There is no secret in the fact that the food industry is always funding scientific research that then almost invariably concludes something in their favor . It ’s a common tactics used by chocolate companies , cereal manufacturers , and everyone in between as an easy way to return headlines and serve press their agenda . Buta recent discoveryof documents that are virtually 50 years previous has shown how this practice has been employed by the pelf industry for decade , producing influential inquiry that fall the impact that sugar has on tenderness disease .
Uncovered by a researcherat the University of San Francisco , the document show how even back in the 1960s , the sugar industry was attempt to fight the growing opinion that the sweet stuff played a role in the development of heart disease . Instead , the scientists being pay by the Sugar Research Foundation ( which is now bang as the Sugar Association ) , pushed the idea that fat was the master perpetrator .
Now , a review of the document has been published inJAMA Internal Medicine . It show how a 1967 scientific review looking into the impact of sugar on health was funded by the Sugar Research Foundation ( SRF ) , devote Harvard scientists the equivalent of $ 50,000 each to blame cardiovascular disease on saturated fat and to completely minimise the impact of sugar . The papers show how the SRF were ask with act upon scientific studies from as early as 1962 , directing it , funding it , and critique the results before they were eventually published in the New England Journal of Medicine .
When inspecting the 1967 paper in detail , the researchers found that the scientists paid by the saccharide industry were far more decisive of report linking sugar to middle disease than they were when appraise those linking cholesterin and fatness to the condition . In a commentaryaccompanying the JAMA Internal Medicine clause , a nourishment and public health prof at New York University , Marion Nestle , save that this grounds is a “ smoke gun ” showcasing the influence these industry have over influential research .
“ The documents leave fiddling doubt that the intent of the industry - funded review was to reach a foregone conclusion , ” write Nestle . “ The investigators know what the funder await , and produced it . ” But Nestle does n’t stop there , saying that these pattern are far from ancient history . “ Is it really on-key that food companies measuredly set out to manipulate research in their favor ? Yes , it is , and the practice proceed . ”
So next time you discover some luxurious wellness call about one type of intellectual nourishment or a certain food , perhaps you should look a small deeper as to who funded the research in the first place .
