Study with ties to Big Food downplays the dangers of sugar


The recommendations to cut out sugar are based on weak evidence, according to a recent review published in The Annals of Internal Medicine. So what should you believe?

Well, let’s just say that the funding organization – International Life Sciences Institute – of this particular review has the beautiful-sounding name, behind which food companies such as Coca-Cola, General Mills, Hershey’s, Kellogg’s, Kraft Foods and Monsanto have chosen to hide.

They greatly benefit from your sugar consumption, and the question is what they prioritize more – your health or their own profits?

The New York Times: Study Tied to Food Industry Tries to Discredit Sugar Guidelines


Does Big Soda Manipulate Research on Sugary Drinks’ Health Effects?

The Sugar Wars – Gary Taubes and His Case Against Sugar

Videos about sugar

  • Sugar Coated
  • Are all carbohydrates equally bad?
  • Is sugar toxic?


  1. Apicius
    Here's an excerpt of the NYT article:

    "" “The conclusion of our paper is a very simple one,” said Bradley C. Johnston, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Toronto and McMaster University and the lead author of the new paper. “We hope that the results from this review can be used to promote improvement in the development of trustworthy guidelines on sugar intake.”

    Dr. Johnston said he recognized that his paper would be criticized because of its ties to industry funding. But he said he hoped people would not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” by dismissing the conclusion that sugar guidelines should be developed with greater rigor. ""

  2. rab
    To be honest, you cannot criticise the conclusion that guidelines should be developed with the greatest rigour. After all isn't it that same lack of rigour what what has lead us to the current fear of fat ? The thing that I take issue with is the insincerity and the obvious bias behind this whole study.

    When I pay a guy to mow my lawn then I shouldn't be surprised to find that the grass is shorter. When an expert gets paid to investigate whether the guidelines are based on sound science .......

  3. Richard David Feinman
    I would assume that, if the data and arguments are not correct, Dr. Johnstone is vulnerable. The funding agency probably doesn't care at all. Why not analyze the data?

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts