TL;DR
A UCSF analysis of mid-20th century industry records found sugar trade groups worked with nutrition scientists to emphasize fat and cholesterol as coronary heart disease causes while downplaying sucrose. The researchers say industry funding and input into a 1967 literature review were not disclosed and likely influenced public and scientific views.
What happened
UCSF researchers examined a newly uncovered set of industry documents and concluded that, beginning in the mid-1960s, the sugar industry forged relationships with nutrition scientists to steer attention away from sucrose as a contributor to coronary heart disease. The team reviewed more than 340 documents — about 1,582 pages — detailing interactions between a sugar trade organization and scientists including Roger Adams and D. Mark Hegsted. The files show the trade group commissioned a literature review, known as Project 226, which appeared in 1967 in the New England Journal of Medicine and emphasized reducing dietary cholesterol and replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat. According to UCSF, the industry paid the Harvard researchers the equivalent of $50,000 (2016 dollars), set the review’s objective, provided articles and received drafts, but this involvement was not disclosed in the published paper. The UCSF team argues the review disparaged studies linking sucrose to heart disease while overlooking limitations in fat-focused research, and calls for greater disclosure and independence in nutrition reviews.
Why it matters
- Undisclosed industry influence on scientific reviews can shape research agendas and public health messaging.
- A historical emphasis on saturated fat may have sidelined investigation into added sugars' effects on heart health.
- Transparency and conflict-of-interest disclosure are essential to preserve credibility in nutrition science.
- Current health policy may lag behind emerging evidence on added sugars and cardiovascular risk, according to the researchers.
Key facts
- UCSF analysts examined more than 340 documents totaling roughly 1,582 pages.
- The sugar trade organization recognized in 1954 that low-fat diets could raise per-capita sucrose consumption by over one-third.
- Project 226, a literature review produced by Harvard researchers, was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967.
- The sugar industry paid the Harvard team the equivalent of $50,000 in 2016 dollars and participated in setting objectives and sharing draft material.
- The NEJM publication did not disclose the industry’s funding and role, according to the UCSF report.
- The literature review emphasized blood cholesterol as the key dietary risk factor and recommended reducing dietary cholesterol and replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat.
- UCSF authors say Project 226 criticized studies linking sucrose to heart disease while minimizing limitations in fat studies and not treating triglycerides as a significant risk factor.
- Researchers involved in the UCSF analysis include lead author Cristin Kearns and senior author Stanton A. Glantz; Laura Schmidt is a co-author and principal investigator of SugarScience.
What to watch next
- Responses or statements from journals or institutions named in the analysis — not confirmed in the source.
- Any updates or revisions to historical scientific records or disclosures related to Project 226 — not confirmed in the source.
- Changes in public health guidance or dietary recommendations that explicitly link added sugars to cardiovascular disease risk — not confirmed in the source.
Quick glossary
- Sucrose: A common form of sugar composed of glucose and fructose; often referred to as table sugar or added sugar in foods.
- Saturated fat: A type of dietary fat found in animal products and some plant oils; historically targeted by dietary guidelines as a cardiovascular risk factor.
- Triglycerides: A form of fat in the blood; high levels are considered a risk factor for cardiovascular disease by many researchers.
- Literature review: A scholarly synthesis of existing research on a topic intended to summarize evidence and guide understanding or policy.
Reader FAQ
Did the sugar industry fund the 1967 review?
According to the UCSF analysis, the sugar trade group paid Harvard researchers the equivalent of $50,000 in 2016 dollars to produce Project 226.
Was that funding disclosed in the New England Journal of Medicine paper?
The UCSF report states the industry’s funding and involvement were not disclosed in the published NEJM article.
Did the documents name the scientists involved?
Yes; the UCSF team reports interactions between the sugar industry and individuals including Roger Adams and D. Mark Hegsted.
Did this research lead to changes in dietary guidelines?
Not confirmed in the source.
Are there broader policy implications?
The UCSF authors argue their findings support stronger disclosure rules and independent reviews in nutrition science; specific policy actions are not detailed in the source.
Research Dec. 22, 2025 Can a Cure for Hepatitis C Be Confirmed Sooner After Treatment? This article is archived and only made available for historical reference. If you’d like to…
Sources
- Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD
- Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research
- How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat
- Researchers Challenge Claims That Sugar Industry Shifted …
Related posts
- Meditation as Wakeful Relaxation: Unclenching Smooth Muscle Through Vasocomputation
- US Job Openings Fall to Lowest Point in Over a Year, Report Shows
- Microsoft scraps Exchange Online spam clamp after customers cry foul