50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists to Blame Fat (2016)

The lies we are told go on and on. The only defense seems to be a combination of strong analytical skills and healthy skepticism of all information we consume. Some other examples you already know: - Big tobacco and lung cancer, cigarettes sold has healthy for decades [0] - Big Auto and seat belts, they fought mandatory seat belts for decades [1] - Big sugar (this article) - Big Media and the apparent massive degradation in truthfulness of the 2010's…

This is way bigger than sugar or even one segment of research. This type of corrupting influence (direct or indirect) provides enough uncertainty to allow people to ignore all research that doesn't confirm their personal bias. It also fuels the anti-science groups that claim conspiracies to hide the 'truth'.

As a kid I had a hand-me-down World Book Encyclopedia that was published in the late 1950s and I clearly remember the entry for "Sugar" starting with something very similar to, "Not only does sugar taste good, but it's good for you!" (I tried showing it to my parents in the hopes of them allowing more sugary desserts, but fortunately they weren't buying it.) I came to find out decades later that many of the entries in the World Book…

[2016] This news had a big impact on me, but I was wondering how they actually did it. It's like carbon credits, or the snake breeding or whatever, you can't pay people enough to not do something. Per the article, it sounds like maybe 1. There actually is published research linking sugar to heart health 2. The sugar lobby paid $50k for a single review study that omitted/downplayed 1 and emphasized other papers related to fat and heart health 3…