TL;DR
A UCSF analysis of archival documents finds the sugar industry worked with nutrition researchers in the 1960s to emphasize saturated fat and cholesterol as causes of coronary heart disease while downplaying evidence implicating sucrose. The review was funded and shaped by industry interests but its sponsorship was not disclosed in the published paper.
What happened
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco examined more than 340 archival documents totaling 1,582 pages that record interactions between the sugar trade and nutrition scientists in the 1950s and 1960s. The documents show a sugar industry trade group, representing about 30 international members, anticipated that low‑fat dietary advice would boost per‑person sucrose intake by over one‑third. In response to rising attention on sugar and heart disease, the industry commissioned Project 226, a literature review produced by Harvard nutrition researchers and published in 1967. According to the UCSF team, the sugar trade funded the review (the equivalent of $50,000 in 2016 dollars), set its objectives, contributed source articles and received draft manuscripts, yet the industry’s role was not disclosed in the New England Journal of Medicine publication. The UCSF authors argue the review downplayed studies linking sucrose to heart disease and focused on blood cholesterol as the primary dietary risk factor.
Why it matters
- Reveals historical industry influence on the scientific framing of diet and heart disease risk.
- Highlights the potential impact of undisclosed funding on literature reviews that shape public health guidance.
- Underscores the need for transparency and conflict‑of‑interest disclosure in nutrition research.
- Adds context to contemporary debates about the role of added sugars in cardiovascular and metabolic disease.
Key facts
- UCSF investigators analyzed more than 340 documents comprising 1,582 pages.
- The sugar trade organization examined had roughly 30 international members.
- Documents indicate the trade group knew in 1954 that low‑fat recommendations would raise per‑capita sucrose consumption by over one‑third.
- Project 226, a literature review authored by Harvard researchers, was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967.
- The sugar industry paid the Harvard researchers the equivalent of $50,000 in 2016 dollars and helped shape the review’s content.
- Industry funding and involvement in Project 226 were not disclosed in the NEJM paper, according to the UCSF analysis.
- The UCSF team reports the review criticized studies linking sucrose to heart disease while overlooking weaknesses in research on dietary fats.
- UCSF authors call for reviews free of conflicts of interest and for full financial disclosure in nutrition science.
What to watch next
- Whether subsequent dietary guidelines will explicitly link added sugars to cardiovascular disease risk (not confirmed in the source).
- Further historical or archival disclosures about industry funding of nutrition research (not confirmed in the source).
- New clinical and epidemiological studies assessing added sugars, hypertension and cardiovascular outcomes — monitoring emerging evidence and reviews.
Quick glossary
- Sucrose: A common dietary sugar composed of glucose and fructose, often referred to as table sugar or added sugar in processed foods.
- Triglycerides: A type of fat found in the blood; elevated levels are considered a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
- Literature review: A comprehensive summary and analysis of published studies on a particular topic intended to synthesize current evidence.
- Conflict of interest: A situation in which a researcher's objectivity could be compromised by financial or other ties to interested parties.
- Polyunsaturated fat: A class of dietary fats with multiple double bonds in their chemical structure, often recommended as replacements for saturated fats.
Reader FAQ
Did the sugar industry fund the Harvard literature review?
According to the UCSF analysis, the sugar trade paid the Harvard researchers the equivalent of $50,000 in 2016 dollars and influenced the review’s scope and sources.
Was that industry funding disclosed in the published paper?
The UCSF report states that the industry’s funding and role were not disclosed in the New England Journal of Medicine publication.
Does this prove sugar causes coronary heart disease?
Not confirmed in the source; the UCSF authors describe growing evidence linking added sugars to hypertension and cardiovascular disease but do not claim definitive proof in this retrospective analysis.
Who led the UCSF analysis?
The study’s lead author was Cristin Kearns; senior author was Stanton Glantz, with Laura Schmidt as a co‑author, according to the UCSF account.
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 (2016)
- Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research
- How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat
- 50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To …
Related posts
- Historic NASA Test Towers from Apollo Era to Be Demolished as Artemis Nears Launch
- Examining Nushell: Why a Structured, Modern Shell Deserves Attention
- BillG the Manager: How Bill Gates Scoped Product Leadership at Microsoft