Sep 25 2016
First it was deception with the Milk, now with sugar…
In the 1960s, Harvard researchers were paid to release findings that favored the Sugar Industry at the expense of the American public.
Over the next few weeks, we are going to look at how our food has changed over the last 50 to 60 years. These changes are at the core of our gut health and why probiotics are such an important supplement to our diets today. There was a time when we were getting all of the necessary bacteria simply from eating wholesome foods which were being grown in our own yards, or by local farms, then cooked in our own kitchens. *
Times have changed and progress has taken place. With all this change comes many good things: convenience, efficiency, speed, lifesaving medical advances, comfort and ease in our daily lives. But along with this ease and comfort, comes some changes that we were not always aware were taking place. Changes to our food supply that unbeknownst to us, were not good for our health. The result over the last 50 years has been increases in certain diseases and illnesses and an increase in obesity rates, nationwide. How did we go from having such wholesome, farm raised, organic, garden grown, home cooked food to modified, processed, packaged, sweetened, filler filled, chemically treated, prepared-by-someone-else food?*
Watch the series Mad Men, and you’ll see a little history regarding how advertising has influenced our behaviors and opinions. You’ll also see the changes that took place in our culture and attitudes regarding food and health. Anything, when presented in a certain light, can sound fabulous and convincing. Packaging, presentation and words are influential and persuasive. There is a particular episode when they are developing the creative campaign for a Burger King type fast-food restaurant. It was presented as a fun and entertaining option to slaving over a hot stove for tired mothers…of course we bought it hook, line and sinker! *
There was some recent news that shocked the public about how back in the 1960’s, Harvard scientists were paid to present their research on sugar in a way that was favorable to the sugar industry. It blamed fat for coronary heart disease, and left out the role sugar plays. Their findings, which were published in 1967 in the New England Journal of Medicine, a prominent publication, have influenced our thinking on how we look at sugar vs. fat for decades. (1,2)*
The recent news, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine, revealed that scientists were essentially bribed to “downplay the risks of sugar” and instead, focused on the dangers of fat. “…The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to “refute” concerns about sugar’s possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding…”(1,2)*
It suggested that all the prior studies which implicated sugar were flawed, and that the real answer for addressing coronary heart disease was to reduce or eliminate fat from the American diet. The authors of the new JAMA Internal Medicine article suggest that for the last five decades, the scientific debate regarding the risks of fat vs. sugar were being influenced directly by the sugar industry.(1,2)*
“…”It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion,” co-author Stanton Glantz told The New York Times…” Though there wasn’t direct evidence that the SRF edited any of the 1967 manuscripts published by the Harvard scientists, “…there is “circumstantial” evidence that the interests of the sugar lobby shaped the conclusions of the review, the researchers say…” While the current authors are not suggesting that sugar is the culprit and fat is not, they have revealed that the research surrounding sugar was released in the light that satisfied the SRF…” (1,2)*
It was noted in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine that this practice continues today… “…:In 2015, the New York Times obtained emails revealing Coca-Cola’s cozy relationships with sponsored researchers who were conducting studies aimed at minimizing the effects of sugary drinks on obesity. Even more recently, the Associated Press obtained emails showing how a candy trade association funded and influenced studies to show that children who eat sweets have healthier body weights than those who do not.”…”1*
Research such as this, when funded by the industry that is being investigated, can lead to skewed results. Unfortunately, this corruption was at the expense of the American public. Over time, we have become so much more aware of the dangers of sugar in our diet and people are waking up to the importance of eliminating it. As for this research, it is just a sad chapter in our history.*
Sugar is the favorite food for unfriendly bacteria and the more you eat, the more they multiply. Take away this food source, and you begin to starve out the unfriendly, as the friendly multiply. Adding BODY BIOTICS™ Bio-Identical SBO Probiotics Consortia™ to your daily regimen puts back the friendly critters that we have lost in our daily diet. Because they are encapsulated in their food source of humic and fulvic acid, they quickly multiply when taken with an aqueous solution. Adding friendly bacteria to your diet and eliminating sugar, you can more quickly balance the ratio of friendly to unfriendly bacteria.*
Stay tuned next week when we look at another area of the food industry that has seen big changes over the years and has had an impact on our health.
Until then, healthiest wishes,