Internal documents from the 1960s show a Harvard coronary heart disease study was probably skewed, according to a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine Monday.
The report by researchers at University of California, San Francisco, reveals the Sugar Research Foundation sweetened research in its favor — to blame fats, instead of sugars, for high rates of coronary heart disease.
SRF’s vice president and director of research John
Hickson said the Sugar Research Foundation “could embark on a major
program” to squash “negative attitudes toward sugar.” His plan was to
review the existing reports, find “weak points” and “replicate the
studies with appropriate corrections” to argue against critics of sugar
consumption.
Hickson hired Harvard nutrition experts to put together a fresh, well-crafted 1967 study.
Monday’s report cites the industry continued to fund research that sidestepped sugar’s effects on health, including a 1970s review influencing the 1976 US Food and Drug Administration evaluation of the safety of sugar. Studies available today say sugar does plays a role in heart disease.
“The industry may have a long history of influencing federal policy,” the JAMA report says.
The coronary heart disease report ultimately published with no indication it was funded by the sugar industry. In 1984, NEJM began requiring authors to disclose all conflicts of interest.
Hickson hired Harvard nutrition experts to put together a fresh, well-crafted 1967 study.
Monday’s report cites the industry continued to fund research that sidestepped sugar’s effects on health, including a 1970s review influencing the 1976 US Food and Drug Administration evaluation of the safety of sugar. Studies available today say sugar does plays a role in heart disease.
“The industry may have a long history of influencing federal policy,” the JAMA report says.
The coronary heart disease report ultimately published with no indication it was funded by the sugar industry. In 1984, NEJM began requiring authors to disclose all conflicts of interest.
