Slashdot Mirror
Sugar Industry Bought Off Scientists, Skewed Dietary Guidelines For Decades (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Back in the 1960s, a sugar industry executive wrote fat checks to a group of Harvard researchers so that they'd downplay the links between sugar and heart disease in a prominent medical journal -- and the researchers did it, according to historical documents reported Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. One of those Harvard researchers went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where he set the stage for the federal government's current dietary guidelines. All in all, the corrupted researchers and skewed scientific literature successfully helped draw attention away from the health risks of sweets and shift the blame to solely to fats -- for nearly five decades. The low-fat, high-sugar diets that health experts subsequently encouraged are now seen as a main driver of the current obesity epidemic. The bitter revelations come from archived documents from the Sugar Research Foundation (now the Sugar Association), dug up by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. Their dive into the old, sour affair highlights both the perils of trusting industry-sponsored research to inform policy and the importance of requiring scientists to disclose conflicts of interest -- something that didn't become the norm until years later. Perhaps most strikingly, it spotlights the concerning power of the sugar industry. In a statement also issued today, the Sugar Association acknowledged that it "should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities." However, the trade-group went on to question the UCSF researchers' motives in digging up the issue and reframing the past events to "conveniently align with the currently trending anti-sugar narrative." The association also chastised the journal for publishing the historical analysis, which it implied was insignificant and sensationalist. "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 association wrote. But scientists disagree with that take. In an accompanying editorial, nutrition professor Marion Nestle of New York University argued that "this 50-year-old incident may seem like ancient history, but it is quite relevant, not least because it answers some questions germane to our current era."
Fortunately for us, this does not seem to be happening in other industries. /s
Ezekiel 23:20
This is how the system works. Now it's up to us to break it.
[company] or [industry] will liberally shower money on schools, politicians and scientists so they can spread the word of how wonderful their [thing] is.
Break it. Break the goddamned system.
Demand to know where the money for "studies" come from. Then act accordingly.
Demand campaign reform that actually has fangs to bite with.
Does it incense me that Big Sugar has been doing this? Nah. I'm not surprised in the least. This is exactly how America operates. Oh and don't get me started on the corn people, with their HFCS in our drinks and ethanol poisoning our gasoline!
What I am incensed about is the absolute reluctance to question things. The People simply accept what is told to them in schools, churches and media. Ask. Fucking. Why. Every time.
Or, you know, keep doing the same idiotic thing we've been doing for the past 200+ years. It works sooooooo well.. for the rich.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
So, you're trying to tell me that scientists are mere mortals, with human tendencies like the rest of us? That they are not divinely inspired conduits of the Truth, who can solely interpret the cryptic texts of the Journals de Academe?
There are two major things ruining science. First, scientists are revered like priests, and the laypeople do not feel worthy to question them, even though at the end of the day it all boils down to logic and math. Laypeople even beat each other up for speaking out without the proper credentials. Are you less likely to be right about a study if you're a layperson? Of course. But this is still an important check on the system. Second, every clown PhD and pre-PhD who is avoiding the real world needs to publish publish publish in order to advance. This leads to ever more silly and esoteric journals full of silly and esoteric studies that nobody reads and very few can be bothered to try to replicate. And of course you get no credit for replicating a study, because credit = being published. So replication, another important check on the system, is diminished. And within the mainstream subjects, you have ever more pressure to come up with a new result, because there are many more PhDs looking to publish and only so many will. Scientific results, which were already susceptible to human biases, are victim to marketing spin and selective publishing. If nobody will ever try to replicate your results, who cares anyway. And if it's advancing interest in your field, which I'm sure you care about for at least some make-the-world-better reasons, then it's quite easy to convince yourself you're doing a neutral or positive thing.
The scientific method is solid. We just don't follow it anymore. And the #ifuckinglovescience crowd isn't helping.
"We were made to eat meat, that is the bottom line."
To a small degree. Our teeth only have 4 canines, which are the teeth for tearing meat. Our digestive tracts are much longer than pretty much any other carnivore, even carnivores larger than us have drastically shorter digestive tracts, which means that we're more geared towards vegetation with some allocation for meat for our dietary requirements.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The whole point of the pseudo skeptic movements, whether they been anti-AGW, tobacco company "research", sugar industry "research" and the like isn't really to convince people that their dangerous products are safe, but rather to create just enough doubt so that people will continue their existing habits. It doesn't have to convince people the legitimate researchers are out and out wrong, it just has to create enough uncertainty to prevent people from wholesale change.
Every year the sugar industry is pushing far more sugar into Westerners' digestive tracts than is safe, and every year the oil industry can stave off carbon pricing and other anti-fossil fuel initiatives, is another year of profits. Both industries know much as the tobacco industry must have known, that the reckoning will come, but so long as investors can make a return, and senior management can reap the bonuses, the tactic continues.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you haven't seen them, you should go watch the documentary films King Corn and Food, Inc. King Corn in particular goes into detail about the transition in the US from a diet with lots of fat and lower levels of sugar into one where eating fat is evil and will send you to hell and not eating sugar is evil and will send you to hell.
Food, Inc is more general but it shows clearly why food production in the US is so screwed up.
We are the result of the portion of the species that survived because of cooked meat. The ones that didn't cook their meat, or ate only a vegetarian diet, didn't survive. Saying that cooked meat did not occur naturally is nonsense, and I hope you know better and are just trying to be funny.
Evolution occurs very slowly but natural selection is an action that can happen in quite a short time. We as a species have had long periods of "convolution", where the species didn't necessarily improve toward any one path of evolution but merely developed traits through random mutation that made some portions of the population more suited to survive some future stressor. When that stressor arrived the people that knew how to cook meat were able to survive.
As you point out the cooking of meat was quite likely followed by the domestication of animals, then farming, and then what we would consider the modern era.
The question might be what stressors would favor those that could cook meat and digest it. I imagine several such stressors. Disease would be more easily controlled by those that cooked meat. The heat would kill off many pathogens and allow for greater ease of digestion. A cold period (An ice age or even a short winter freeze) would mean those that knew how to make fire would stay warm, and cooked food would give those that ate it more energy than merely warm fresh killed meat. I suspect frozen meat is inedible to anyone except those capable of heating it up, if not to cook but at least thaw.
It's not just meat that is best eaten cooked. I believe a potato is much more edible once baked, boiled, or fried. E. coli is bad for people but cooking your fruits and vegetables will make it safe from them. I recall a shortage of fresh tomatoes not too long ago because of an E. coli scare but there was no shortage of ketchup, canned tomatoes, tomato sauces, etc. because the cooking killed the bacteria.
This cooking of food had been going on for about a million years now. Long enough that there are many many people that get sick from undercooked food. It would be difficult to live with out fire and cooked food any more.
After the cooking came the convolution. After the stressors the cooked meat eaters survived. More convolution, another stressor, more survival of the fittest. In some parts of the world fitness meant milk drinkers. I like milk, I'm drinking some as I type this. This might be stretching the definition of "cooking" a bit here but pasteurizing or canning milk would seem like a good way to get protein, calories, and hydration for a lot of people.
This ability to survive on the foods we've been eating for thousands of years means we've developed features in our digestion beyond just our teeth and the size of our guts. We have a different immune system. We can tolerate lactose as adults. We also have a caloric and nutrient intake requirements that are difficult to obtain from uncooked food.
I won't say it is impossible for people to have a healthy diet that lacks cooked food. I will say that it will be expensive in time, money, and perhaps in other ways.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Anyone citing seriously the Seralini et al. study immediately loses all credibility in my eyes.
That article was retracted chiefly because many professional statisticians (I am one) pointed out that this study was, from the point of view of basic statistical methodology, a complete joke. In no significant way did this study establish any correlation between GMO and rat tumors (which is not to say it can't exist. Just that the data collected from this particular study does not prove anything).
It is laughable how the piece you link to suggests a big conspiration because the paper was retracted despite its original publication undergoing a "rigorous peer review". The fact of the matter is, peer review can fail big time (given the number of submitted scientific papers, that is hardly a surprise), and journals should definitely retract papers when it turns out after publication that they are a methodological disgrace.
Expose questionable scientific behavior practices, undisclosed conflicts of interests, biased studies, question established truths -- I am all in favor of it. But using bogus (and in this case sensationalist) studies to do so is self-contradictory. Bad science should be countered by good science, not by wishful thinking and vague conspiration theories.
Unless you mean "falsified" instead of "verified."
You don't know what that means. I mean "falsified". Google: "Scientific method".
Even the IPCC now admits that the Hockey Stick was bogus.
No. Categorically no. They have not. The most recent research on the hockey stick of any notability is Marcott et al in 2013, using an even broader data set and again, just like every other time, the hockey stick is still there.
Well I'll be sure to tell my collegues at work they can bin their PhDs because random internet guy just owned them! I'm sure when they stop laughing they'll be sure to revise a century and a half of physics because internet.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
HFCS used in sodas is a 55% fructose + 42% glucose mix.
I.e. 55 parts of "fat making sugar" and 42 parts of "blood sugar level" sugar.
Brain only understands glucose and will keep demanding more until the desired glucose level is reached.
Sucrose is 50-50.
Thus, for every two units of sugar you ingest, trying to satisfy your brain's desire for glucose with sucrose you get something like this:
[F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F][F][F]
[G][G][G][G][G]-[G][G][G][G][G]
10 units of fructose + 10 units of glucose.
With HFCS (55-42), for every two units of HFCS you're getting this:
[F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F][F][F]
[G][G][G][G]-[G][G][G][G]
20% less glucose, i.e. 20% lower blood sugar level, i.e. your brain will ask for at least 20% MORE of that sugary drink before reaching its desired blood sugar level.
Getting even more fructose along with it.
Looking at those same numbers from a BSL angle, taking that desired BSL as some individual 100% glucose level...
For 100% glucose satiety (i.e. reaching BSL desired by your brain) by ingesting HFCS, with your glucose you must also ingest 130.9% of fructose you'd be ingesting with sucrose.
I.e. HFCS makes you ingest 30% more fructose, which goes directly into triglycerides as by that time you already have plenty of glycogen.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens