THE GREAT SUGAR SWINDLE
For more than 50 years we’ve been sold the lie that fat, not sugar, is the greatest risk to our longevity. Amid seismic revelations that the sugar industry has had its sticky fingers in decades of scientific research, MH asks what the biggest deceit in nu
ONE MORNING IN MAY
1994, “Global sugar consumption has tripled in the past 50 years”
an anti-smoking campaigner named Stanton Glantz received a strange delivery. Sent by a ‘Mr Butts’ to his office at the University of California, the boxes contained 4000 pages of confidential documents that laid bare how the tobacco industry had for decades suppressed research proving cigarettes were deadly. A national scandal ensued and so-called Big Tobacco’s rep never fully recovered from the revelations of what came to be known as ‘ The Cigarette Papers’.
Today, the sugar industry – Big Sugar, if you will – is having a similar moment. Cristin Kearns, a doctoral research student working out of the same university as Glantz, has spent years collating thousands of pages of documents on its dealings. The resulting ‘Sugar Papers’, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in September 2016 and reported on worldwide, expose how a powerful industry with close government connections spent years denying mounting evidence that its main product is – undeniably, inarguably – toxic to humans.
In devastating detail, the papers reveal how a trade body called the Sugar Association began, from the early ’60s, to fund “research and information and legislative programs” that would encourage the public to consume more sugar. The sticking point was a 1967 review published in the New England Journal of Medicine that argued definitively that it was high cholesterol and fat – not sugar – that were putting our health at risk of everything from cardiovascular disease to stroke. Not only did the review ignore strong evidence implicating sugar as another cause, it failed to disclose who had paid for the research. In a single paper we were sold the beginnings of a deception that would influence our eating habits and line the pockets of Big Sugar for decades to come.
SWEETENING THE DEAL
The Sugar Papers are the latest and most damning aspect of a growing body of research proving that a conglomerate of some of the largest sugar producers in America has spent years soliciting governments and muddying scientific waters by funding its own studies. It has used every legal loophole it can find to promote its own ends, and to great success. Worldwide, sugar consumption has tripled in the past 50 years. At the same time, obesity rates in the UK are expected to include 60% of men by 2050. Meanwhile, the charity Diabetes UK reports that 10% of the NHS’S budget – more than £11bn a year and predicted to rise to £17bn by 2035 – is now spent on treating type 2 diabetes, the complications of which can include blindness, limb amputation, kidney failure, heart attack and stroke. There is nothing sweet about this tale.
Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, is outraged by the revelations: “You never see examples of corruption this blatant. Food companies deliberately setting out to manipulate research in their favour sounds like a conspiracy, but we know for a fact that it has happened, and continues to happen.”
The nutritional fallout of the 1967 New England Journal of Medicine paper, and others that followed, is still being felt today. For instance, although it does contain some advice on sugar, the majority of Public Health England’s nutritional directions still encourage us to “choose lean cuts” of meat and to restrict fat. A growing number of nutritionists and doctors believe this advice is flawed. In 1993 the largest study of its kind was commissioned to determine, as most people then believed, that a low-fat diet is healthy. When the data came in, the lead researcher admitted he was “scratching his head” at the results, which showed that people on a low-fat diet were no less likely to die of heart disease or cancer than those on a high-fat diet. “Official advice focuses on a moderate
fat diet,” says a spokesperson from PHE. “Unsaturated fats help lower cholesterol, but it is the ones in cream, butter and fatty cuts of meat we need to watch out for.” To declare outright that sugar is the enemy of good health, the same spokesperson said, would be “unhelpful”.
As author Gary Taubes explains in The Case Against Sugar, our nutrition has been under the influence since at least early 1944 when the sugar industry began paying a dietary scientist named Ancel Keys. Keys rapidly became the noisiest proponent of the hypothesis that saturated fat caused heart disease. His professional adversary was the British nutritionist John Yudkin, who by 1957 had begun to question the notion that saturated fat was the primary cause of cardiovascular disease. Through the ’50s and beyond, Keys attacked Yudkin’s low-carb recommendations as propaganda insisting the other man had “no theoretical basis or experimental evidence to support his claim[s]”. Despite writing Pure, White and Deadly – a 1972 bestseller that claimed over-consumption of sugar was killing humans – Yudkin found himself dropped from scientific conferences. He died In 1995, his contributions largely forgotten.
Between 1975 and 1980 the Sugar Research Foundation spent more than $2m in today’s money on real propaganda that was designed, as its internal memos explain, “to maintain research as a main prop of the industry’s defence”. Incredibly, representatives from companies such as Coca- Cola would vet any proposed study before it was conducted. Big Sugar’s influence continued when, in the ’70s, the Sugar Association established the Food & Nutrition Advisory Council. Its most influential member was Frederick Stare – founder and chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health – who recommended putting sugar in your coffee “three or four times a day” and called Coca- Cola “a healthy between-meals snack”. By the early ’70s Stare was testifying before Congress that sugar was healthy, while accepting funding from Coca- Cola, Kellogg’s, Nestlé, General Foods and the Sugar Association itself. A brief awareness of tooth decay aside, on both sides of the Atlantic sugar was let off the nutritional hook and the finger pointed at other culprits. Milk, meat and egg farmers suffered, but producers of the confectionery bars whose sales subsequently exploded enjoyed a bonanza.
REFINED TASTES
Today, perceptions of sugar are changing, but glacially so. Until last year, the UK government’s Eatwell Guide included a red can of cola, suggesting sugary fizzy drinks could form part of a healthy diet. “There is so much wrong with this I hardly know where to start,” says Zoe Harcombe, who has a PHD in public health nutrition and has spent 20 years examining the causes of obesity. “The government says 68% of our calories should come from starchy foods – the things that make us fat. And junk food, they say, should make up almost 10% of daily calories. I’d argue it should be none at all.”
“Put simply, sugar wreaks havoc on the body,” says Matt Plowman of Cardiff Sports Nutrition. “As well as being addictive, sugar dampens your immune system,
“We have been conditioned into thinking that fat is the enemy”
making it harder to fight off viruses, leaving you less inclined to exercise and more likely to become obese. People don’t realise type 2 diabetes is a killer.”
How on earth, then, could a cola can – along with biscuits and chocolate bars – find a place on UK government-approved models for healthy eating? The answer, many argue, is lobbying. In 2015, the British Medical Journal exposed what it called a “web of influence” spun by sugar and other large food companies seeking to shape policy. The government’s leading adviser on obesity and chair of the Public Health Responsibility Deal, Professor Susan Jebb, was forced to deny that her independence had been compromised, despite being one of several scientists who have received a reputed £1.4m from companies including Coca- Cola and Mars.
“I call it the Irresponsibility Deal,” says Harcombe. “It is ridiculous that Jebb can continue as the government’s obesity tsar while her department draws funding from fake food. The industry plainly has no interest in solving the obesity crisis: its job is to return money to its shareholders. Any scientist advising the government for dietary recommendations should be banned from taking money from Big Food.”
Naturally, the sugar industry itself does not see the harm in this. A common line of defence is that it is not what we eat that affects our health, but our overall calorie consumption. A ‘calories in versus calories out’ model of eating, it is often argued, would not only help us maintain a healthy weight, but make for happier and healthier individuals. As recently as 2015 Coca- Cola had been funding studies that sought to claim “energy balance” (ie calorie input and expenditure) is more important than the kind of foods we eat.
Steven Blair, a nutritional scientist and the vice president of the Coca- Colafunded Energy Balance Network has said: “Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is [on] blaming fast food, sugary drinks and so on. And there’s really virtually no compelling evidence that this is, in fact, the cause.” The conspiracy, it is implied, lies at the feet of the media.
Meanwhile, the Sugar Association claims that, “per capita consumption of added sugars has declined by 15% since 1999,” and goes on to add that, “calories from fats and grains have increased by five times as much as those from added sugars. The cause and solution to obesity is complicated and the role that diet plays certainly isn’t as simple as focusing on one ingredient.”
Harcombe refutes this. “It’s simply not true. Sugar bought from packets in supermarkets may be declining, but overall sugar consumption continues to rise, thanks to hidden sugars in ready meals and other processed foods.”
“We have been conditioned for years into thinking that fat is the enemy,” adds Plowman, suggesting that the truth is more insidious. “Brands like Diet Coke market themselves as the ‘healthy’ alternative but they, and big supermarkets, have been preying on society’s ignorance for years. For instance, many mothers buy the leading children’s yoghurts – but a tiny pot contains 12g of sugar. Likewise, a majority of people still subscribe to the notion that fruit juice is healthy, but a glass of orange juice holds 21g of sugar.”
THE SWEET SPOT
In a statement responding to the Sugar Papers, the Sugar Association admitted that the industry “should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities”, while insisting that sugar “does not have a unique role in heart disease”. According to the WHO, cardiovascular disease accounts for almost a third of all mortalities. Any public recommendation that could delay or prevent heart disease in large groups of people could naturally have enormous benefits. Similarly, failing to offer the best advice could lead millions into an early grave. The need for “greater transparency” could not be higher.
Working with the government and several food and drinks companies, Public Health England aims to remove 20% of the sugar in the food chain by 2020. Most large food companies, a spokesperson said, are “more than happy” to sign up. In an anomalous move, drinks – both of the fruit juice and soft variety – will not fall under the guidelines. The hope is that George Osborne’s ‘Sugar Tax’ will regulate this sector when it comes in 2018, by adding an extra 8p to every can the £46bn Coca- Cola company and its competitors import. Fruit juices, however, will not be covered by the tax, or the PHE initiative.
Speaking to Men’s Health, a PHE spokesperson echoes the idea that pinning the blame for our collective health issues on a single ingredient is both unfair and unhelpful. The focus should instead be on maintaining a healthy, balanced diet – including the occasional bar of chocolate. But many see this as pussyfooting: whereas, for instance, certain types of fat can be as beneficial as others can be harmful, there is no evidence to suggest sugar has any substantial benefit. Meanwhile, mountains of studies prove its damaging effect on our bodies. So would a stronger, focused campaign on the dangers of sugar be effective? “Education is important,
but it’s not the solution,” says the PHE spokesperson. “We live in an obesogenic environment. Sugar is cheap and accessible, so [the focus should be on] tackling our environment and making sure healthy options are available.”
Plowman disagrees. “Becoming educated about – and taking responsibility for – our nutrition is the only way to improve our health,” he says. “Ultimately it comes down to making a choice to be healthier. We all know sugar is bad, and once there is less of a demand for sugary foods as a result of us properly understanding their impact, there won’t be the same scope for the industry to continue in the same vein.”
On its Good Food website, the NHS has this to say on the topic: “In recent years, the popular media has turned the debate about the causes of major public health issues such as heart disease, diabetes and obesity into something of a ‘fat versus sugar’ dogfight.” But with mortality rates continuing to rise and experts such as Harcombe concerned that treating diabetes could bankrupt the NHS, a fight against sugar is exactly what is needed.
THE HONEY TRAP
The Sugar Papers revelation is just the first step in combating ongoing industry corruption. In 2015 the New York Times reported that studies funded by CocaCola, Pepsi Co and other large soft drinks producers were five times more likely to find no link between sugary drinks and weight gain than studies whose authors reported no financial conflicts. Meanwhile, last July the Corporate Europe Observatory watchdog calculated that the key companies behind sugary food and drinks spend a combined £18m annually on aggressive lobbying in the EU.
Katherine Ainger, who co-authored the CEO report, says this: “Sound scientific advice is being sidelined by the millions of pounds backing the sugar lobby. In its dishonesty and its disregard for people’s health, the food and drink industry rivals the tactics we’ve seen from the tobacco lobby for decades.”
It’s perhaps this disregard for your health that is the most cutting aspect of the Big Food wheeze. When neither your doctor nor your government – not least big business – can be relied upon, then more than ever it is imperative to remind people that, ultimately, the power lies in the hands of the educated consumer. And that means you.