Researchers from the charity analyzed data from a national diet survey that had been conducted in 2015. What they found was that across all age groups, children are consuming far too much sugar in drinks, although there did seem to be an improvement since 2014. For teenagers, sugar-sweetened beverages are their primary mode of consuming added sugars. (RELATED: Learn more about disease promoting food ingredients at Ingredients.news)

According to the BBC, a five-year-old child should have no more than 19g of sugar in a day, a 10-year-old no more than 24g. Teenagers and adults should have no more than 30g. And yet, a single can of soda contains 9 teaspoons of sugar — equivalent to 35 grams!

The survey data analyzed indicates that teens in the UK consume more than 234 cans of soda per year, on average. National Diet and Nutrition Survey data from 2008 to 2012 indicates that the average teenager in the United Kingdom consumes 74 grams of added sugars every day, which equates to 15.6 percent of their total calorie intake. A staggering 40 percent of that added sugar comes from soft drinks.

Of course, teens in the United States have not fared much better. Reports have indicated that adolescents in the US get a whopping 20 percent of their total daily energy intake from added sugars. Half of that sugar comes from sugar-sweetened beverages like sodas, sports drinks and energy drinks. What happened to drinking water?

Mass overconsumption of sugar is a problem in both the United States and the United Kingdom — that is very clear. There are many ill effects associated with excessive sugar intake. The current prevailing theory suggests that taking in too many calories will increase your risk of becoming overweight or obese — and it is this obesity that increases your risk of diabetes. Many scientists are still debating on whether or not sugar can increase your risk of developing this condition as well, but the evidence is surely mounting.

Researchers from the Stanford University School of Medicine, the University of California-Berkeley and the University of California-San Francisco examined ten years of data from 175 different countries and their findings were published by the journal PLOS One in February 2013. This large-scale epidemiological study has indicated that sugar consumption can indeed influence your risk for developing diabetes, independent of your body weight.

The study’s lead author  Sanjay Basu, MD, PhD and assistant professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, says that their data suggests that at a population level, there are additional factors that can contribute to diabetes risk besides obesity and total calorie intake.  While Basu says that their findings do not diminish the importance of obesity as a risk for diabetes, he states that sugar appears to play a prominent role.

Their findings were really quite shocking. Their data revealed that for every additional 150 calories of sugar available per person per day, the prevalence of diabetes in the population rose 1 percent, even after controlling for obesity, physical activity, other types of calories and a number of economic and social variables. Conversely, 150 additional calories from any type of food only created a 0.1 percent increase in diabetes prevalence.

In other words, sugar has ten times the impact of other foods on diabetes risk, at a population level. More shocking still, is the fact that the researchers also found that the longer a population was exposed to excess sugar, the more this risk continued to increase. The diabetes rate continued to increase along with time exposed to excess sugar, independent of other risk factors like obesity. However, when sugar availability diminished, diabetes risk also decreased, independent of other changes to calorie consumption, physical activity or obesity rates. (Learn more about diabetes science at DiabetesScienceNews.com)

This finding demonstrates the very real risk that excessive sugar consumption poses. Some research has indicated that teenagers may be particularly susceptible to effects of sugar, as well.

It is clear that kids today, and adults, are eating way too much sugar, and it is putting their health at serious risk.

Sources:

BBC.com

Med.Stanford.edu

BBC.com

TakePart.com

There is no pill, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation or miracle vaccine that will ever change these statistics. In fact, as long as Americans believe that medical doctors can change these chronic sicknesses with “magical” medicine, the disease and death statistics will all continue to rise as the mythical “search for the cure” continues across the board. The only real cures live in the prevention and lifestyle changes that fuel a healthy body on a daily basis.

Want to live in a “dream world” that reaps horrific consequences? Simply continue to participate in the top eight consumption habits that nearly guarantee chronic illness.

#1. Eating “diet,” “light,” and sugar-free products loaded with artificial sweeteners – namely Aspartame, Sucralose, Saccharine and Sorbitol

All four of these fake sugars are synthetic chemical concoctions made in a laboratory that mutate human cells, cause irritable bowel syndrome and central nervous system disorders, especially aspartame, a.k.a. “sweet misery.” Veer clear of Nutrasweet, Equal, Sweet-n-Low, and of course, Splenda.

#2. Daily canola oil – even organic

Did you know there is no such thing as a natural canola plant? It doesn’t exist in nature. So how is it the number one Canadian export, and why is the United States the recipient of this man-made scientific nightmare? Canola comes from rapeseed, which stinks so badly that it must be deodorized in a processing plant using chemicals that cause cancer. Even organic canola is toxic to the human body, so don’t get fooled there. Just because the seeds aren’t genetically modified and the plant isn’t sprayed with chemical fertilizers in the field doesn’t mean it’s always healthy to eat. Canola is processed with a petroleum solvent called hexane to extract the oil. Hexane is a vapor constituent of gasoline. Yum!

#3. Daily gluten

Gluten, also known as “food glue” because it’s “sticky” and can remain in your digestive and excretive “tracts” for days and weeks. Most conventional gluten is loaded with pesticides, preservatives, and toxic dough conditioners. Think of balling up a soft piece of bread and spraying pesticide on it, then eating it. The preservatives extend the shelf life while shortening human life. As gluten clogs your digestive tract, everything you eat afterwards rots in your body until the toxic “food glue” finds its way out. Can you say polyps and diverticulitis?

#4. Drinking unfiltered tap water

If you don’t read Natural News regularly, you have no idea where fluoride really comes from. Get ready. Here it comes. The fluoride used in US tap water is a toxic byproduct of the phosphate mining industry in China. Dentists lie and say it’s good for your teeth. This is a 100-year-old myth that keeps them rich and in business. The myth sounds great, but the truth is scary. The fluoride in tap water is a combination of hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride that’s classified as hazardous waste and when packaged for transportation to the United States, is labeled as poison so the handlers know to wear their industrial safety gear. Tap water also contains toxins that aren’t filtered out at the plant, like artificial sweeteners, other people’s prescription medications, bleach, chlorine, and other heavy metal toxins like lead. Want to get rid of all this poison? Check out the most inexpensive, thorough home water filtration system on the market, the Big Berkey.

#5. Daily unfermented soy

Just since the year 2000, U.S. food manufacturers have introduced over 3,000 soy-based foods, many of which are labeled “certified organic,” but does that even matter? Did you know that the USDA’s certified organic process does not involve testing for heavy metal toxins at all? Any soy that is unfermented, whether organic or not, is linked to immune-system malfunctions, thyroid dysfunction and cognitive decline. Hundreds of health studies reveal infant abnormalities, kidney stones and food allergies. If you read about any benefits of soy, you’re really reading about fermented soy.

#6. High fructose corn syrup

Less than a decade ago, research published in Environmental Health and conducted in part by a scientist at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy revealed that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is contaminated with the toxic heavy metal mercury. Think of most carbonated sodas, candy bars, bread, salad dressings, pizza sauce and fruit drinks for starters. Mercury is so toxic it causes severe neurological disorders, loss of hair, teeth, kidney function, and even impairs your memory. The average American may be eating five times the safety limit of mercury every day thanks to HFCS in foods. In fact, the average daily consumption of HFCS is about 50 grams (about 12 teaspoons) per person in the United States.

(Note: Learn more about other toxic food ingredients at Ingredients.news)

#7. Food dyes made with heavy metal toxins

Aluminum Lake food coloring, used to heavily coat liquid medicines for children, contains dangerous amounts of aluminum and harmful synthetic petrochemicals–carcinogens that contain petroleum, antifreeze and ammonia, causing a long list of adverse and allergic reactions in humans. Now think of most candy, cake icing, and colored ice cream.

#8. Antacids are loaded with aluminum, the number one cause of Alzheimer’s

Aluminum poisoning can lead to central nervous system (CNS) damage, like memory impairments, autism, epilepsy, mental retardation and dementia. Research shows that just 4ppm of aluminum can cause the blood to coagulate. This is what causes Alzheimer’s disease! Aluminum consumption can also be associated with the development of bone disorders, including stress fractures. How much do you know about this and the heavy metal content in your foods, drinks, cosmetics, vaccines and pharmaceuticals? (RELATED: Stay up to date on aluminum, mercury and other heavy metals at Metals.news)

Sources:

CDC.gov

News.USC.edu

The fluoride deception: TV.NaturalNews.com

BigBerkey.NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com

EHJournal.biomedcentral.com

Yoga is more than just a trend, though. It provides real-life benefits to your body, and in a variety of ways that continue to be uncovered. For example, a 2011 study led by researchers from York University found that yoga helps to reduce stress hormones and helps to relieve the physical and psychological symptoms of chronic pain in women with fibromyalgia.

More recent research has revealed that yoga’s body benefits may reach even further than that. A study from Harvard University found that practicing yoga can impart a positive change on metabolic function at a cellular level. This in turn can improve things like nutrient absorption, and may assist in the prevention of chronic diseases. The results showed that overall, practicing yoga promoted better cell function across the board.

For the study, researchers utilized two groups of participants: one group that practiced yoga and mindfulness exercises, and a group that did not partake in either activity. After an eight week trial period, the scientists took blood samples from both groups. They then discovered that the yoga group exhibited changes to 2,209 genes, suggesting quite a profound effect. Of these, 1,275 were changes that led to genes being up-regulated (meaning activity increased), and 934 instances in which the changes resulted in genes that were down-regulated (meaningactivity decreased).

Writing for Fox News, Chris Kilham notes that in addition to cell metabolism, many of the changes that took place in the DNA resulted in an increased resistance to oxidative stress. Kilham writes, “Oxidative stress is associated with numerous degenerative disorders, including cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders, and more. Improved resistance to oxidative stress translates into better health overall, with reduced risk of chronic disease.”

Another study, led by researchers from the University of Calgary, found that yoga can also be a very helpful tool when it comes to cancer recovery. For the study, researchers had a group of breast cancer survivors participate in weekly yoga and mediation classes, and the participants also practiced these techniques at home. A control group that did not partake in these events was also featured in the study. Blood samples from both groups were taken at baseline and again when the study period ended, after twelve weeks.

The scientists found that the study participants who practiced the yoga and meditation exercises showcased longer telomere lengths than those seen in the control group. Longer telomere length is often associated with better post-cancer survival rates, according to many cancer specialists. This suggests that yoga can play a valuable role in cancer recovery.

In addition to providing new insights on the health effects of yoga, these studies also seem to support the widely repeated claim that yoga can improve your health and extend your lifespan.

Yoga has many other health benefits

There are many other documented health benefits to be had, if you choose to practice yoga. For example, yoga can provide a number of cardiac benefits. In addition to reducing stress, it has also been found to help lower blood pressure in people with hypertension. Some studies have also found that just doing yoga can help to improve your blood lipid profiles, in both healthy people and people with known coronary artery disease. Yoga has also been shown to help lower high blood sugar levels in people with type 2 diabetes.

Practicing yoga can also help bolster weight loss and weight maintenance efforts. Besides the obvious benefits of exercise, some studies indicate that people who practice yoga tend to be more mindful eaters. Researchers found that practicing yoga just once a week for 30 minutes for at least four years gained less weight in middle-adulthood. They also found that people who were overweight actually lost weight. The research team attributed these benefits to mindfulness, which can help improve your relationship with your body, weight and food.

And of course, like any exercise, yoga too can help to increase your overall physical fitness, including strength, endurance, flexibility and cardio-respiratory capacity.

Sources:

NaturalBlaze.com

FoxNews.com

Health.Harvard.edu

The new law, which went into effect on January 1, is intended to help consumers make healthier choices when ordering fast food. It’s all part of an effort to fight obesity in a province where more than half the population is either overweight or obese.

Ontario is the first Canadian province to pass such a law, which will also apply to convenience stores, grocery stores, movie theaters and coffee shops. All foods and beverages will require calorie information listed on menus, menu boards, food labels and even food posters.

Ontario Health Ministry spokesperson Shae Greenfield said:

“Ontario families have made it clear that they want more information and support to help them make healthier choices when dining out.

“This is the strongest legislation of its kind in Canada and closely aligns with the need to address province-wide health issues like obesity.”

But will the new law really help with Ontario’s obesity problem?

Are food labeling laws effective?

Even proponents of the new law admit that its implementation is likely to have a limited effect on the average person’s ordering habits, but for those who are already health-conscious, the listings will be a useful tool.

Internal medicine specialist and weight management expert, Dr. Sean Wharton, told CBC News:

“From an overall population level, I’m not so sure it’ll have the big impact that we’re actually looking for.

“I don’t think it’s going to decrease weight from a population basis, but I think an informed consumer is better at making choices and making judgements.”

It’s difficult to prove any real benefit from the implementation of such measures. New York City passed a similar law in 2008, and experts are still trying to determine if it has made any impact at all.

A 2012 study found that customers at two New York City McDonald’s locations tended to, if anything, buy higher calorie meals after the labeling law was passed.

Another more recent study found that the NYC calorie listing law “plausibly reduced the obesity rate by 2.5 percentage points.”

The evidence so far suggests that calorie labeling has a minimal effect at best for the general population, but that it will help those who are actively trying to manage their weight. Experts and health authorities argue that consumers have a right to be informed so that they can make healthy choices.

“I think it’s important for consumers to have choice,” said Joe Belfontaine, executive director of Ontario’s Heart and Stroke Foundation. “I think it’s important for consumers to have the right information.”

Did food industry lobbyists prevent sodium level listings from being required along with calorie counts?

Some have argued that the new law doesn’t go far enough, and that a food industry lobbying firm which led public consultations and wrote a report for the food labeling initiative on behalf of the Ontario Ministry of Health was instrumental in preventing sodium level listings from also being required on menus, along with calorie counts.

Ontario parliament member France Gelinas said:

“The Ministry of Health knew who they were hiring, and it stinks. It’s terrible.”

Food labeling laws, watered-down or not, are unlikely to make a huge dent in obesity rates. Although such labeling is undoubtedly useful for a small percentage of the population, the question is whether the cost to restaurant chains is worth the benefit for the few consumers who actually count their calories when ordering a fast food meal.

Tackling obesity begins with the individual, and anyone who is truly serious about losing weight should be avoiding fast food and restaurant chains to begin with.

Sources:

CBC.ca

TorontoSun.com

AJPH.AlphaPublications.org

GlobalNews.ca

(Article by Charles Hugh Smith, republished from charleshughsmith.blogspot.mx)

We’ve heard a lot about “fake news” from those whose master narratives are threatened by alternative sources and analyses. We’ve heard less about the master narratives being threatened: the fomenting of mass hysteria, which turns the populace into an easily manipulated and managed herd, and induced insanity, a longer-term marketing-based narrative that causes the populace to ignore the self-destructive consequences of accepting the fad/ ideology/ mindset being pushed as “good” and “normal.”

In terms of “fake news,” it’s hard to beat the mainstream media and its handlers’ attempts to whip up mass hysteria via unsubstantiated claims that Russian hackers working for Putin deprived Hillary of the presidency. The campaign to spark mass hysteria was launched with great precision, unleashing the overwhelming forces of endless repetition (the marketer’s favorite tool) and appeals to national security authorities: The C.I.A., F.B.I, and all the other security agencies purportedly concur that Russia “hacked” (whatever that means) the U.S. election.

The intent of the campaign was painfully obvious: by wheeling out the big guns of authority without any actual evidence, the campaign’s designers hoped the public would automatically assume the bizarre, outlandish claim must be “true,” even though no evidence was submitted to substantiate this fact-free claim, and respond as planned, i.e. willingly join a mass hysteria herd in favor of discrediting the U.S. election results.

Did the “hackers” change the election results issued by voting machines? Did they “hack” the election totals? Wouldn’t there be tell-tale forensic evidence of such tampering? How else could “hackers” change the election other than by changing votes and vote totals?

Or was the media campaign to generate mass hysteria based on nothing but purposefully vague and unsubstantiated claims of Russia-inspired “fake news” that undermined the election by questioning the mainstream media’s biased coverage of the presidential campaign?

“Fake news” is of course the staple of marketing products that end up killing the unwary consumers who buy the hype. The classic example is the cigarette/ tobacco industry, which ran adverts for decades proclaiming absurdities such as the health benefits of smoking (other than dying a horrible, needless death), the “fact” that doctors preferred one brand of cigarette over the other brands, and so on.

The industry famously went to truly monumental lengths to hide the facts about the destructive consequences of smoking from the public, and aggressively attacked any evidence that smoking was remarkably unhealthy as “unscientific,” i.e. beating back the truth with The Big Lie.

That a form of consumption that killed the consumers was unquestionably accepted not just as “normal” but as cool/hip for decades illustrates the staying power of induced insanity. Mass hysteria eventually wears off, as it overloads the emotional circuitry of the target audience; humans soon become desensitized to the triggers used to generate mass hysteria, and it takes heavier and heavier doses of propaganda to maintain the feverishly herd-inducing hysteria.

Eventually, the populace habituates to the stimulus and becomes exhausted by the hysteria.
Induced Insanity, on the other hand, is not an emotional state–it is a state of mind and a state of perception that filters and interprets inputs to produce the desired output— an acceptance of insanity as “normal” and “good.”

Read more at: charleshughsmith.blogspot.mx

Eight in every 10 people aged 40 to 60 in England are overweight, drink too much or get too little exercise, the government body warns.

PHE wants people to turn over a new leaf in 2017 and make a pledge to get fit.

Health officials say the “sandwich generation” of people caring for children and ageing parents do not take enough time to look after themselves.

We are living longer, but are in poorer health because we store up problems as we age. The campaign’s clinical adviser, Prof Muir Gray, said it was about trying to make people have a different attitude to an “environmental problem”.

“Modern life is dramatically different to even 30 years ago,” Prof Gray told Radio 4’s Today programme. “People now drive to work and sit at work.”

By taking action in mid-life… you can reduce your risk not only of type 2 diabetes, which is a preventable condition, but you can also reduce your risk of dementia and disability and, being a burden to your family,’ he added.

Many people no longer recognise what a healthy body weight looks like, say the officials – and obesity, which greatly increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, is increasingly considered normal.

A sedentary lifestyle can be your undoing

Although physical fitness is not the equivalent of overall health, along with a good diet, it is a great start. By now, the health risks to our bodies and minds of getting no exercise have become well established. Adding years to our life expectancy is not desirable if we are talking about extra years as a physical or mental cripple. An alarming thought is that we will increase our risk for mental degradation by being sedentary. But that is what modern research points to.

BBC.com also reports that being unfit in middle years hastens brain deterioration, citing a study that was published in the journal of the American Academy of Neurology. The study found that being unfit at age 40 correlated with a reduced brain volume at age 60, and that the brain shrinkage denotes accelerated brain ageing. 1,583 participants who were free of dementia or heart disease were studied, and then again twenty years later. MRI brain scans were given along with a treadmill test. As quoted in the article, lead researcher Dr Nicole Spartano, of the Boston University School of Medicine opined,

“While not yet studied on a large scale, these results suggest that fitness in middle age may be particularly important for the many millions of people around the world who already have evidence of heart disease.”

To drink or not to drink, that is the question

Moderate alcohol consumption is a strategy employed by some of us as a coping mechanism – alcohol can take the edge off of stress and anxiety. But immoderate alcohol use can cause more problems that it solves – it can interfere with our normal daily functioning, and enable us to ignore issues that need to be addressed. Cutting back on the amount of alcohol consumed can in itself solve problems, not the least of which is our health concerns as we enter our middle years.

Abusing alcohol in our youth can seem to be without consequence, but the partying lifestyle is not sustainable. Our wake-up call may come in the form of failing health in later years, forcing us to confront our poor choices. Is now the time to forge a new path in the new year? Yes! You can ask a friend or family member to hold you accountable in turning a new leaf. You don’t have to go it alone – your loved ones can aid you in remaining firmly resolute. The worst you can do is to beat yourself up for past failures. No matter how many breaths and heartbeats you have left, it is up to you to make the best of it, from this day forward.

Know that willpower is not a commodity of limited availability, to be conserved for emergency use only, but more like a muscle group that responds with additional capacity as you exercise it. You can start small and think big – bad habits can be overcome incrementally. And of course for some people, like alcoholics, diabetics, and pre-diabetics – the only solution is to stop drinking alcohol altogether.

Sources:

BBC.com

BBC.com

Article by Jessica Girdwain

It’s a familiar story: You pledge to honor a daily elliptical routine and count every last calorie. But soon, you’re eating cupcakes at the office and grabbing happy hour mojitos, thinking, Oops, diet over.

There is a better way: Swap the all-or-nothing approach for one or two healthy switch-ups in your daily routine. “Doing this can lead to more weight loss than you ever imagined,” says Marissa Lippert, RD, author of The Cheater’s Diet.

In fact, we talked to readers who knocked off 10, 25, even 60 pounds with some easy tweaks. Borrow their slim-down secrets to transform your body the real-world way.

Read more at: health.com

The maximum benefit came from eating just a single ounce (20 g) per day. The risk of diabetes, respiratory disease and premature death was also decreased.

“We found a consistent reduction in risk across many different diseases, which is a strong indication there is a real underlying relationship between nut consumption and different health outcomes,” said co-author Dagfinn Aune. “It’s quite a substantial effect for such a small amount of food.”

You don’t have to eat very much

The researchers analyzed the results of 29 prior, worldwide studies conducted on a total of 819,000 participants. They found that people who ate an ounce of nuts daily had a 15 percent lower risk of cancer, a 22 percent lower risk of premature death and a 30 percent lower risk of coronary heart disease.

The benefits for other diseases were even greater, though not as statistically robust. Nuts cut the risk of diabetes by almost 40 percent, and the risk of respiratory disease by 50 percent.

“In nutritional studies so far much of the research has been on the big killers such as heart disease, stroke and cancer, but now we’re starting to see data for other diseases,” Aune said.

Little or no health benefits were seen from eating more than an ounce per day.

A growing body of research points to a wide range of health benefits from nuts, which are high in protein, fiber, antioxidants and anti-inflammatories. They are also a key component of the Mediterranean diet, which has been linked to a wide range of benefits against chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease and dementia.

“Some nuts, particularly walnuts and pecan nuts, are also high in antioxidants which can fight oxidative stress and possibly reduce cancer risk,” Aune said. “Even though nuts are quite high in fat they are also high in fibre and protein and there is some evidence that suggests nuts might actually reduce your risk of obesity over time.”

Even eating nuts three times a week provides big benefits

Nuts have been called a superfood, and some experts are even calling for doctors to start prescribing them, and for their cost to be covered by health insurance.

“This analysis adds further value to scores of clinical studies that reveal the positive health impact of regular nut consumption,” said British cardiologist Aseem Malhotra, who was not involved in the study. “Their mechanism of benefit appears to be through anti-inflammatory properties. It’s time doctors started prescribing nuts to patients which will not only help prevent heart attacks and deaths within a short space of time but combined with other lifestyle interventions would save the NHS billions.”

Nearly all research into the benefits of nuts has been conducted on adults. But at least one study, released in 2015, found that nuts provide important protective benefits for adolescents, as well. That study found that adolescents who ate just 12.9 grams per day cut their risk of metabolic syndrome by more than 50 percent. The benefits increased as the teenagers ate more nuts, then dropped off if they consumed more than 50 grams (1.8 ounces) per day.

Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of symptoms linked to the risk of heart disease and diabetes. One in nine U.S. teenagers now suffers from the condition.

A 2013 study found that people who ate just three 28 gram servings of nuts per week had a 39 percent lower risk of death from all causes, a 40 percent lower risk of cancer and a 55 percent lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

Sources for this article include:

Express.co.uk

ScienceDaily.com

ScienceDaily.com

The study, published this week in The Annals of Internal Medicine, was immediately criticized by The New York Times and others for its blatant attempt to shift the blame away from the sugar industry for its contribution to the global obesity crisis and a range of other diet-related health issues.

From The New York Times:

“The review was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, a scientific group that is based in Washington, D.C., and is funded by multinational food and agrochemical companies including Coca-Cola, General Mills, Hershey’s, Kellogg’s, Kraft Foods and Monsanto. One of the authors is a member of the scientific advisory board of Tate & Lyle, one of the world’s largest suppliers of high-fructose corn syrup.”

A textbook example of the fox guarding the hen house

With financial backing from sources like these, it’s not too surprising that the researchers reached the conclusion that current sugar guidelines “do not meet criteria for trustworthy recommendations and are based on low-quality evidence.”

But sugar industry meddling within the scientific research community is nothing new. In September, the journal JAMA Internal Medicine published recently discovered documents revealing how the industry had managed to “derail the discussion about sugar for decades.”

The food industry has been manipulating scientific research for five decades

The documents, which were discovered by a researcher at the University of California, showed how this was accomplished by the Sugar Research Foundation (now called the Sugar Association) when it paid a trio of Harvard professors during the 1960s to publish reviews based on cherry-picked clinical studies that played down the link between sugar and heart health, while shifting the blame to saturated fats.

This sort of manipulation of the scientific community by the food industry has continued over the past five decades, and – as many have noted – closely resembles the deceptive tactics of the tobacco industry, which also secretly backed research that produced results favoring its interests.

Coca-Cola was exposed last year by the NYT for having poured millions into research that played down the role sugary drinks play in causing obesity, and this year, the Associated Press published reports of candy makers funding studies that concluded that “children who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who do not.”

One of the lead authors of the new study, Bradley C. Johnston, was quick to defend the research, saying that he and the team expected criticism for their ties to the sugar industry, but that he hoped people would not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” by disregarding their conclusions, and that their goal was not to encourage people to consume more sugar.

Industry-backed study ‘ignored the real data, created false scores’

Other experts, however, disagree that the research is sound. Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina, said that he was astounded that the study was published at all.

“They ignored the real data, created false scores, and somehow got through a peer review system,” he said.

The sugar industry is obviously feeling threatened by initiatives aimed at fighting the global obesity crisis. Sugar taxes and new government guidelines might cut into the vast profits that companies like Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s and General Mills have come to feel entitled to.

They’ll stop at nothing to keep Americans uninformed – their only goal is to keep on selling as many of their addictive and toxic products as possible.

Sources:

NYTimes.com

NYTimes.com

BusinessInsider.com