History of Sugar: A Brief Journey | FoodUnfolded Explains

Hi, I'm Sylvia, I'm an editor here at Food Unfolded. The World Health Organization recommended in 2015 that added sugars shouldn't exceed 10% of our daily calories. Indeed, in recent decades, scientific research has repeatedly identified a strong correlation between excessive sugar consumption and two main consequences, the development of dental cavities and weight gain, which is in turn linked to a greater risk of developing chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease. But how many times have we heard different perspectives on how much sugar would be safe to consume? The thing is, understanding the impacts of consuming excess sugar on our health is not an easy task. Food science is complicated and imperfect, but what we may not know is that some level of confusion has been added in by sugar industry stakeholders who have spent millions over the past few decades to support studies that would produce desirable results for their industry. Let's go in order. The first questions about the effects of excessive sugar consumption on our diets were posed in 1918 by a group of US doctors who argued that sugar was starting to dominate a large chunk of our daily calories without bringing any other nutritional benefits. But it was only in the 1960s and 70s that this skepticism around sugar started to become more popular. The British scientist John Yudkin, for example, identified sugar as the culprit of the sudden epidemic of obesity and cardiovascular disease that was being witnessed in the US. Yudkin's theories weren't just attacked, but they were buried by the sugar industry. The British Sugar Bureau claimed that Yudkin's claims were emotional statements, and the World Sugar Research Organization called his book science fiction. It was precisely in those years that the American sugar industry started to adopt practices that were similar to those used by the tobacco industry. These included questioning science, funding research to produce desired results, and using the courts to challenge criticism and unfavorable regulations. A striking example was revealed a few years ago in a series of letters exchanged in the 1960s between the Sugar Research Foundation and some Harvard researchers. The letters revealed that the foundation had paid the equivalent of about half a million dollars in today's money for a study whose application was designed specifically to minimize the correlation between sugar consumption and heart disease, shifting the focus to fat instead. Disclosure of conflict of interests wasn't yet mandatory, so the researchers never disclosed information about who funded their study, which was taken as legitimate by many. But this is not an isolated case. For example, the Sugar Research Foundation funded so many tooth decay studies focusing on literally anything but sugar that caries prevention programs made no mention of sugary foods and drinks for decades. This is not to say that any industry-funded study is necessarily going to be correct, but research on the reliability of studies on sugary drinks showed that industry-funded studies are eight times more likely to produce favorable conclusions for their sponsor than those funded from other sources. Also, attempts to influence research, policy, and public opinion are not just a thing of the past. Several industry-affiliated researchers keep contesting the sugar limits recommended by public institutions, suggesting that it should be increased up to 25% of our daily calories. Today, then, there are also those who demonize sugar too fiercely, linking it to various diseases without having enough scientific evidence for it. The case of sugar, then, is the perfect example of how claims with scientific appearance but little scientific value can be used improperly to influence public opinion and nutrition policies. So how do we get some clarity in this landscape of confusing nutritional news? First of all, if we want to bet on the quality of some information, it is always best to rely on public health institutions. In fact, before publishing their recommendations, they must demonstrate that they have taken into account and cross-checked all the studies published on a certain topic. And in theory, these institutions shouldn't have any economic interest in drawing one conclusion rather than another. But most importantly, today we have a weapon, a tool that can help us to discern the quality of science. It's the conflict of interest section, which is now mandatory in scientific papers and can reveal if a study was funded by sources that could compromise its integrity. Finally, a good rule of thumb is to be wary of those claims that seem to aggrandize or demonize any food a bit too much.