Industry-sponsored nutrition research, like that of research sponsored by the tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, almost invariably produces results that confirm the benefits or lack of harm of the sponsor’s products, even when independently sponsored research comes to opposite conclusions
By 1965, the *SRF funded “Project 226,” which would have Hegsted and McGandy—supervised by Stare—write a literature review that downplayed sugars’ role in heart disease and shifted blame solely to saturated fat. In return the researchers received a total of $6,500—the 2016 equivalent of $48,900.
*Sugar Research Foundation.
Response from The Sugar Association (previously known as the Sugar Research Foundation}:
Most concerning is the growing use of headline-baiting articles to trump quality scientific research—we’re disappointed to see a journal of JAMA’s stature being drawn into this trend.
The Sugar Association is always seeking to further understand the role of sugar and health, but we rely on quality science and facts to drive our assertions.
Such freaking hypocrisy. We've seen this before.