16]
and again time is short, if you could just,
I think each of you believe nicotine is not
[20]
addictive. We just would like to have this for
the record. I don’t believe that nicotine or our
[24]
products are addictive. I believe nicotine
is not addictive. I believe that nicotine
[30]
is not addictive. I believe that nicotine
is not addictive. And I too believe that
[63]
nicotine is not addictive.
[64]
The SRF’s purpose, and I quote “was dedicated
to the scientific study of sugar’s role in food
[84]
and communication of that role to the public
during a period of war-time sugar rationing.”
[90]
But as we already know, bureaucracy is a
machine that keeps growing exponentially.
[95]
By the end of World War II , 77 firms and
corporations, presumably led by the global elite,
[103]
were actively involved in the SRF. While The
foundation funded some scientific research,
[108]
their mission statement was and still
is “to convey the value of sugar as
[113]
a food staple and industry to the public
using accurate and pertinent information”
[118]
These were going to be completely unbiased,
rigorously reviewed, pieces of evidence,
[123]
right? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to
see that there would be conflicts of interest
[128]
in the research of the products they sell.
These conflicts of interest came to light
[133]
in 2016, but it was too late as sugar had
already become a staple in modern food.
[138]
The Journal of the American Medical Association,
one of the top sources of scientific literature,
[144]
got its hands on internal industry documents
from the SRF, including corporate conversations
[151]
and instructions that the foundation gave the
scientists it worked with. They also looked at
[157]
the evidence that was used to create the dietary
recommendations of several government health
[162]
organizations *show pics of organizations from
study*. Three researchers used the documents to
[166]
tell us a chronological story of special interest
corruption on behalf of the SRF. The paper made
[172]
very few headlines, so most people have no idea
about it. Therefore, I’m going to summarize the
[178]
findings from the paper, which you can
find linked in the description below.
[183]
The story begins in the 1950s. Coronary heart
disease was at an all-time high, and scientists
[194]
began researching dietary factors for possible
causes. By the 1960s, two major camps evolved
[203]
that argued the main cause of heart disease. One
hypothesis was built on the work of prominent
[208]
British physiologist John Yudkin, who claimed that
added sugar was the culprit. On the other hand,
[214]
an American physiologist named Ancel Keys,
claimed that total and saturated fat were the
[220]
main causes. One of these two theories would end
up shaping nutrition science as we know it today.
[226]
Clearly the SRF needed to protect the interests
of their shareholders. The SRF’s president,
[234]
Henry Hass, closely observed the debate. He
gave a speech in 1954 to the American Society
[241]
of Sugar Beet Technologists, saying “Leading
nutritionists are pointing out the chemical
[247]
connection between [American’s] high-fat
diet and the formation of cholesterol… If
[251]
the carbohydrate industries were to recapture
this 20 percent of the calories in the US diet…
[257]
this change would mean an increase in the
per capita consumption of sugar more than
[262]
a third.” [pull up study quote and highlight]
The sugar industry’s goal was to replace the
[266]
market share of fat with sugar. So they decided to
invest $600,000, which is $5.3 million in today’s
[275]
money, to increase their profits. ATP Science
on Youtube does a great job explaining what
[282]
happened. They paid $5.3 million to educate policy
makers, which are basically politicians with no
[290]
scientific background, educate policy makers on
how fat causes heart disease by basically saying
[296]
look inside this artery, it's got fat in it.
Look in this food, it’s fat. There’s no sugar
[301]
inside this artery. Sugar can’t go inside the
artery, fat goes in the artery, therefore fat
[305]
is evil and sugar’s good. And the policy makers–
“makes sense to me, I have no idea about science.”
[309]
And with the $5.3 million investment into the
propaganda, they managed to get the policy and
[315]
what their whole campaign was, was to stimulate
the business associated with the profit of selling
[320]
sugar by taking 20% of the allocated calories in
the food pyramid off the fat to give to sugar.
[326]
Profits continued to rise for the
sugar industry as people started to
[331]
eat less and less fat. Everything was
going smoothly until new research came
[336]
out stating that low fat diets high in sugar
could raise serum cholesterol. John Hickson,
[342]
the Vice President of the SRF at the time, began
keeping his eye on this new information. He
[348]
considered multiple ways to combat the so-called
deniers, such as the physiologist Yudkin.
[353]
In 1965, the SRF decided to appoint a new
member to its scientific advisory board.
[360]
This new member was Fredrick Stare, chair of the
School of Public Health Nutrition Department of
[367]
Harvard University. He was an expert on dietary
causes of heart disease, and was also consulted
[374]
by the American Heart Association and National
Heart Institute. However, he also had ties to
[381]
food companies and trade groups, which
weren’t widely questioned until the 70s.
[386]
Later on in 1965, a faculty member of Stare’s
department at Harvard, D. Mark Hegsted,
[393]
published three contradictory studies. The
first two were epidemiological studies that
[400]
suggested blood sugar to be a better predictor
of atherosclerosis than serum cholesterol. The
[407]
third study showed that sugar, more than
other carbohydrates, contributed to high
[412]
triglycerides. Yudkin previously claimed that
this was a major risk factor for Heart Disease.
[418]
The New York Herald Tribune jumped on board,
running an article supporting the notion that
[424]
sugar consumption may be casual in developing
heart disease. As Yudkin’s hypothesis on the
[431]
true cause of heart disease gained validation
through Hegsted’s research, the SRF had to act
[436]
quickly to protect their financial interests.
That’s exactly what they did. Two days after the
[442]
article was published, the SRF approved of
project 226. Project 226 was designated as
[450]
a literature review of “Carbohydrates and
Cholesterol Metabolism.” The project was
[456]
overseen by Stare and written by Hegsted
and colleague at Harvard, Robert McGandy.
[461]
Hickson provided the researchers with
articles demonizing sucrose, which is sugar,
[467]
that could’ve potentially threatened his profits.
Hickson told Hegsted “Our particular interest had
[474]
to do with that part of nutrition in which there
are claims that carbohydrates in the form of
[479]
sucrose make an inordinate contribution
to the metabolic condition, [until now,
[484]
the consensus has been that fat intake is the
cause]. I will be disappointed if this aspect is
[490]
drowned out in a cascade of review and general
interpretation.” Hegsted replied “We are well
[497]
aware of your particular interest in carbohydrate
and will cover this as well as we can.”
[502]
As you can see, Hickson really had a way with
words. He converted a man who conducted three
[508]
studies correlating sugar with heart disease,
to a believer of the dietary fat hypothesis in
[513]
just a few sentences. Or maybe it was the $6500,
which would be about 50 grand in today’s money,
[520]
that Hickson ended up paying him. Either
way, Hickson was one convincing guy.
[525]
As Hegsted and McGandy worked on project
226, a separate group of researchers,
[531]
known as the Iowa Group, were reporting
that there were positive associations
[536]
between the consumption of
sugar and serum cholesterol.
[538]
In the 9th month of the project, Hegsted
explained to the SRF that “Every time the
[545]
Iowa group publishes a paper we have
to rework a section in rebuttal.”
[549]
Hegsted gave Hickson the final draft
about half a year later and Hickson
[554]
assured him “This is quite what we
had in mind and we look forward to
[558]
its appearance in print.” The literature
was published in the New England Journal
[563]
of Medicine in 1967 titled “Dietary Fats,
Carbohydrates, and Atherosclerotic Disease.”
[570]
As with any respectable piece of scientific
literature, those who funded the study were
[577]
cited in the paper for the public to see. However,
Hickson’s payment to Hegsted was not disclosed,
[583]
but that’s probably because Hegsted pocketed
the cash instead of using it for the research.
[587]
The paper assured that the only way to prevent
heart disease was to reduce dietary cholesterol,
[594]
and to replace saturated fats
with polyunsaturated fats.
[598]
Any objective view seems to indicate that the
SRF retained their own scientific hired guns to
[605]
manipulate the empirical data and reach their
pre-determined results. They put out enough
[611]
information to influence government policy,
exactly what the sugar industries needed.
[616]
The review contained epidemiological,
[619]
experimental, and mechanistic studies
of sugar’s effect on coronary heart
[623]
disease. The epidemiological studies done
by Yudkin and the Iowa group showed that
[628]
there was a positive association with the
consumption of sucrose and heart disease.
[632]
Of course, those studies were discounted
either because of confounding variables,
[637]
poor interpretation or the
method of collection of the data.
[642]
The experimental studies showed that serum
cholesterol and triglycerides rose when components
[649]
of the diet like fat, starch and vegetables
were replaced with sugar. But apparently,
[655]
the amount of sucrose used in the studies
supposedly wasn’t comparable to American diets,
[660]
so that was disregarded by Hegsed and
company as well. They also believed
[665]
that the studies showing a raise
in triglycerides were irrelevant
[669]
because total blood cholesterol was
the real risk factor for heart disease.
[673]
PSH! I don't know about that
[677]
Then finally, the mechanistic studies showed
that it was biologically plausible that sucrose
[682]
could affect cholesterol levels and fructose
could affect triglyceride levels. However,
[687]
this hypothesis was ultimately disregarded
because it was built on mechanistic evidence
[692]
conducted with glucose and fructose
instead of sucrose. Never mind that
[697]
the sucrose molecule immediately breaks down
into glucose and fructose upon digestion.
[702]
Also, never mind that the epidemiology, controlled
trials, and mechanistic data all painted a clear
[711]
picture on sugar’s role in heart disease. They
also fed rats low fat high carb diets that would
[717]
supposedly never be in line with a human’s, even
though that’s essentially what they recommended.
[722]
So the review looked at the overwhelming
body of evidence that sugar had a clear
[727]
role in the development of heart disease,
but went ahead and picked each study apart
[732]
one by one to deny the obvious conclusion.
In essence they’re just making stuff up.
[739]
Okay? Alright...
[740]
So the SRF funded review, utilized hired
guns and dismissed all of the studies
[747]
showing sucrose to be harmful, but did not
include any quantitative results detailing
[753]
fat’s intervention in the studies. Of
course, they overstated the effect that
[758]
fat had in the studies. There was only one
randomized control trial that lowered serum
[764]
cholesterol by substituting saturated fat
for polyunsaturated fat. Out of all the
[770]
studies they reviewed though, this was the only
relevant experiment to draw a conclusion with.
[775]
Would you just look at it? I mean just look at it
[780]
Even though the epidemiology was ignored with
the sugar studies, the epidemiology from the
[784]
fat studies was extremely important. They
could draw the conclusion that fat causes
[789]
heart disease from those. The review made sure to
claim that polyunsaturated fats were a realistic
[796]
replacement for saturated fats, and that
it was the only dietary change that people
[801]
should make in order to avoid heart disease.
It’s clear that the SRF engaged in coronary
[808]
heart disease research in 1965, and then funded
and participated in a literature review published
[814]
in the New England Journal of Medicine. Their role
in the review wasn’t disclosed until 2016. The New
[822]
England Journal of Medicine did exactly what the
sugar industry wanted them to do and told society
[827]
to ignore the epidemiological, experimental, and
mechanistic studies linking sucrose to coronary
[833]
heart disease. They told people that the only
thing they had to worry about for heart health was
[839]
dietary cholesterol and saturated fat. Americans
had been convinced that they had nothing to worry
[845]
about when it came to sugar, and that they should
just avoid fat and they will be fine. So called
[851]
healthier low fat alternatives started flooding
the market, with sugar replacing the fat.
[857]
The story doesn’t end there though. In
1971, the sugar industry got into the
[866]
minds and pockets of the National Institute
of Dental Research Caries Program. They aimed
[872]
to shift the focus of dental problems away
from the consumption of sucrose. In 1976,
[880]
the sugar industry came out with another review
called “Sugar in the Diet of Man.” It’s credited
[886]
with strongly influencing the evaluation
of the safety of sugar by the FDA in 1976.
[893]
By the 1980s, most scientists believed
that added sugar had nothing to do with
[899]
coronary heart disease. The SRF got exactly
what they wanted, and the money poured in.
[905]
In essence, whether you know it or not, the
sugar industry is a giant money machine.
[911]
They have had and still have a pivotal role
in influencing American dietary policies.
[918]
Policy makers and average citizens don’t read
scientific journals, so they will blindly follow
[924]
the recommendations the USDA gives them. This is
why it’s so important to regulate conflicts of
[930]
interest in dietary studies. Some bad information
could lead to years of bad policy. Much of the
[939]
information propagated by the SRF is still
very relevant in mainstream science today.
[944]
With access to insider industry documents
like these, we the people have a chance to
[951]
search for the truth. The SRF paid scientists
to come up with enough paperwork to show that
[958]
sugar is nothing to be concerned about,
all to increase their market share.
[962]
The tobacco industry used similar tactics.
They convinced us that smoking was healthy,
[969]
but thankfully, the public perception changed.
Now, even smokers acknowledge that smoking is
[976]
unhealthy. However, the public perception of sugar
still hasn’t changed, with most people believing
[983]
that it’s fine to consume in moderation. The
sugar industry was more successful in deceiving
[989]
the public than the tobacco industry
because the public still believes them.
[993]
John Yudkin had worked diligently to
research the harmful effects of sugar,
[999]
and let the world know before it
became a staple in nearly every
[1003]
food in the market. But as they say,
history is decided by the winners.
[1009]
The SRF is now known as the Sugar Association,
[1013]
and it still has a powerful hand in Washington
DC. It still strongly denies the possibility
[1020]
that there is a relationship between sugar
consumption and cardiovascular disease.
[1025]
The sugar industry had a huge
role in shaping over 50 years
[1031]
of nutritional science and the dietary
recommendations that we still have today.
[1036]
Don’t let them fool you, subscribe to our channel.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage