For the past year, a group of researchers with the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), has reviewed historical scientific literature funded by the Sugar Research Foundation since the 1960s, which gives us a great perspective on how the war on saturated fats became public policy. These researchers at UCSF have revealed how the Sugar Research Foundation influenced Harvard medical researchers financially and otherwise to report open-ended inconclusive research that omitted a lot of conclusive negative health data. Their first article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA Internal Medicine) in 2016. The title of the study is Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. The New York Times, which has given some press to exposing the saturated fat myth for about ten years now, was one of the few mainstream media outlets that covered the UCSF study: "How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat." NPR was another news source that covered the UCSF study in 2016: "50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat." The same UCSF team of researchers had another paper published last month (November 2017) by the open access journal PLOS Biology titled, "Sugar industry sponsorship of germ-free rodent studies linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer: An historical analysis of internal documents.” The UCSF researchers managed to get research data that was never published. The study was not completed because the sugar industry was not getting the pro-sugar “science” they had sought. The science actually led to the conclusion that refined sugar is implicated in heart disease and cancer.

Read full story...