pt.acetonemagazine.org
Novas receitas

A Coca-Cola contrata cientistas para nos convencer de que obesidade e dieta não estão tão relacionadas

A Coca-Cola contrata cientistas para nos convencer de que obesidade e dieta não estão tão relacionadas


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


A gigante americana de bebidas Coca-Cola, a maior produtora mundial de bebidas adoçadas com açúcar, supostamente se juntou a um grupo de cientistas proeminentes para promover - por meio de revistas médicas, conferências e mídias sociais - a ideia de que o exercício é muito mais importante para um peso saudável do que o consumo de calorias.

Para esse fim, a Coca-Cola forneceu "apoio financeiro e logístico" a uma organização sem fins lucrativos recém-criada chamada Global Energy Balance Network, "que promove o argumento de que os americanos preocupados com o peso são excessivamente fixados em quanto comem e bebem sem pagar atenção suficiente para os exercícios ”, de acordo com o The New York Times.

Em um anúncio recente em vídeo, o vice-presidente da rede advertiu: “A maior parte do foco na mídia popular e na imprensa científica é: 'Oh, eles estão comendo demais, comendo demais, comendo demais' - culpando o fast food, culpar bebidas açucaradas e assim por diante. E não há praticamente nenhuma evidência convincente de que essa, de fato, seja a causa. ”

Muitos defensores da saúde pública e profissionais médicos dizem, no entanto, que a mensagem é profundamente enganosa e que a Coca está tentando minimizar a ligação estabelecida entre o consumo de SSBs (bebidas adoçadas com açúcar) e doenças como obesidade e diabetes.

Enquanto isso, os americanos também ficaram cada vez mais espertos com relação ao consumo de refrigerantes, como evidenciado por um declínio consistente nas vendas de refrigerantes nos últimos anos. A American Beverage Association, furiosa contra a acusação de que os SSBs podem contribuir para uma dieta pobre, recentemente processou toda a cidade de São Francisco por decidir instituir rótulos de advertência obrigatórios em anúncios de bebidas açucaradas.

“As vendas da Coca-Cola estão caindo e há uma enorme reação política e pública contra os refrigerantes, com todas as grandes cidades tentando fazer algo para conter o consumo”, disse ao Times Michele Simon, advogada de saúde pública. “Esta é uma resposta direta aos caminhos que a empresa está perdendo. Eles estão desesperados para parar o sangramento. "


Como a indústria do açúcar transferiu a culpa para a gordura

A indústria do açúcar pagou cientistas na década de 1960 para minimizar a ligação entre o açúcar e as doenças cardíacas e, em vez disso, promover a gordura saturada como culpada, mostram documentos históricos recém-lançados.

Os documentos internos da indústria do açúcar, recentemente descobertos por um pesquisador da Universidade da Califórnia, em San Francisco, e publicados segunda-feira no JAMA Internal Medicine, sugerem que cinco décadas de pesquisa sobre o papel da nutrição e doenças cardíacas, incluindo muitas das recomendações dietéticas de hoje, pode ter sido amplamente moldado pela indústria do açúcar.

“Eles conseguiram atrapalhar a discussão sobre o açúcar por décadas”, disse Stanton Glantz, professor de medicina da U.C.S.F. e um autor do artigo JAMA Internal Medicine.

Os documentos mostram que um grupo comercial chamado Sugar Research Foundation, hoje conhecido como Sugar Association, pagou a três cientistas de Harvard o equivalente a cerca de US $ 50.000 em dólares de hoje para publicar uma revisão de 1967 da pesquisa sobre açúcar, gordura e doenças cardíacas. Os estudos usados ​​na revisão foram escolhidos a dedo pelo grupo do açúcar, e o artigo, que foi publicado no prestigioso New England Journal of Medicine, minimizou a ligação entre o açúcar e a saúde do coração e lançou calúnias sobre o papel da gordura saturada.

Embora o tráfico de influência revelado nos documentos remonte a quase 50 anos, relatórios mais recentes mostram que a indústria de alimentos continuou a influenciar a ciência da nutrição.

No ano passado, um artigo no The New York Times revelou que a Coca-Cola, o maior produtor mundial de bebidas açucaradas, forneceu milhões de dólares em financiamento para pesquisadores que procuraram minimizar a ligação entre bebidas açucaradas e obesidade. Em junho, a Associated Press informou que os fabricantes de doces estavam financiando estudos que afirmavam que as crianças que comem doces tendem a pesar menos do que aquelas que não comem.

Os cientistas de Harvard e os executivos do açúcar com quem colaboraram não estão mais vivos. Um dos cientistas pagos pela indústria açucareira foi D. Mark Hegsted, que se tornou o chefe de nutrição do Departamento de Agricultura dos Estados Unidos, onde em 1977 ajudou a redigir o precursor das diretrizes alimentares do governo federal. Outro foi o Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, presidente do departamento de nutrição de Harvard.

Em uma declaração respondendo ao relatório do jornal JAMA, a Sugar Association disse que a revisão de 1967 foi publicada em uma época em que as revistas médicas normalmente não exigiam que os pesquisadores revelassem as fontes de financiamento. O New England Journal of Medicine não começou a exigir divulgações financeiras até 1984.

A indústria “deveria ter exercido maior transparência em todas as suas atividades de pesquisa”, disse o comunicado da Sugar Association. Mesmo assim, defendeu que a pesquisa financiada pela indústria desempenha um papel importante e informativo no debate científico. Ele disse que várias décadas de pesquisa concluíram que o açúcar “não tem um papel único nas doenças cardíacas”.

As revelações são importantes porque o debate sobre os danos relativos do açúcar e da gordura saturada continua até hoje, disse Glantz. Por muitas décadas, as autoridades de saúde incentivaram os americanos a reduzir a ingestão de gordura, o que levou muitas pessoas a consumir alimentos com baixo teor de gordura e alto teor de açúcar, que alguns especialistas agora culpam por alimentar a crise de obesidade.

“Foi uma coisa muito inteligente que a indústria do açúcar fez, porque os artigos de revisão, especialmente se você os publica em um jornal muito importante, tendem a moldar a discussão científica geral”, disse ele.

O Dr. Hegsted usou sua pesquisa para influenciar as recomendações dietéticas do governo, que enfatizavam a gordura saturada como um fator de doenças cardíacas, ao mesmo tempo em que caracterizava o açúcar como calorias vazias ligadas à cárie dentária. Hoje, as advertências sobre gordura saturada continuam sendo a pedra angular das diretrizes dietéticas do governo, embora nos últimos anos a American Heart Association, a Organização Mundial da Saúde e outras autoridades de saúde também tenham começado a alertar que o excesso de açúcar adicionado pode aumentar o risco de doenças cardiovasculares.

Marion Nestlé, professora de nutrição, estudos de alimentos e saúde pública da Universidade de Nova York, escreveu um editorial que acompanha o novo artigo no qual afirma que os documentos fornecem "evidências convincentes" de que a indústria açucareira iniciou pesquisas "expressamente para exonerar o açúcar como um principal fator de risco para doença cardíaca coronária. ”

“Eu acho que é terrível”, disse ela. “Você nunca vê exemplos tão flagrantes.”

O Dr. Walter Willett, presidente do departamento de nutrição da Escola de Saúde Pública Harvard TH Chan, disse que as regras de conflito de interesses acadêmicos mudaram significativamente desde 1960, mas que os documentos da indústria eram um lembrete de “por que a pesquisa deveria ser apoiado por financiamento público em vez de depender de financiamento da indústria. ”

Dr. Willett disse que os pesquisadores têm dados limitados para avaliar os riscos relativos do açúcar e da gordura. “Com os dados que temos hoje, mostramos que os carboidratos refinados e especialmente as bebidas adoçadas com açúcar são fatores de risco para doenças cardiovasculares, mas que o tipo de gordura dietética também é muito importante”, disse ele.

O artigo do JAMA Internal Medicine se baseou em milhares de páginas de correspondência e outros documentos que Cristin E. Kearns, um pós-doutorado da U.C.S.F., descobriu em arquivos de Harvard, da Universidade de Illinois e de outras bibliotecas.

Os documentos mostram que, em 1964, John Hickson, um importante executivo da indústria açucareira, discutiu um plano com outros na indústria para mudar a opinião pública “por meio de nossas pesquisas, informações e programas legislativos”.

Na época, os estudos começaram a apontar para uma relação entre as dietas ricas em açúcar e as altas taxas de doenças cardíacas do país. Ao mesmo tempo, outros cientistas, incluindo o proeminente fisiologista de Minnesota Ancel Keys, estavam investigando uma teoria concorrente de que a gordura saturada e o colesterol dietético representavam o maior risco de doenças cardíacas.

Hickson propôs contrariar as descobertas alarmantes sobre o açúcar com pesquisas financiadas pela indústria. “Então podemos publicar os dados e refutar nossos detratores”, escreveu ele.

Em 1965, Hickson convocou os pesquisadores de Harvard para escrever uma revisão que desmascararia os estudos anti-açúcar. Ele pagou a eles um total de $ 6.500, o equivalente a $ 49.000 hoje. O Sr. Hickson selecionou os artigos para eles revisarem e deixou claro que queria que o resultado favorecesse o açúcar.

O Dr. Hegsted, de Harvard, tranquilizou os executivos do açúcar. “Estamos bem cientes de seu interesse particular”, escreveu ele, “e abordaremos isso da melhor maneira que pudermos”.

Enquanto trabalhavam em sua revisão, os pesquisadores de Harvard compartilharam e discutiram os primeiros rascunhos com Hickson, que respondeu que estava satisfeito com o que estavam escrevendo. Os cientistas de Harvard rejeitaram os dados sobre o açúcar como fracos e deram muito mais crédito aos dados que envolvem a gordura saturada.

“Deixe-me garantir que isso é exatamente o que tínhamos em mente e esperamos que ele apareça na mídia impressa”, escreveu Hickson.

Depois que a revisão foi publicada, o debate sobre o açúcar e as doenças cardíacas diminuiu, enquanto as dietas com baixo teor de gordura obtiveram o endosso de muitas autoridades de saúde, disse Glantz.


Como a indústria do açúcar transferiu a culpa para a gordura

A indústria do açúcar pagou cientistas na década de 1960 para minimizar a ligação entre o açúcar e as doenças cardíacas e, em vez disso, promover a gordura saturada como culpada, mostram documentos históricos recém-lançados.

Os documentos internos da indústria do açúcar, recentemente descobertos por um pesquisador da Universidade da Califórnia, em San Francisco, e publicados segunda-feira no JAMA Internal Medicine, sugerem que cinco décadas de pesquisa sobre o papel da nutrição e doenças cardíacas, incluindo muitas das recomendações dietéticas de hoje, pode ter sido amplamente moldado pela indústria do açúcar.

“Eles foram capazes de atrapalhar a discussão sobre o açúcar por décadas”, disse Stanton Glantz, professor de medicina da U.C.S.F. e um autor do artigo JAMA Internal Medicine.

Os documentos mostram que um grupo comercial chamado Sugar Research Foundation, hoje conhecido como Sugar Association, pagou a três cientistas de Harvard o equivalente a cerca de US $ 50.000 em dólares de hoje para publicar uma revisão de 1967 de pesquisas sobre açúcar, gordura e doenças cardíacas. Os estudos usados ​​na revisão foram escolhidos a dedo pelo grupo do açúcar, e o artigo, que foi publicado no prestigiado New England Journal of Medicine, minimizou a ligação entre o açúcar e a saúde do coração e lançou calúnias sobre o papel da gordura saturada.

Embora o tráfico de influência revelado nos documentos remonte a quase 50 anos, relatórios mais recentes mostram que a indústria de alimentos continuou a influenciar a ciência da nutrição.

No ano passado, um artigo no The New York Times revelou que a Coca-Cola, o maior produtor mundial de bebidas açucaradas, forneceu milhões de dólares em financiamento para pesquisadores que procuraram minimizar a ligação entre bebidas açucaradas e obesidade. Em junho, a Associated Press informou que os fabricantes de doces estavam financiando estudos que afirmavam que as crianças que comem doces tendem a pesar menos do que aquelas que não comem.

Os cientistas de Harvard e os executivos do açúcar com quem colaboraram não estão mais vivos. Um dos cientistas pagos pela indústria açucareira foi D. Mark Hegsted, que se tornou chefe de nutrição do Departamento de Agricultura dos Estados Unidos, onde em 1977 ajudou a redigir o precursor das diretrizes alimentares do governo federal. Outro foi o Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, presidente do departamento de nutrição de Harvard.

Em uma declaração respondendo ao relatório do jornal JAMA, a Sugar Association disse que a revisão de 1967 foi publicada em uma época em que as revistas médicas normalmente não exigiam que os pesquisadores revelassem as fontes de financiamento. O New England Journal of Medicine não começou a exigir divulgações financeiras até 1984.

A indústria “deveria ter exercido maior transparência em todas as suas atividades de pesquisa”, disse o comunicado da Sugar Association. Mesmo assim, defendeu que a pesquisa financiada pela indústria desempenha um papel importante e informativo no debate científico. Ele disse que várias décadas de pesquisa concluíram que o açúcar “não tem um papel único nas doenças cardíacas”.

As revelações são importantes porque o debate sobre os danos relativos do açúcar e da gordura saturada continua até hoje, disse Glantz. Por muitas décadas, as autoridades de saúde incentivaram os americanos a reduzir a ingestão de gordura, o que levou muitas pessoas a consumir alimentos com baixo teor de gordura e alto teor de açúcar, que alguns especialistas agora culpam por alimentar a crise de obesidade.

“Foi uma coisa muito inteligente que a indústria do açúcar fez, porque os artigos de revisão, especialmente se você os publica em um jornal muito importante, tendem a moldar a discussão científica geral”, disse ele.

Dr. Hegsted usou sua pesquisa para influenciar as recomendações dietéticas do governo, que enfatizavam a gordura saturada como um fator de doenças cardíacas, ao mesmo tempo em que caracterizava o açúcar como calorias vazias ligadas à cárie dentária. Hoje, as advertências sobre gordura saturada continuam sendo a pedra angular das diretrizes dietéticas do governo, embora nos últimos anos a American Heart Association, a Organização Mundial da Saúde e outras autoridades de saúde também tenham começado a alertar que o excesso de açúcar adicionado pode aumentar o risco de doenças cardiovasculares.

Marion Nestlé, professora de nutrição, estudos de alimentos e saúde pública na Universidade de Nova York, escreveu um editorial que acompanha o novo artigo no qual ela disse que os documentos forneciam "evidências convincentes" de que a indústria açucareira havia iniciado pesquisas "expressamente para exonerar o açúcar como um principal fator de risco para doença cardíaca coronária. ”

“Eu acho que é terrível”, disse ela. “Você nunca vê exemplos tão flagrantes.”

O Dr. Walter Willett, presidente do departamento de nutrição da Escola de Saúde Pública Harvard TH Chan, disse que as regras de conflito de interesse acadêmico mudaram significativamente desde 1960, mas que os documentos da indústria eram um lembrete de “por que a pesquisa deveria ser apoiado por financiamento público em vez de depender de financiamento da indústria. ”

Dr. Willett disse que os pesquisadores têm dados limitados para avaliar os riscos relativos do açúcar e da gordura. “Com os dados que temos hoje, mostramos que os carboidratos refinados e especialmente as bebidas adoçadas com açúcar são fatores de risco para doenças cardiovasculares, mas que o tipo de gordura dietética também é muito importante”, disse ele.

O artigo do JAMA Internal Medicine se baseou em milhares de páginas de correspondência e outros documentos que Cristin E. Kearns, um pós-doutorado da U.C.S.F., descobriu em arquivos de Harvard, da Universidade de Illinois e de outras bibliotecas.

Os documentos mostram que, em 1964, John Hickson, um importante executivo da indústria açucareira, discutiu um plano com outros na indústria para mudar a opinião pública “por meio de nossas pesquisas, informações e programas legislativos”.

Na época, os estudos começaram a apontar para uma relação entre as dietas ricas em açúcar e as altas taxas de doenças cardíacas do país. Ao mesmo tempo, outros cientistas, incluindo o proeminente fisiologista de Minnesota Ancel Keys, estavam investigando uma teoria concorrente de que a gordura saturada e o colesterol dietético representavam o maior risco de doenças cardíacas.

Hickson propôs contrariar as descobertas alarmantes sobre o açúcar com pesquisas financiadas pela indústria. “Então podemos publicar os dados e refutar nossos detratores”, escreveu ele.

Em 1965, Hickson convocou os pesquisadores de Harvard para escrever uma revisão que desmascararia os estudos anti-açúcar. Ele pagou a eles um total de $ 6.500, o equivalente a $ 49.000 hoje. O Sr. Hickson selecionou os artigos para eles revisarem e deixou claro que queria que o resultado favorecesse o açúcar.

O Dr. Hegsted de Harvard tranquilizou os executivos do açúcar. “Estamos bem cientes de seu interesse particular”, escreveu ele, “e abordaremos isso da melhor maneira que pudermos”.

Enquanto trabalhavam em sua revisão, os pesquisadores de Harvard compartilharam e discutiram os primeiros rascunhos com Hickson, que respondeu que estava satisfeito com o que estavam escrevendo. Os cientistas de Harvard rejeitaram os dados sobre o açúcar como fracos e deram muito mais crédito aos dados que envolvem a gordura saturada.

“Deixe-me garantir que isso é exatamente o que tínhamos em mente e esperamos sua publicação impressa”, escreveu o Sr. Hickson.

Depois que a revisão foi publicada, o debate sobre o açúcar e as doenças cardíacas diminuiu, enquanto as dietas com baixo teor de gordura obtiveram o endosso de muitas autoridades de saúde, disse Glantz.


Como a indústria do açúcar transferiu a culpa para a gordura

A indústria do açúcar pagou cientistas na década de 1960 para minimizar a ligação entre o açúcar e as doenças cardíacas e, em vez disso, promover a gordura saturada como culpada, mostram documentos históricos recém-lançados.

Os documentos internos da indústria do açúcar, recentemente descobertos por um pesquisador da Universidade da Califórnia, em San Francisco, e publicados segunda-feira no JAMA Internal Medicine, sugerem que cinco décadas de pesquisa sobre o papel da nutrição e doenças cardíacas, incluindo muitas das recomendações dietéticas de hoje, pode ter sido amplamente moldado pela indústria do açúcar.

“Eles conseguiram atrapalhar a discussão sobre o açúcar por décadas”, disse Stanton Glantz, professor de medicina da U.C.S.F. e um autor do artigo JAMA Internal Medicine.

Os documentos mostram que um grupo comercial chamado Sugar Research Foundation, hoje conhecido como Sugar Association, pagou a três cientistas de Harvard o equivalente a cerca de US $ 50.000 em dólares de hoje para publicar uma revisão de 1967 da pesquisa sobre açúcar, gordura e doenças cardíacas. Os estudos usados ​​na revisão foram escolhidos a dedo pelo grupo do açúcar, e o artigo, que foi publicado no prestigioso New England Journal of Medicine, minimizou a ligação entre o açúcar e a saúde do coração e lançou calúnias sobre o papel da gordura saturada.

Embora o tráfico de influência revelado nos documentos remonte a quase 50 anos, relatórios mais recentes mostram que a indústria de alimentos continuou a influenciar a ciência da nutrição.

No ano passado, um artigo no The New York Times revelou que a Coca-Cola, o maior produtor mundial de bebidas açucaradas, forneceu milhões de dólares em financiamento para pesquisadores que procuraram minimizar a ligação entre bebidas açucaradas e obesidade. Em junho, a Associated Press informou que os fabricantes de doces estavam financiando estudos que afirmavam que as crianças que comem doces tendem a pesar menos do que aquelas que não comem.

Os cientistas de Harvard e os executivos do açúcar com quem colaboraram não estão mais vivos. Um dos cientistas pagos pela indústria açucareira foi D. Mark Hegsted, que se tornou o chefe de nutrição do Departamento de Agricultura dos Estados Unidos, onde em 1977 ajudou a redigir o precursor das diretrizes alimentares do governo federal. Outro foi o Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, presidente do departamento de nutrição de Harvard.

Em uma declaração respondendo ao relatório do jornal JAMA, a Sugar Association disse que a revisão de 1967 foi publicada em uma época em que as revistas médicas normalmente não exigiam que os pesquisadores revelassem as fontes de financiamento. O New England Journal of Medicine não começou a exigir divulgações financeiras até 1984.

A indústria “deveria ter exercido maior transparência em todas as suas atividades de pesquisa”, disse o comunicado da Sugar Association. Mesmo assim, defendeu que a pesquisa financiada pela indústria desempenha um papel importante e informativo no debate científico. Ele disse que várias décadas de pesquisa concluíram que o açúcar “não tem um papel único nas doenças cardíacas”.

As revelações são importantes porque o debate sobre os danos relativos do açúcar e da gordura saturada continua até hoje, disse Glantz. Por muitas décadas, as autoridades de saúde incentivaram os americanos a reduzir a ingestão de gordura, o que levou muitas pessoas a consumir alimentos com baixo teor de gordura e alto teor de açúcar, que alguns especialistas agora culpam por alimentar a crise de obesidade.

“Foi uma coisa muito inteligente que a indústria do açúcar fez, porque artigos de revisão, especialmente se você os publica em um jornal muito importante, tendem a moldar a discussão científica geral”, disse ele.

Dr. Hegsted usou sua pesquisa para influenciar as recomendações dietéticas do governo, que enfatizavam a gordura saturada como um fator de doenças cardíacas, ao mesmo tempo em que caracterizava o açúcar como calorias vazias ligadas à cárie dentária. Hoje, as advertências sobre gordura saturada continuam sendo uma pedra angular das diretrizes dietéticas do governo, embora nos últimos anos a American Heart Association, a Organização Mundial da Saúde e outras autoridades de saúde também tenham começado a alertar que o excesso de açúcar adicionado pode aumentar o risco de doenças cardiovasculares.

Marion Nestlé, professora de nutrição, estudos de alimentos e saúde pública da Universidade de Nova York, escreveu um editorial que acompanha o novo artigo no qual afirma que os documentos fornecem "evidências convincentes" de que a indústria açucareira iniciou pesquisas "expressamente para exonerar o açúcar como um principal fator de risco para doença cardíaca coronária. ”

“Eu acho que é terrível”, disse ela. “Você nunca vê exemplos tão flagrantes.”

O Dr. Walter Willett, presidente do departamento de nutrição da Escola de Saúde Pública Harvard TH Chan, disse que as regras de conflito de interesses acadêmicos mudaram significativamente desde 1960, mas que os documentos da indústria eram um lembrete de “por que a pesquisa deveria ser apoiado por financiamento público em vez de depender de financiamento da indústria. ”

Dr. Willett disse que os pesquisadores têm dados limitados para avaliar os riscos relativos do açúcar e da gordura. “Com os dados que temos hoje, mostramos que os carboidratos refinados e especialmente as bebidas adoçadas com açúcar são fatores de risco para doenças cardiovasculares, mas que o tipo de gordura dietética também é muito importante”, disse ele.

O artigo do JAMA Internal Medicine se baseou em milhares de páginas de correspondência e outros documentos que Cristin E. Kearns, um pós-doutorado na U.C.S.F., descobriu em arquivos em Harvard, na Universidade de Illinois e em outras bibliotecas.

Os documentos mostram que, em 1964, John Hickson, um importante executivo do setor açucareiro, discutiu um plano com outros no setor para mudar a opinião pública “por meio de nossas pesquisas, informações e programas legislativos”.

Na época, os estudos começaram a apontar para uma relação entre as dietas ricas em açúcar e as altas taxas de doenças cardíacas do país. Ao mesmo tempo, outros cientistas, incluindo o proeminente fisiologista de Minnesota Ancel Keys, estavam investigando uma teoria concorrente de que a gordura saturada e o colesterol dietético representavam o maior risco de doenças cardíacas.

Hickson propôs contrariar as descobertas alarmantes sobre o açúcar com pesquisas financiadas pela indústria. “Então podemos publicar os dados e refutar nossos detratores”, escreveu ele.

Em 1965, Hickson convocou os pesquisadores de Harvard para escrever uma revisão que desmascararia os estudos anti-açúcar. Ele pagou a eles um total de $ 6.500, o equivalente a $ 49.000 hoje. O Sr. Hickson selecionou os artigos para eles revisarem e deixou claro que queria que o resultado favorecesse o açúcar.

O Dr. Hegsted, de Harvard, tranquilizou os executivos do açúcar. “Estamos bem cientes de seu interesse particular”, escreveu ele, “e abordaremos isso da melhor maneira que pudermos”.

Enquanto trabalhavam em sua revisão, os pesquisadores de Harvard compartilharam e discutiram os primeiros rascunhos com Hickson, que respondeu que estava satisfeito com o que estavam escrevendo. Os cientistas de Harvard rejeitaram os dados sobre o açúcar como fracos e deram muito mais crédito aos dados que envolvem a gordura saturada.

“Deixe-me garantir que isso é exatamente o que tínhamos em mente e esperamos que ele apareça na mídia impressa”, escreveu Hickson.

Depois que a revisão foi publicada, o debate sobre o açúcar e as doenças cardíacas diminuiu, enquanto as dietas com baixo teor de gordura obtiveram o endosso de muitas autoridades de saúde, disse Glantz.


Como a indústria do açúcar transferiu a culpa para a gordura

A indústria do açúcar pagou cientistas na década de 1960 para minimizar a ligação entre o açúcar e as doenças cardíacas e, em vez disso, promover a gordura saturada como culpada, mostram documentos históricos recém-lançados.

Os documentos internos da indústria do açúcar, recentemente descobertos por um pesquisador da Universidade da Califórnia, em San Francisco, e publicados segunda-feira no JAMA Internal Medicine, sugerem que cinco décadas de pesquisa sobre o papel da nutrição e doenças cardíacas, incluindo muitas das recomendações dietéticas de hoje, pode ter sido amplamente moldado pela indústria do açúcar.

“Eles conseguiram atrapalhar a discussão sobre o açúcar por décadas”, disse Stanton Glantz, professor de medicina da U.C.S.F. e um autor do artigo JAMA Internal Medicine.

Os documentos mostram que um grupo comercial chamado Sugar Research Foundation, hoje conhecido como Sugar Association, pagou a três cientistas de Harvard o equivalente a cerca de US $ 50.000 em dólares de hoje para publicar uma revisão de 1967 da pesquisa sobre açúcar, gordura e doenças cardíacas. Os estudos usados ​​na revisão foram escolhidos a dedo pelo grupo do açúcar, e o artigo, que foi publicado no prestigioso New England Journal of Medicine, minimizou a ligação entre o açúcar e a saúde do coração e lançou calúnias sobre o papel da gordura saturada.

Embora o tráfico de influência revelado nos documentos remonte a quase 50 anos, relatórios mais recentes mostram que a indústria de alimentos continuou a influenciar a ciência da nutrição.

No ano passado, um artigo no The New York Times revelou que a Coca-Cola, o maior produtor mundial de bebidas açucaradas, forneceu milhões de dólares em financiamento para pesquisadores que procuraram minimizar a ligação entre bebidas açucaradas e obesidade. Em junho, a Associated Press informou que os fabricantes de doces estavam financiando estudos que afirmavam que as crianças que comem doces tendem a pesar menos do que aquelas que não comem.

Os cientistas de Harvard e os executivos do açúcar com quem colaboraram não estão mais vivos. Um dos cientistas pagos pela indústria açucareira foi D. Mark Hegsted, que se tornou o chefe de nutrição do Departamento de Agricultura dos Estados Unidos, onde em 1977 ajudou a redigir o precursor das diretrizes alimentares do governo federal. Outro foi o Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, presidente do departamento de nutrição de Harvard.

Em uma declaração respondendo ao relatório do jornal JAMA, a Sugar Association disse que a revisão de 1967 foi publicada em uma época em que as revistas médicas normalmente não exigiam que os pesquisadores revelassem as fontes de financiamento. O New England Journal of Medicine não começou a exigir divulgações financeiras até 1984.

A indústria “deveria ter exercido maior transparência em todas as suas atividades de pesquisa”, disse o comunicado da Sugar Association. Mesmo assim, defendeu que a pesquisa financiada pela indústria desempenha um papel importante e informativo no debate científico. Ele disse que várias décadas de pesquisa concluíram que o açúcar “não tem um papel único nas doenças cardíacas”.

As revelações são importantes porque o debate sobre os danos relativos do açúcar e da gordura saturada continua até hoje, disse Glantz. Por muitas décadas, as autoridades de saúde incentivaram os americanos a reduzir a ingestão de gordura, o que levou muitas pessoas a consumir alimentos com baixo teor de gordura e alto teor de açúcar, que alguns especialistas agora culpam por alimentar a crise de obesidade.

“Foi uma coisa muito inteligente que a indústria do açúcar fez, porque artigos de revisão, especialmente se você os publica em um jornal muito importante, tendem a moldar a discussão científica geral”, disse ele.

O Dr. Hegsted usou sua pesquisa para influenciar as recomendações dietéticas do governo, que enfatizavam a gordura saturada como um fator de doenças cardíacas, ao mesmo tempo em que caracterizava o açúcar como calorias vazias ligadas à cárie dentária. Hoje, as advertências sobre gordura saturada continuam sendo a pedra angular das diretrizes dietéticas do governo, embora nos últimos anos a American Heart Association, a Organização Mundial da Saúde e outras autoridades de saúde também tenham começado a alertar que o excesso de açúcar adicionado pode aumentar o risco de doenças cardiovasculares.

Marion Nestlé, professora de nutrição, estudos de alimentos e saúde pública da Universidade de Nova York, escreveu um editorial que acompanha o novo artigo no qual afirma que os documentos fornecem "evidências convincentes" de que a indústria açucareira iniciou pesquisas "expressamente para exonerar o açúcar como um principal fator de risco para doença cardíaca coronária. ”

“Eu acho que é terrível”, disse ela. “Você nunca vê exemplos tão flagrantes.”

O Dr. Walter Willett, presidente do departamento de nutrição da Escola de Saúde Pública Harvard TH Chan, disse que as regras de conflito de interesse acadêmico mudaram significativamente desde 1960, mas que os documentos da indústria eram um lembrete de “por que a pesquisa deveria ser apoiado por financiamento público em vez de depender de financiamento da indústria. ”

Dr. Willett disse que os pesquisadores têm dados limitados para avaliar os riscos relativos do açúcar e da gordura. “Com os dados que temos hoje, mostramos que os carboidratos refinados e especialmente as bebidas adoçadas com açúcar são fatores de risco para doenças cardiovasculares, mas que o tipo de gordura dietética também é muito importante”, disse ele.

O artigo do JAMA Internal Medicine se baseou em milhares de páginas de correspondência e outros documentos que Cristin E. Kearns, um pós-doutorado na U.C.S.F., descobriu em arquivos em Harvard, na Universidade de Illinois e em outras bibliotecas.

Os documentos mostram que, em 1964, John Hickson, um importante executivo da indústria açucareira, discutiu um plano com outros na indústria para mudar a opinião pública “por meio de nossas pesquisas, informações e programas legislativos”.

Na época, os estudos começaram a apontar para uma relação entre as dietas ricas em açúcar e as altas taxas de doenças cardíacas do país. Ao mesmo tempo, outros cientistas, incluindo o proeminente fisiologista de Minnesota Ancel Keys, estavam investigando uma teoria concorrente de que a gordura saturada e o colesterol dietético representavam o maior risco de doenças cardíacas.

Hickson propôs contrariar as descobertas alarmantes sobre o açúcar com pesquisas financiadas pela indústria. “Então podemos publicar os dados e refutar nossos detratores”, escreveu ele.

Em 1965, Hickson convocou os pesquisadores de Harvard para escrever uma revisão que desmascararia os estudos anti-açúcar. Ele pagou a eles um total de $ 6.500, o equivalente a $ 49.000 hoje. Mr. Hickson selected the papers for them to review and made it clear he wanted the result to favor sugar.

Harvard’s Dr. Hegsted reassured the sugar executives. “We are well aware of your particular interest,” he wrote, “and will cover this as well as we can.”

As they worked on their review, the Harvard researchers shared and discussed early drafts with Mr. Hickson, who responded that he was pleased with what they were writing. The Harvard scientists had dismissed the data on sugar as weak and given far more credence to the data implicating saturated fat.

“Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind, and we look forward to its appearance in print,” Mr. Hickson wrote.

After the review was published, the debate about sugar and heart disease died down, while low-fat diets gained the endorsement of many health authorities, Dr. Glantz said.


How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.

“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at U.C.S.F. and an author of the JAMA Internal Medicine paper.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.

Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science.

Last year, an article in The New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, had provided millions of dollars in funding to researchers who sought to play down the link between sugary drinks and obesity. In June, The Associated Press reported that candy makers were funding studies that claimed that children who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who do not.

The Harvard scientists and the sugar executives with whom they collaborated are no longer alive. One of the scientists who was paid by the sugar industry was D. Mark Hegsted, who went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where in 1977 he helped draft the forerunner to the federal government’s dietary guidelines. Another was Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, the chairman of Harvard’s nutrition department.

In a statement responding to the JAMA journal report, the Sugar Association said that the 1967 review was published at a time when medical journals did not typically require researchers to disclose funding sources. The New England Journal of Medicine did not begin to require financial disclosures until 1984.

The industry “should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities,” the Sugar Association statement said. Even so, it defended industry-funded research as playing an important and informative role in scientific debate. It said that several decades of research had concluded that sugar “does not have a unique role in heart disease.”

The revelations are important because the debate about the relative harms of sugar and saturated fat continues today, Dr. Glantz said. For many decades, health officials encouraged Americans to reduce their fat intake, which led many people to consume low-fat, high-sugar foods that some experts now blame for fueling the obesity crisis.

“It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion,” he said.

Dr. Hegsted used his research to influence the government’s dietary recommendations, which emphasized saturated fat as a driver of heart disease while largely characterizing sugar as empty calories linked to tooth decay. Today, the saturated fat warnings remain a cornerstone of the government’s dietary guidelines, though in recent years the American Heart Association, the World Health Organization and other health authorities have also begun to warn that too much added sugar may increase cardiovascular disease risk.

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, wrote an editorial accompanying the new paper in which she said the documents provided “compelling evidence” that the sugar industry had initiated research “expressly to exonerate sugar as a major risk factor for coronary heart disease.”

“I think it’s appalling,” she said. “You just never see examples that are this blatant.”

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, said that academic conflict-of-interest rules had changed significantly since the 1960s, but that the industry papers were a reminder of “why research should be supported by public funding rather than depending on industry funding.”

Dr. Willett said the researchers had limited data to assess the relative risks of sugar and fat. “Given the data that we have today, we have shown the refined carbohydrates and especially sugar-sweetened beverages are risk factors for cardiovascular disease, but that the type of dietary fat is also very important,” he said.

The JAMA Internal Medicine paper relied on thousands of pages of correspondence and other documents that Cristin E. Kearns, a postdoctoral fellow at U.C.S.F., discovered in archives at Harvard, the University of Illinois and other libraries.

The documents show that in 1964, John Hickson, a top sugar industry executive, discussed a plan with others in the industry to shift public opinion “through our research and information and legislative programs.”

At the time, studies had begun pointing to a relationship between high-sugar diets and the country’s high rates of heart disease. At the same time, other scientists, including the prominent Minnesota physiologist Ancel Keys, were investigating a competing theory that it was saturated fat and dietary cholesterol that posed the biggest risk for heart disease.

Mr. Hickson proposed countering the alarming findings on sugar with industry-funded research. “Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors,” he wrote.

In 1965, Mr. Hickson enlisted the Harvard researchers to write a review that would debunk the anti-sugar studies. He paid them a total of $6,500, the equivalent of $49,000 today. Mr. Hickson selected the papers for them to review and made it clear he wanted the result to favor sugar.

Harvard’s Dr. Hegsted reassured the sugar executives. “We are well aware of your particular interest,” he wrote, “and will cover this as well as we can.”

As they worked on their review, the Harvard researchers shared and discussed early drafts with Mr. Hickson, who responded that he was pleased with what they were writing. The Harvard scientists had dismissed the data on sugar as weak and given far more credence to the data implicating saturated fat.

“Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind, and we look forward to its appearance in print,” Mr. Hickson wrote.

After the review was published, the debate about sugar and heart disease died down, while low-fat diets gained the endorsement of many health authorities, Dr. Glantz said.


How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.

“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at U.C.S.F. and an author of the JAMA Internal Medicine paper.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.

Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science.

Last year, an article in The New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, had provided millions of dollars in funding to researchers who sought to play down the link between sugary drinks and obesity. In June, The Associated Press reported that candy makers were funding studies that claimed that children who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who do not.

The Harvard scientists and the sugar executives with whom they collaborated are no longer alive. One of the scientists who was paid by the sugar industry was D. Mark Hegsted, who went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where in 1977 he helped draft the forerunner to the federal government’s dietary guidelines. Another was Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, the chairman of Harvard’s nutrition department.

In a statement responding to the JAMA journal report, the Sugar Association said that the 1967 review was published at a time when medical journals did not typically require researchers to disclose funding sources. The New England Journal of Medicine did not begin to require financial disclosures until 1984.

The industry “should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities,” the Sugar Association statement said. Even so, it defended industry-funded research as playing an important and informative role in scientific debate. It said that several decades of research had concluded that sugar “does not have a unique role in heart disease.”

The revelations are important because the debate about the relative harms of sugar and saturated fat continues today, Dr. Glantz said. For many decades, health officials encouraged Americans to reduce their fat intake, which led many people to consume low-fat, high-sugar foods that some experts now blame for fueling the obesity crisis.

“It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion,” he said.

Dr. Hegsted used his research to influence the government’s dietary recommendations, which emphasized saturated fat as a driver of heart disease while largely characterizing sugar as empty calories linked to tooth decay. Today, the saturated fat warnings remain a cornerstone of the government’s dietary guidelines, though in recent years the American Heart Association, the World Health Organization and other health authorities have also begun to warn that too much added sugar may increase cardiovascular disease risk.

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, wrote an editorial accompanying the new paper in which she said the documents provided “compelling evidence” that the sugar industry had initiated research “expressly to exonerate sugar as a major risk factor for coronary heart disease.”

“I think it’s appalling,” she said. “You just never see examples that are this blatant.”

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, said that academic conflict-of-interest rules had changed significantly since the 1960s, but that the industry papers were a reminder of “why research should be supported by public funding rather than depending on industry funding.”

Dr. Willett said the researchers had limited data to assess the relative risks of sugar and fat. “Given the data that we have today, we have shown the refined carbohydrates and especially sugar-sweetened beverages are risk factors for cardiovascular disease, but that the type of dietary fat is also very important,” he said.

The JAMA Internal Medicine paper relied on thousands of pages of correspondence and other documents that Cristin E. Kearns, a postdoctoral fellow at U.C.S.F., discovered in archives at Harvard, the University of Illinois and other libraries.

The documents show that in 1964, John Hickson, a top sugar industry executive, discussed a plan with others in the industry to shift public opinion “through our research and information and legislative programs.”

At the time, studies had begun pointing to a relationship between high-sugar diets and the country’s high rates of heart disease. At the same time, other scientists, including the prominent Minnesota physiologist Ancel Keys, were investigating a competing theory that it was saturated fat and dietary cholesterol that posed the biggest risk for heart disease.

Mr. Hickson proposed countering the alarming findings on sugar with industry-funded research. “Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors,” he wrote.

In 1965, Mr. Hickson enlisted the Harvard researchers to write a review that would debunk the anti-sugar studies. He paid them a total of $6,500, the equivalent of $49,000 today. Mr. Hickson selected the papers for them to review and made it clear he wanted the result to favor sugar.

Harvard’s Dr. Hegsted reassured the sugar executives. “We are well aware of your particular interest,” he wrote, “and will cover this as well as we can.”

As they worked on their review, the Harvard researchers shared and discussed early drafts with Mr. Hickson, who responded that he was pleased with what they were writing. The Harvard scientists had dismissed the data on sugar as weak and given far more credence to the data implicating saturated fat.

“Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind, and we look forward to its appearance in print,” Mr. Hickson wrote.

After the review was published, the debate about sugar and heart disease died down, while low-fat diets gained the endorsement of many health authorities, Dr. Glantz said.


How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.

“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at U.C.S.F. and an author of the JAMA Internal Medicine paper.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.

Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science.

Last year, an article in The New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, had provided millions of dollars in funding to researchers who sought to play down the link between sugary drinks and obesity. In June, The Associated Press reported that candy makers were funding studies that claimed that children who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who do not.

The Harvard scientists and the sugar executives with whom they collaborated are no longer alive. One of the scientists who was paid by the sugar industry was D. Mark Hegsted, who went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where in 1977 he helped draft the forerunner to the federal government’s dietary guidelines. Another was Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, the chairman of Harvard’s nutrition department.

In a statement responding to the JAMA journal report, the Sugar Association said that the 1967 review was published at a time when medical journals did not typically require researchers to disclose funding sources. The New England Journal of Medicine did not begin to require financial disclosures until 1984.

The industry “should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities,” the Sugar Association statement said. Even so, it defended industry-funded research as playing an important and informative role in scientific debate. It said that several decades of research had concluded that sugar “does not have a unique role in heart disease.”

The revelations are important because the debate about the relative harms of sugar and saturated fat continues today, Dr. Glantz said. For many decades, health officials encouraged Americans to reduce their fat intake, which led many people to consume low-fat, high-sugar foods that some experts now blame for fueling the obesity crisis.

“It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion,” he said.

Dr. Hegsted used his research to influence the government’s dietary recommendations, which emphasized saturated fat as a driver of heart disease while largely characterizing sugar as empty calories linked to tooth decay. Today, the saturated fat warnings remain a cornerstone of the government’s dietary guidelines, though in recent years the American Heart Association, the World Health Organization and other health authorities have also begun to warn that too much added sugar may increase cardiovascular disease risk.

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, wrote an editorial accompanying the new paper in which she said the documents provided “compelling evidence” that the sugar industry had initiated research “expressly to exonerate sugar as a major risk factor for coronary heart disease.”

“I think it’s appalling,” she said. “You just never see examples that are this blatant.”

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, said that academic conflict-of-interest rules had changed significantly since the 1960s, but that the industry papers were a reminder of “why research should be supported by public funding rather than depending on industry funding.”

Dr. Willett said the researchers had limited data to assess the relative risks of sugar and fat. “Given the data that we have today, we have shown the refined carbohydrates and especially sugar-sweetened beverages are risk factors for cardiovascular disease, but that the type of dietary fat is also very important,” he said.

The JAMA Internal Medicine paper relied on thousands of pages of correspondence and other documents that Cristin E. Kearns, a postdoctoral fellow at U.C.S.F., discovered in archives at Harvard, the University of Illinois and other libraries.

The documents show that in 1964, John Hickson, a top sugar industry executive, discussed a plan with others in the industry to shift public opinion “through our research and information and legislative programs.”

At the time, studies had begun pointing to a relationship between high-sugar diets and the country’s high rates of heart disease. At the same time, other scientists, including the prominent Minnesota physiologist Ancel Keys, were investigating a competing theory that it was saturated fat and dietary cholesterol that posed the biggest risk for heart disease.

Mr. Hickson proposed countering the alarming findings on sugar with industry-funded research. “Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors,” he wrote.

In 1965, Mr. Hickson enlisted the Harvard researchers to write a review that would debunk the anti-sugar studies. He paid them a total of $6,500, the equivalent of $49,000 today. Mr. Hickson selected the papers for them to review and made it clear he wanted the result to favor sugar.

Harvard’s Dr. Hegsted reassured the sugar executives. “We are well aware of your particular interest,” he wrote, “and will cover this as well as we can.”

As they worked on their review, the Harvard researchers shared and discussed early drafts with Mr. Hickson, who responded that he was pleased with what they were writing. The Harvard scientists had dismissed the data on sugar as weak and given far more credence to the data implicating saturated fat.

“Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind, and we look forward to its appearance in print,” Mr. Hickson wrote.

After the review was published, the debate about sugar and heart disease died down, while low-fat diets gained the endorsement of many health authorities, Dr. Glantz said.


How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.

“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at U.C.S.F. and an author of the JAMA Internal Medicine paper.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.

Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science.

Last year, an article in The New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, had provided millions of dollars in funding to researchers who sought to play down the link between sugary drinks and obesity. In June, The Associated Press reported that candy makers were funding studies that claimed that children who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who do not.

The Harvard scientists and the sugar executives with whom they collaborated are no longer alive. One of the scientists who was paid by the sugar industry was D. Mark Hegsted, who went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where in 1977 he helped draft the forerunner to the federal government’s dietary guidelines. Another was Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, the chairman of Harvard’s nutrition department.

In a statement responding to the JAMA journal report, the Sugar Association said that the 1967 review was published at a time when medical journals did not typically require researchers to disclose funding sources. The New England Journal of Medicine did not begin to require financial disclosures until 1984.

The industry “should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities,” the Sugar Association statement said. Even so, it defended industry-funded research as playing an important and informative role in scientific debate. It said that several decades of research had concluded that sugar “does not have a unique role in heart disease.”

The revelations are important because the debate about the relative harms of sugar and saturated fat continues today, Dr. Glantz said. For many decades, health officials encouraged Americans to reduce their fat intake, which led many people to consume low-fat, high-sugar foods that some experts now blame for fueling the obesity crisis.

“It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion,” he said.

Dr. Hegsted used his research to influence the government’s dietary recommendations, which emphasized saturated fat as a driver of heart disease while largely characterizing sugar as empty calories linked to tooth decay. Today, the saturated fat warnings remain a cornerstone of the government’s dietary guidelines, though in recent years the American Heart Association, the World Health Organization and other health authorities have also begun to warn that too much added sugar may increase cardiovascular disease risk.

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, wrote an editorial accompanying the new paper in which she said the documents provided “compelling evidence” that the sugar industry had initiated research “expressly to exonerate sugar as a major risk factor for coronary heart disease.”

“I think it’s appalling,” she said. “You just never see examples that are this blatant.”

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, said that academic conflict-of-interest rules had changed significantly since the 1960s, but that the industry papers were a reminder of “why research should be supported by public funding rather than depending on industry funding.”

Dr. Willett said the researchers had limited data to assess the relative risks of sugar and fat. “Given the data that we have today, we have shown the refined carbohydrates and especially sugar-sweetened beverages are risk factors for cardiovascular disease, but that the type of dietary fat is also very important,” he said.

The JAMA Internal Medicine paper relied on thousands of pages of correspondence and other documents that Cristin E. Kearns, a postdoctoral fellow at U.C.S.F., discovered in archives at Harvard, the University of Illinois and other libraries.

The documents show that in 1964, John Hickson, a top sugar industry executive, discussed a plan with others in the industry to shift public opinion “through our research and information and legislative programs.”

At the time, studies had begun pointing to a relationship between high-sugar diets and the country’s high rates of heart disease. At the same time, other scientists, including the prominent Minnesota physiologist Ancel Keys, were investigating a competing theory that it was saturated fat and dietary cholesterol that posed the biggest risk for heart disease.

Mr. Hickson proposed countering the alarming findings on sugar with industry-funded research. “Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors,” he wrote.

In 1965, Mr. Hickson enlisted the Harvard researchers to write a review that would debunk the anti-sugar studies. He paid them a total of $6,500, the equivalent of $49,000 today. Mr. Hickson selected the papers for them to review and made it clear he wanted the result to favor sugar.

Harvard’s Dr. Hegsted reassured the sugar executives. “We are well aware of your particular interest,” he wrote, “and will cover this as well as we can.”

As they worked on their review, the Harvard researchers shared and discussed early drafts with Mr. Hickson, who responded that he was pleased with what they were writing. The Harvard scientists had dismissed the data on sugar as weak and given far more credence to the data implicating saturated fat.

“Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind, and we look forward to its appearance in print,” Mr. Hickson wrote.

After the review was published, the debate about sugar and heart disease died down, while low-fat diets gained the endorsement of many health authorities, Dr. Glantz said.


How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.

“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at U.C.S.F. and an author of the JAMA Internal Medicine paper.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.

Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science.

Last year, an article in The New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, had provided millions of dollars in funding to researchers who sought to play down the link between sugary drinks and obesity. In June, The Associated Press reported that candy makers were funding studies that claimed that children who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who do not.

The Harvard scientists and the sugar executives with whom they collaborated are no longer alive. One of the scientists who was paid by the sugar industry was D. Mark Hegsted, who went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where in 1977 he helped draft the forerunner to the federal government’s dietary guidelines. Another was Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, the chairman of Harvard’s nutrition department.

In a statement responding to the JAMA journal report, the Sugar Association said that the 1967 review was published at a time when medical journals did not typically require researchers to disclose funding sources. The New England Journal of Medicine did not begin to require financial disclosures until 1984.

The industry “should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities,” the Sugar Association statement said. Even so, it defended industry-funded research as playing an important and informative role in scientific debate. It said that several decades of research had concluded that sugar “does not have a unique role in heart disease.”

The revelations are important because the debate about the relative harms of sugar and saturated fat continues today, Dr. Glantz said. For many decades, health officials encouraged Americans to reduce their fat intake, which led many people to consume low-fat, high-sugar foods that some experts now blame for fueling the obesity crisis.

“It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion,” he said.

Dr. Hegsted used his research to influence the government’s dietary recommendations, which emphasized saturated fat as a driver of heart disease while largely characterizing sugar as empty calories linked to tooth decay. Today, the saturated fat warnings remain a cornerstone of the government’s dietary guidelines, though in recent years the American Heart Association, the World Health Organization and other health authorities have also begun to warn that too much added sugar may increase cardiovascular disease risk.

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, wrote an editorial accompanying the new paper in which she said the documents provided “compelling evidence” that the sugar industry had initiated research “expressly to exonerate sugar as a major risk factor for coronary heart disease.”

“I think it’s appalling,” she said. “You just never see examples that are this blatant.”

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, said that academic conflict-of-interest rules had changed significantly since the 1960s, but that the industry papers were a reminder of “why research should be supported by public funding rather than depending on industry funding.”

Dr. Willett said the researchers had limited data to assess the relative risks of sugar and fat. “Given the data that we have today, we have shown the refined carbohydrates and especially sugar-sweetened beverages are risk factors for cardiovascular disease, but that the type of dietary fat is also very important,” he said.

The JAMA Internal Medicine paper relied on thousands of pages of correspondence and other documents that Cristin E. Kearns, a postdoctoral fellow at U.C.S.F., discovered in archives at Harvard, the University of Illinois and other libraries.

The documents show that in 1964, John Hickson, a top sugar industry executive, discussed a plan with others in the industry to shift public opinion “through our research and information and legislative programs.”

At the time, studies had begun pointing to a relationship between high-sugar diets and the country’s high rates of heart disease. At the same time, other scientists, including the prominent Minnesota physiologist Ancel Keys, were investigating a competing theory that it was saturated fat and dietary cholesterol that posed the biggest risk for heart disease.

Mr. Hickson proposed countering the alarming findings on sugar with industry-funded research. “Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors,” he wrote.

In 1965, Mr. Hickson enlisted the Harvard researchers to write a review that would debunk the anti-sugar studies. He paid them a total of $6,500, the equivalent of $49,000 today. Mr. Hickson selected the papers for them to review and made it clear he wanted the result to favor sugar.

Harvard’s Dr. Hegsted reassured the sugar executives. “We are well aware of your particular interest,” he wrote, “and will cover this as well as we can.”

As they worked on their review, the Harvard researchers shared and discussed early drafts with Mr. Hickson, who responded that he was pleased with what they were writing. The Harvard scientists had dismissed the data on sugar as weak and given far more credence to the data implicating saturated fat.

“Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind, and we look forward to its appearance in print,” Mr. Hickson wrote.

After the review was published, the debate about sugar and heart disease died down, while low-fat diets gained the endorsement of many health authorities, Dr. Glantz said.


How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat

The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.

“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at U.C.S.F. and an author of the JAMA Internal Medicine paper.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.

Even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, more recent reports show that the food industry has continued to influence nutrition science.

Last year, an article in The New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, had provided millions of dollars in funding to researchers who sought to play down the link between sugary drinks and obesity. In June, The Associated Press reported that candy makers were funding studies that claimed that children who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who do not.

The Harvard scientists and the sugar executives with whom they collaborated are no longer alive. One of the scientists who was paid by the sugar industry was D. Mark Hegsted, who went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where in 1977 he helped draft the forerunner to the federal government’s dietary guidelines. Another was Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, the chairman of Harvard’s nutrition department.

In a statement responding to the JAMA journal report, the Sugar Association said that the 1967 review was published at a time when medical journals did not typically require researchers to disclose funding sources. The New England Journal of Medicine did not begin to require financial disclosures until 1984.

The industry “should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities,” the Sugar Association statement said. Even so, it defended industry-funded research as playing an important and informative role in scientific debate. It said that several decades of research had concluded that sugar “does not have a unique role in heart disease.”

The revelations are important because the debate about the relative harms of sugar and saturated fat continues today, Dr. Glantz said. For many decades, health officials encouraged Americans to reduce their fat intake, which led many people to consume low-fat, high-sugar foods that some experts now blame for fueling the obesity crisis.

“It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion,” he said.

Dr. Hegsted used his research to influence the government’s dietary recommendations, which emphasized saturated fat as a driver of heart disease while largely characterizing sugar as empty calories linked to tooth decay. Today, the saturated fat warnings remain a cornerstone of the government’s dietary guidelines, though in recent years the American Heart Association, the World Health Organization and other health authorities have also begun to warn that too much added sugar may increase cardiovascular disease risk.

Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, wrote an editorial accompanying the new paper in which she said the documents provided “compelling evidence” that the sugar industry had initiated research “expressly to exonerate sugar as a major risk factor for coronary heart disease.”

“I think it’s appalling,” she said. “You just never see examples that are this blatant.”

Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, said that academic conflict-of-interest rules had changed significantly since the 1960s, but that the industry papers were a reminder of “why research should be supported by public funding rather than depending on industry funding.”

Dr. Willett said the researchers had limited data to assess the relative risks of sugar and fat. “Given the data that we have today, we have shown the refined carbohydrates and especially sugar-sweetened beverages are risk factors for cardiovascular disease, but that the type of dietary fat is also very important,” he said.

The JAMA Internal Medicine paper relied on thousands of pages of correspondence and other documents that Cristin E. Kearns, a postdoctoral fellow at U.C.S.F., discovered in archives at Harvard, the University of Illinois and other libraries.

The documents show that in 1964, John Hickson, a top sugar industry executive, discussed a plan with others in the industry to shift public opinion “through our research and information and legislative programs.”

At the time, studies had begun pointing to a relationship between high-sugar diets and the country’s high rates of heart disease. At the same time, other scientists, including the prominent Minnesota physiologist Ancel Keys, were investigating a competing theory that it was saturated fat and dietary cholesterol that posed the biggest risk for heart disease.

Mr. Hickson proposed countering the alarming findings on sugar with industry-funded research. “Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors,” he wrote.

In 1965, Mr. Hickson enlisted the Harvard researchers to write a review that would debunk the anti-sugar studies. He paid them a total of $6,500, the equivalent of $49,000 today. Mr. Hickson selected the papers for them to review and made it clear he wanted the result to favor sugar.

Harvard’s Dr. Hegsted reassured the sugar executives. “Estamos bem cientes de seu interesse particular”, escreveu ele, “e abordaremos isso da melhor maneira que pudermos”.

Enquanto trabalhavam em sua revisão, os pesquisadores de Harvard compartilharam e discutiram os primeiros rascunhos com Hickson, que respondeu que estava satisfeito com o que estavam escrevendo. Os cientistas de Harvard rejeitaram os dados sobre o açúcar como fracos e deram muito mais crédito aos dados que envolvem a gordura saturada.

“Deixe-me garantir que isso é exatamente o que tínhamos em mente e esperamos que ele apareça na mídia impressa”, escreveu Hickson.

Depois que a revisão foi publicada, o debate sobre o açúcar e as doenças cardíacas diminuiu, enquanto as dietas com baixo teor de gordura obtiveram o endosso de muitas autoridades de saúde, disse Glantz.


Assista o vídeo: Dieta dziecka czego nie powinno w niej zabraknąć? Jagoda Kłębek. Porady dietetyka klinicznego


Comentários:

  1. Aekley

    Bravo, que palavras ..., ideia brilhante

  2. Melvyn

    Sim, mais rápido se ela já saiu !!

  3. Tas

    O tema incomparável, é agradável para mim :)

  4. Huntly

    Peço desculpas, mas na minha opinião você admite o erro. Eu posso provar. Escreva para mim em PM, vamos lidar com isso.

  5. Tojasar

    Agradeço a ajuda nesta questão.

  6. Stillmann

    A questão é interessante, eu também participarei da discussão. Juntos, podemos chegar a uma resposta certa. Estou garantido.

  7. Tonya

    Muito certo! É uma boa ideia. Eu te ajudo.



Escreve uma mensagem