Dive Brief:
- A recent study paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute and published in The Annals of Internal Medicine argued that warnings to decrease sugar intake are based on weak evidence and shouldn’t be trusted, according to the New York Times.
- Public health experts were quick to dismiss the findings as biased because the authors have ties to the food and sugar industries — including Coca-Cola, General Mills, Hershey’s, Kellogg’s, Kraft Foods and Monsanto. One author is also a member of the scientific advisory board of Tate & Lyle, the world’s largest suppliers of high-fructose corn syrup.
- The Annals of Internal Medicine Editor in Chief Dr. Christine Laine defended the decision to publish the review, citing the decision was made based on the quality of the research, not the funding source.
Dive Insight:
It’s hard to deny the conflict of interest of the report paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute.
Some critics are comparing manufacturers' defense of sugar to manipulations once perpetrated by the tobacco industry. These food companies also dismiss noteworthy medical research, claiming that reports that show negative consequences of excess sugar are based on insufficient evidence.
Consumers are smarter than that, and this could incite a backlash against some of these companies.
This deflection tactic is something we are seeing more of in the industry. A recent investigation by the Associated Press found that a Kellogg’s team of independent experts, known as the Breakfast Council, received money and guidance from the company in relation to the breakfast-related nutrition advice the experts provided.
A better strategy for manufacturers might be to champion some of the healthier aspects of the food and beverages they produce, such as Kraft recently removing artificial colors and preservatives from its classic Mac & Cheese recipe. People have been hearing for years that too much sugar can lead to health problems, so disputing those claims just makes the companies look duplicitous.