\

Harvards Sugar Industry Scandal Is Just The Tip Of The Iceberg

Theres a lot of junk science and corporate sponsorship out there.
By Erin Schumaker Sept.14, 2016

The sugar industry paid scientists to pad research to support its interests in the 1960s, according
to a paper published Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

Author Cristin Kearns University of California, San Francisco uncovered damning letters in the
basement of Harvard University that revealed that two of the schools most famous nutritionists
collaborated with the sugar industry to downplay sugars role in coronary heart disease.

The collaboration delayed the development of a scientific consensus on sugar-heart disease for
decades, coauthor Stanton Glantz, a professor at the UCSF, told STAT.

Its unsettling to reflect on how food policy and American diets were shaped by this faulty
research, and sadly, its part of a larger trend. Food and beverage companies and trade
organizations have long influenced scientists to produce results that bolster their companies
profits, or to stifle research that failed to support their products health claims. Here are four other
times the food and beverage industries fooled us with faulty or slanted science:

1. Coca-Colas anti-obesity initiative

Perhaps the most laughable recent conflict of interest is Coca-Colas $1.5 million donation to start
the nonprofit Global Energy Balance Network, designed to convince Americans that lack of
exercise, not poor eating habits, is the root of the nations obesity crisis. (In reality, while exercise
has many health benefits, its not considered to be the key cause of unhealthy weight gain in
kids.)

We partner with some of the foremost experts in the fields of nutrition and physical activity, Coca-
Cola said in a 2015 statement. Its important to us that the researchers we work with share their
own views and scientific findings, regardless of the outcome, and are transparent and open about
our funding.

New York University nutrition professor Marion Nestle felt differently. The Global Energy Balance
Network is nothing but a front group for Coca-Cola, Nestle told The New York Times. Coca-
Colas agenda here is very clear: Get these researchers to confuse the science and deflect
attention from dietary intake.

2. Soda-funded studies more likely to report no link between soda and obesity

Studies with a financial conflict of interest, including research by PepsiCo and the American
Beverage Association, were five times more likely than independent studies to report no
correlation between drinking soda and weight gain and obesity, according to the journal Plos
Medicine.

Research free from conflicts of interest has reached a far different conclusion. According to a 2013
study published in Circulation, sugary drinks arent just bad for your waistline, they cause
preventable death and disability. In fact, the Circulation researchers attributed 184,000 deaths
worldwide each year to diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer from sugar-sweetened
beverages.

3. Candy companies research their own products

According to research backed by a trade association that represents Butterfingers, Hershey and
Skittles, children who ate candy tended to be thinner than those who didnt. Convenient, right?

The candy-funded study made the rounds in popular media before an Associated Press
investigation uncovered emails indicating that candy industry ties likely influenced the studys
results.

Digging ourselves out of a half-century deep hole wont be easy

This is an ongoing problem with no clear solution. Scientists need money to fund research and
food companies are more than willing to provide it if that research yields results in line with
corporate interests. As a result, Americans are swayed by industry studies and rightly confused by
ever-changing nutrition guidelines.

Most frustrating of all is question the half-century-old conflict of interest raises: At this point, what
research can we trust?