3 ms·

[2016] This news had a big impact on me, but I was wondering how they actually did it. It's like carbon credits, or the snake breeding or whatever, you can't p

by rendaw 4y ago

[2016] This news had a big impact on me, but I was wondering how they actually did it. It's like carbon credits, or the snake breeding or whatever, you can't pay people enough to not do something. Per the article, it sounds like maybe 1. There actually is published research linking sugar to heart health 2. The sugar lobby paid $50k for a single review study that omitted/downplayed 1 and emphasized other papers related to fat and heart health 3. Policymakers used this single study to shape policy I'm left with a lot of questions though. The article talks about the sugar lobby doing this for 50 years... what did they do in the rest of the 50 years? And $50k isn't a lot! Do journalists only look at review papers? That doesn't sound right, there's a constant barrage of journalists jumping on a single paper with minor findings and sensationalizing it, I can't believe they'd as a whole completely ignore sugar research. Public discourse also completely ignored sugar, somehow. Did other industries (meat? butter? oil?) not fight back about this?

karaterobot 4y ago
> what did they do in the rest of the 50 years? There's a bit at the end about Coca Cola and candy companies continuing to manipulate research. I assume it's been a constant battle, not just a one-time $50k expenditure. But, it must have been worth the money for the sugar producers. >Do journalists only look at review papers? ... Public discourse also completely ignored sugar, somehow. It definitely did not ignore sugar. Artificial sweeteners have been a thing for a long time, for example. I'm sure there have been scientists and doctors screaming about this since the day the paper was published (as the article notes, there was already a ton of research speaking out against sugar). We knew sugar was bad, we just thought it was maybe a litttttle bit better than fat, which was exactly what the industry wanted.
- rendaw 4y ago
  My recollections from before 2016 re sugar were 1. Calories, so people wanted artificial sweetener to lose weight 2. Diabetes 3. Artificial sweeteners may cause cancer But, like cholesterol coating arteries, these studies I _think_ suggest that sugar is bad beyond the weight gain issue. Like even if you don't gain weight, just replacing other carbs with sugar may have disproportionate health risks. At least, that's my reading.
  - karaterobot 4y ago
    I think the very latest I'd put public awareness of the health effects of sugar would be the Atkins diet fad, circa 2004. That diet was a big deal at the time, definitely part of the public discourse, and the premise was that sugar was bad. Note that that book was already 30 years old by then, but something suddenly changed in the culture that made it hit. Then there were things like Paleo (2002-2013, hard to pin down) and The 4-Hour Body (2010), which were even more explicit about sugar being dangerous.
- mizzack 4y ago
  Up until a couple of years ago, Coca Cola was a high end sponsor for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. AND shapes standards and guidelines for Registered Dieticians in the US. While anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, RDs are certified and considered to be the authority for dietary advice. The sponsor list [1] looks a bit less egregious than before, but it's still loaded with processed crap peddlers, e.g. Mondelez, no doubt trying to sell BelVita crackers as being good for you. [1] https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/advertising-and-sponsorship/meet-our-sponsors https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/advertising-and-sponsor...
entropicgravity 4y ago
One of the things they did, was have an Oxford professor (maybe Cambridge) hounded out of the university because his research consistently showed that sugar was the problem and not fat.

by rendaw 4y ago

karaterobot 4y ago

> what did they do in the rest of the 50 years? There's a bit at the end about Coca Cola and candy companies continuing to manipulate research. I assume it's been a constant battle, not just a one-time $50k expenditure. But, it must have been worth the money for the sugar producers. >Do journalists only look at review papers? ... Public discourse also completely ignored sugar, somehow. It definitely did not ignore sugar. Artificial sweeteners have been a thing for a long time, for example. I'm sure there have been scientists and doctors screaming about this since the day the paper was published (as the article notes, there was already a ton of research speaking out against sugar). We knew sugar was bad, we just thought it was maybe a litttttle bit better than fat, which was exactly what the industry wanted.

rendaw 4y ago
My recollections from before 2016 re sugar were 1. Calories, so people wanted artificial sweetener to lose weight 2. Diabetes 3. Artificial sweeteners may cause cancer But, like cholesterol coating arteries, these studies I _think_ suggest that sugar is bad beyond the weight gain issue. Like even if you don't gain weight, just replacing other carbs with sugar may have disproportionate health risks. At least, that's my reading.
- karaterobot 4y ago
  I think the very latest I'd put public awareness of the health effects of sugar would be the Atkins diet fad, circa 2004. That diet was a big deal at the time, definitely part of the public discourse, and the premise was that sugar was bad. Note that that book was already 30 years old by then, but something suddenly changed in the culture that made it hit. Then there were things like Paleo (2002-2013, hard to pin down) and The 4-Hour Body (2010), which were even more explicit about sugar being dangerous.
mizzack 4y ago
Up until a couple of years ago, Coca Cola was a high end sponsor for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. AND shapes standards and guidelines for Registered Dieticians in the US. While anyone can call themselves a nutritionist, RDs are certified and considered to be the authority for dietary advice. The sponsor list [1] looks a bit less egregious than before, but it's still loaded with processed crap peddlers, e.g. Mondelez, no doubt trying to sell BelVita crackers as being good for you. [1] https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/advertising-and-sponsorship/meet-our-sponsors https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/advertising-and-sponsor...

entropicgravity 4y ago

One of the things they did, was have an Oxford professor (maybe Cambridge) hounded out of the university because his research consistently showed that sugar was the problem and not fat.