Sugar Industry vs. Heart Disease Research
How the sugar industry secretly funded research to blame fat, not sugar, for heart disease
Sign in to bookmark, follow, and message the contributor.
Executive Summary
For decades, the sugar industry funded research and shaped public health narratives to deflect blame for heart disease away from sugar consumption and toward dietary fat. Internal documents revealed coordinated efforts to influence scientists, suppress unfavorable studies, and manipulate public policy. This campaign arguably delayed recognition of sugar's role in metabolic disease by generations.
- 01.Industry documents show Sugar Research Foundation paid Harvard scientists $50,000 (2016 equivalent: $48,900) to publish favorable review in 1967
- 02.Project 259 animal study terminated in 1968 when results linked sucrose to heart disease and bladder cancer—findings never published
- 03.Same PR firms and scientists who defended tobacco industry simultaneously worked to exonerate sugar from health criticisms
The Hidden Truth
What the headlines won't tell you
The Mainstream Narrative
The standard story taught for decades was that saturated fat and cholesterol were the primary dietary villains in heart disease. The "lipid hypothesis" dominated public health policy from the 1960s onward, leading to low-fat dietary guidelines and the proliferation of low-fat, high-sugar processed foods. This consensus shaped everything from school lunches to FDA regulations.
Under-Reported Dimensions
In 2016, researchers at UC San Francisco discovered internal sugar industry documents showing that the Sugar Research Foundation (now the Sugar Association) secretly paid Harvard scientists in 1967 to publish a review downplaying sugar's role in heart disease while emphasizing fat as the culprit. The industry handpicked studies to include, excluded unfavorable research, and reviewed drafts before publication—none of which was disclosed. The resulting article in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine influenced decades of policy.
Further investigation revealed the industry killed "Project 259" in 1968—their own animal study showing sugar's link to heart disease and bladder cancer—when results proved inconvenient. They terminated funding and never published findings. Documents also show the industry paid scientists to write favorable letters to journals attacking sugar critics, funded entire research programs to produce exculpatory science, and lobbied aggressively against proposed sugar limits.
Credible Dissenting Voices
Physiologist John Yudkin warned about sugar's dangers in his 1972 book "Pure, White and Deadly," but was professionally marginalized. Researchers like Robert Lustig later vindicated concerns about sugar's metabolic effects, particularly fructose. Recent systematic reviews suggest sugar industry funding biased research outcomes by 500% compared to independent studies.
Follow the Money
The Sugar Association represents companies generating billions annually. By funding academic research, trade organizations could launder industry positions through "independent" scientific voices. This mirrored tobacco industry tactics—indeed, some of the same scientists and PR firms were involved.
Open Questions
How many deaths resulted from delayed recognition of sugar's health impacts? Did regulatory capture extend to FDA and USDA officials? What current industry-funded nutrition research is similarly compromised? The full archive remains incompletely disclosed.
Case Timeline
- 1954CORROBORATEDSugar Research Foundation established to fund research favorable to industry interestsThe foundation was created by sugar manufacturers to coordinate industry-funded research and public relations efforts in response to growing concerns about sugar's health effects.
- 1965PRIMARY SOURCESugar Research Foundation initiates Project 226, paying Harvard scientists to review literature on sugar, fat, and heart diseaseThe project specifically targeted a literature review after competing research suggested sugar might contribute to coronary heart disease, with the industry selecting which studies to emphasize.
- 1967PRIMARY SOURCEHarvard scientists publish New England Journal of Medicine review minimizing sugar's role in heart disease, industry funding undisclosedThe review in one of medicine's most prestigious journals concluded that cutting fat was the dietary intervention to prevent heart disease, with no disclosure of the $6,500 industry payment (about $50,000 today).
- 1968PRIMARY SOURCEIndustry terminates Project 259 animal study when results link sugar to heart disease and cancer, never publishing findingsProject 259 involved germ-free rats fed high-sugar diets showing elevated triglycerides and evidence of bladder cancer; the industry abruptly ended funding when preliminary results proved unfavorable.
- 1972CORROBORATEDJohn Yudkin publishes 'Pure, White and Deadly' warning about sugar dangers; faces industry-backed professional attacksYudkin's research showing sugar's metabolic harms was systematically attacked by industry-funded scientists and his academic reputation was damaged, effectively silencing a major critic for decades.
- 1977GOVERNMENT RECORDUS dietary guidelines emphasize reducing fat, largely silent on sugar limitsThe McGovern Committee's Dietary Goals for the United States recommended reducing fat intake to 30% of calories while making no specific quantitative recommendations for limiting sugar consumption.
- 2016ACADEMICUCSF researchers publish JAMA Internal Medicine exposé revealing sugar industry's covert influence on 1960s researchUCSF researchers Cristin Kearns, Laura Schmidt, and Stanton Glantz analyzed Sugar Research Foundation internal documents from the 1960s obtained from public archives, revealing the paid Harvard review's undisclosed conflicts.
- 2017ACADEMICAdditional documents reveal industry killed Project 259 and broader manipulation campaignsPLOS Biology published analysis of newly discovered internal documents showing the industry's systematic strategy to fund favorable research, suppress negative findings, and shape the scientific agenda on sugar's health effects.
Key People
Organizations
Evidence Library
- documentDOC-S1Sugar Research Foundation Internal Documents (1960s)
Internal correspondence and research agreements obtained from public archives showing payments to Harvard scientists, research protocols for Project 226 and Project 259, and communications about terminating unfavorable studies. These documents provided the primary evidence for the JAMA and PLOS Biology exposés revealing undisclosed industry influence.
- documentDOC-S2Hickson, Hedrick & Rippe NEJM Review (1967)
The published literature review 'Dietary Fats, Carbohydrates and Atherosclerotic Disease' in New England Journal of Medicine that minimized sugar's role in heart disease without disclosing Sugar Research Foundation funding. This article became highly influential in shaping dietary policy for decades.
- datapartial redactionDOC-S3Project 259 Unpublished Research Data
Germ-free rat study data from 1968 showing rats fed high-sucrose diets developed elevated triglycerides and beta-glucuronidase enzymes associated with bladder cancer risk. The Sugar Research Foundation terminated the project and never published these findings when results suggested health harms from sugar consumption.
- documentDOC-S4Kearns, Schmidt & Glantz JAMA Internal Medicine Study (2016)
Peer-reviewed historical analysis titled 'Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research' that first exposed the 1967 paid Harvard review using archived internal documents. This publication triggered widespread media coverage and renewed scrutiny of industry influence on nutrition science.
- documentDOC-S5PLOS Biology Historical Analysis (2017)
Academic study revealing how the sugar industry funded germ-free rodent studies and terminated Project 259 when results proved unfavorable. Documented broader patterns of industry manipulation of the research agenda including suppression of studies linking sucrose to cardiovascular disease and cancer.
- documentDOC-S6U.S. Dietary Goals for the United States (1977)
Senate Select Committee on Nutrition report recommending Americans reduce fat consumption to 30% of total calories and saturated fat to 10%, with minimal specific guidance on limiting sugar intake. These guidelines reflected the fat-focused consensus that sugar industry efforts had helped establish.
Sources
Trace the trail yourself
Investigation Network
Live Discussion
0 Perspectives
Add to the record. Be specific. Cite where you can.
If you're learning about this topic for the first time, these are the best places to continue — documented evidence and historical relationships are the guide.
Named in “Sugar Industry vs. Heart Disease Research”.
Named in “Sugar Industry vs. Heart Disease Research”.
Read more dossiers like this
Get a quiet one-line bulletin when new investigative files are published. Bound to this dossier — useful for tracking follow-ups.