Sugarcoating the Truth

Fans of sugary snacks recently got some sweet news. A new study reported that warnings to reduce sugar consumption were based on weak evidence. Bring on the gummies and cupcakes, right? 

Not quite. Turns out, the study was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a scientific group funded by some of the world’s leading food and beverage companies. Its members include popular soda, chocolate, breakfast cereal, and snack brands.

As health experts quickly pointed out, the companies that funded the study have a lot to gain if people consume more sugar. For that reason, many doctors argued that the results couldn’t be trusted. 

The report’s authors said that ILSI had no input on their research. But they admitted to having a financial conflict of interest. 

Fans of sugary snacks recently got some sweet news. A new study reported that warnings to reduce sugar intake were based on weak evidence. Bring on the gummies and cupcakes, right?

Not quite. Turns out, the study was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). This is a scientific group funded by some of the world’s top food and beverage companies. Its members include popular soda, chocolate, breakfast cereal, and snack brands.

As health experts quickly pointed out, the companies that paid for the study have a lot to gain if people consume more sugar. For that reason, many doctors argued that the results couldn’t be trusted.

The report’s authors said that ILSI had no input on their research. But they admitted to having a financial conflict of interest.

This isn’t the first time the food and beverage industry has been accused of paying for scientific research in an attempt to influence nutritional advice—and Americans’ diets. Such industry-funded research has existed for decades.

But nutrition experts say the practice is especially worrisome now as concern grows about the role of sugar in causing obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and other health problems. 

That’s why people need to know that not all scientific research is equal, experts warn. 

“It’s way too simple to say that companies buy the results they want,” Marion Nestle, a New York University food researcher, recently told the Los Angeles Times. But, she said, “there is something about funding that leads . . . to skewing studies to get the desired results.” 

This isn’t the first time the food and beverage industry has been accused of paying for scientific research in an attempt to influence nutritional advice and Americans’ diets. Such industry-funded research has existed for decades.

But nutrition experts say the practice is especially worrisome now. This is because of rising concerns about the role of sugar in causing obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and other health problems.

That’s why people need to know that not all scientific research is equal, experts warn.

Marion Nestle is a New York University food researcher. She recently told the Los Angeles Times that “it’s way too simple to say that companies buy the results they want.” But, she said, “there is something about funding that leads . . . to skewing studies to get the desired results.” 

Scientific studies have a broad impact on our lives. They influence “everything from dietary and environmental guidelines to what your school cafeteria serves for lunch,” says Eric Feigl-Ding of Harvard University in Boston. 

A recent report shows how industry-funded research can have lasting effects. Last year, experts from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) discovered that in the 1960s, the sugar industry paid scientists in an effort to influence what they reported about sugar and heart disease. 

At that time, studies had already started to connect sugar intake with heart disease. If that link had become common knowledge, the sugar industry had a lot to lose. People might have cut back on sweets, costing many companies a lot of business—and money.  

With that in mind, the Sugar Research Foundation—a trade group for the sugar industry—gave three nutrition professors from Harvard University about $50,000 in today’s dollars to review the existing research. The professors then published a paper in a prominent medical journal blaming fat for heart disease and dismissing the idea that sugar was a culprit. 

“This is quite what we had in mind,” a sugar executive wrote approvingly to one of the authors.

That research helped shape dietary recommendations for decades. As a result, many Americans cut back on fat but continued to eat sweets and drink soda. That contributed, experts say, to our current obesity crisis and high rates of heart disease. 

Scientific studies have a broad impact on our lives. They influence “everything from dietary and environmental guidelines to what your school cafeteria serves for lunch,” says Eric Feigl-Ding. He works at Harvard University in Boston.

A recent report shows how industry-funded research can have lasting effects. Last year, experts from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) discovered that in the 1960s, the sugar industry paid scientists in an effort to influence what they reported about sugar and heart disease.

At that time, studies had already started to connect sugar intake with heart disease. If that link had become common knowledge, the sugar industry had a lot to lose. People might have cut back on sweets. That would have cost many companies a lot of business and money. 

The Sugar Research Foundation is a trade group for the sugar industry. It gave three nutrition professors from Harvard University about $50,000 in today’s dollars to review the existing research. The professors then published a paper in a prominent medical journal blaming fat for heart disease. They dismissed the idea that sugar could also lead to heart disease.

“This is quite what we had in mind,” a sugar executive wrote approvingly to one of the authors.

That research helped shape dietary recommendations for decades. As a result, many Americans cut back on fat. But they continued to eat sweets and drink soda. Experts say that contributed to our current obesity crisis and high rates of heart disease. 

How can you determine which studies are trustworthy? Start by reading our tips. Meanwhile, even within the food industry, some people are advocating for more transparency. Food entrepreneur Daniel Lubetzky recently pledged $25 million to create an independent group that will help educate consumers about biased nutrition science.

Even so, “we need to be wary consumers,” says Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. If you read about scientific findings that seem shocking or too good to be true, “look at who funded the study,” he advises, “and be skeptical.”

How can you determine which studies are trustworthy? Start by reading our tips. Meanwhile, even within the food industry, some people are pushing for more transparency. Food entrepreneur Daniel Lubetzky recently pledged $25 million to create an independent group. Its purpose is to help educate consumers about biased nutrition science.

Even so, “we need to be wary consumers,” says Michael Jacobson. He works at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. If you read about scientific findings that seem shocking or too good to be true, “look at who funded the study,” he advises. “And be skeptical.”