Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Big Sugar Buried Studies About Health Risks

Back in the 1960s, the fact that our diets influence the risk of heart disease was still a new idea. And there was a debate about the role of fats and the role of sugar. The sugar industry got involved in efforts to influence this debate. "What the sugar industry successively did," argues Stanton Glantz of the University of California, San Francisco, "is they shifted all of the blame onto fats." The industry's strategies were sophisticated, Glantz says, and are similar to those of the tobacco industry. For instance, in 1965 an industry group, the Sugar Research Foundation, secretly funded a scientific review that downplayed the evidence that linked sugar consumption to blood fat levels. The review was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Now, what's come to light in an investigation published Tuesday in the journal PLOS Biology is that the industry funded its own research project, but never disclosed the findings.

More

Glantz and his collaborators, including Cristin Kearns, an assistant professor at UCSF, evaluated a bunch of sugar industry internal documents. ...

But critics argue that the industry is still trying to slow down the consensus on the health risks linked to sugar consumption. In the PLOS Biology paper, Glantz and his co-authors argue that the ongoing controversy surrounding sugar in our diets "may be rooted in more than 60 years of food and beverage industry manipulation of science."

In recent years, new evidence has emerged that links sugary diets to heart disease. But could we have gotten the message sooner?

UCSF's Kearns argues that if the sugar industry had published its findings decades ago, it would have added to a growing body of evidence. "Had this information been made public, there would have been a lot more research scrutiny of sugar," Kearns told us.

Kearns says the sugar industry has "a lot of money and influence" and still uses its influence to cast doubt on the recommendation to limit added sugars to no more than 10 percent of daily calories.

In a trade association publication last year, the president and CEO of the Sugar Association described this recommended limit on sugar, which is part of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, as "scientifically out of bounds."

Comments

or, what i knew about rum but didn't care.

#1 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-22 03:28 AM

Corporations rule DC and every State. The truth is still out there, in America it just takes 50 years of Corporate profits before truth overcomes greed. Ordinary people are expendable but Rockefeller gets 7 hearts before death equalizes him.

#2 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-11-22 12:19 PM

Corporations rule DC and every State. The truth is still out there, in America it just takes 50 years of Corporate profits before truth overcomes greed. Ordinary people are expendable but Rockefeller gets 7 hearts before death equalizes him.

#2 | Posted by bayviking

Only because our elections are legalized bribery.

Public elections funding would make a lof of our problems fixable.

#3 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 01:46 PM

Sugar is a drug.

Most of the time, when you see a fat person, you are looking at a drug addict.

But we allow it to be put in everything, marketed to everyone, and raise health care costs for everyone.

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 01:47 PM

"Only because our elections are legalized bribery."

How so? You can vote for anyone you like.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-22 02:34 PM

How so? You can vote for anyone you like.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner

And then once they're in office, they do whatever their biggest donors demand.

#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 03:00 PM

"You can vote for anyone you like."

only the people that have the money and resources make it to the ballet. a lot of that money comes from "legalized bribery"

#7 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-11-22 03:18 PM

But we can trust corporations. It's capitalism after all!

-Conservatives on the DR

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-22 03:26 PM

Scientists can be bought cheap? Next thing you're going to tell me, doctors can be bought too.

#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-22 03:41 PM

Scientists can be bought cheap? Next thing you're going to tell me, doctors can be bought too.

#9 | Posted by sitzkrieg

A few can.

You can't buy the whole scientific community, which is what climate change deniers believe.

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 04:04 PM

A few can.

#10 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-11-22 04:04 PM | FLAG:

Okay, so you only have to buy a few. The whole scientific community is less than 0.1% climate scientists. There are many, many scientific jobs that have nothing to do with the climate. You're shooting your own point in the foot.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-22 04:07 PM

Okay, so you only have to buy a few. The whole scientific community is less than 0.1% climate scientists. There are many, many scientific jobs that have nothing to do with the climate. You're shooting your own point in the foot.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg

No I'm not. Climate change deniers think the entire climate science community is all getting paid to participate in a massive secret conspiracy.

They think that's more plausible than exxon just paying a FEW scientists to cast doubt on climate change.

Because they're morons.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-22 04:53 PM

The health risks of sugar have been known for a long time. The sugar industry downplayed suger by calling it empty calories. It's as damaging as alchohol and more addictive and the major reason for the rise in diabetes and obesity. I found it harder to quit than cigarettes.

There are some excellent sources on the subject.

Suicide by Sugar

Fat Chance

#13 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 05:43 PM

The health risks of sugar have been known for a long time. The sugar industry downplayed suger by calling it empty calories. It's as damaging as alchohol and more addictive and the major reason for the rise in diabetes and obesity. I found it harder to quit than cigarettes.

#13 | POSTED BY RAY

Hilarious. You are on other threads telling us not to trust the government but definitely trust the corporations.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-22 09:09 PM

Okay, so you only have to buy a few. The whole scientific community is less than 0.1% climate scientists.
#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg

That's about 10,000 scientists.

Any other stupid comments you want to make?

#15 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-22 09:10 PM

You are on other threads telling us not to trust the government but definitely trust the corporations.
#14 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

You're mistaken. Trust neither.

#16 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-22 09:18 PM

#4 #13
yet "drug addicts and 'prohibition' violators" are rounded up and sold.

#17 | Posted by ichiro at 2017-11-22 10:32 PM

That's about 10,000 scientists.
Any other stupid comments you want to make?

#15 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-22 09:10 PM | REPLY |

That few just makes it affordable for big energy and governments. Can buy them for less than half a billion annually, and globally distributes the cost. Poor child, you can't do math.

Watching the cognitive dissonance of political science will always be funny. When somebody like Dr. Folta says climate change is happening, but Monsanto isn't evil, heads on all sides explode.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-23 07:45 AM

I'm still eating pie today. But I won't like it.

#19 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-23 10:10 AM

Sugar really is a drug, and it is a toxic one at that. Someone who avoids sugar entirely but never executrices will be much healthier than someone who eats a lot of sugar but works out a lot.

#20 | Posted by MarcNBarrett at 2017-11-23 02:16 PM

I thought "Big Sugar" was a rapper.

#21 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2017-11-23 05:59 PM

My first experience with sugar was as a teenager working in a supermarket. I was reponsible for the candy aisle. Never had cavities up to that point. Then I started eating spoils, packages that couldn't be sold because they were broken.

Within a year, I got three cavities. That's when I saw the connection between sugar and cavities.

Today, I would put sugar addiction in the same class with other harmful drugs. Sugar has a sweet innocent. We give it to children. Sugar and its derivatives are at the root of acute diseases from colds to flu. It's at the root of chronic disease from cancer to heart disease. Sugar is acid forming. Acid lacks oxygen, the most important element to our health. Pathogens love acid conditions. And acid causes inflammation. Cancer, heart disease and other chronic disease have inflammatory origins.

People should consider first changing their diet before doctors. No medicine can substitute for a malnourshed oxygen starved body. They can make symptoms go away temporarily. But they can't elimininate the underlying conditions that cause disease. Medicines only compound the harmful effects of sugar.

#22 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-24 07:31 AM

Next to sugar, readers should consider reducing wheat consumption as much as possible. It's long term harmful effects are second to sugar. Wheat has been genetically modified to increase yield and baking properties. Its starch is easily converted to glucose. Wheat has a morphine like effect that stimulates appetite. Wheat is also a major cause of obesity and diabetes.

Wheat Belly

Grain Brain

Plant Paradox

Innocent readers have easy access to information that runs contrary to these three authors. It's designed to cause confusion. Our bodies have very specific food requirements. Disease is our body's way of telling we are eating harmful foods. One should start with the most likely suspects and work their way down until they see noticeable improvements. Improvements can often take months to notice. But at least they do no harm.

After sugar and wheat, corn, soy and dairy should be considered. These foods dominate the American diet and crowd out healthy foods. Corporate foods are designed for profit, not for health. Age is not a disease. One should remain healthy throughout life.

#23 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-24 09:44 AM

What strikes me as interesting. Judging by the number of comments on this thread, liberals are more upset at Trump than what Big Food and Big Pharma are doing to their health.

#24 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-24 09:48 AM

Another example that proves there is a direct link between diet and disease. This doctor cured herself of MS with changes of diet.

Wahls Protocol

#25 | Posted by Ray at 2017-11-24 09:56 AM

That's about 10,000 scientists.
Any other stupid comments you want to make?
#15 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2017-11-22 09:10 PM | REPLY |
That few just makes it affordable for big energy and governments. Can buy them for less than half a billion annually, and globally distributes the cost. Poor child, you can't do math.
Watching the cognitive dissonance of political science will always be funny. When somebody like Dr. Folta says climate change is happening, but Monsanto isn't evil, heads on all sides explode.
#18 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Are you offer your meds? Are you REALLY suggesting that 99% of the 10,000 climate scientists worldwide are bought out?

Sure, Big Energy can buy out a few. But not the vast majority. Some people do have ethics unlike yourself.

There is a reason why every country on the planet has signed the Paris Accords EXCEPT us. And the reason is people like you. You are the literal representation of Cognitive Dissonance.

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-24 11:45 AM

Drudge Retort Headlines

'I Have a Dream' (200 comments)

Trump Golfed While Hawaii Panicked (85 comments)

Trump Calls DACA 'Probably Dead,' Dodges Blame (25 comments)

Laid-Off Carrier Workers Feel Betrayed by Trump (24 comments)

Wal-Mart Cutting 12,000 Jobs (23 comments)

All Immigration Was Legal Before 1882 (22 comments)

How 'Bout Them Jaguars? (19 comments)

China Demolishes Christian Megachurch (18 comments)