Sugar

[interested]

Commercial research is it always a good thing?

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-sugar-industry-withheld-evidence-sucrose.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter

[swansont]

2 hours ago, interested said:

Commercial research is it always a good thing?

!

Moderator Note

If that's the question you are asking, then this is not a Science News thread. If your intent is to discuss the article, then you should post some excerpt from, or discussion, the article. Which is it?

 

[Carol Joy]

On 11/28/2017 at 4:04 AM, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

If that's the question you are asking, then this is not a Science News thread. If your intent is to discuss the article, then you should post some excerpt from, or discussion, the article. Which is it?

 

 

It would have been better if the poster had not used a rhetorical question, and instead put up the link with  three or four paragraphs of the article. And I for one, find the leading sentence below quite important:

From the link in the first post: A U.S. sugar industry trade group appears to have pulled the plug on a study that was producing animal evidence linking sucrose to disease nearly 50 years ago, researchers argue in a paper publishing on November 21 in the open access journal PLOS Biology.

Researchers Cristin Kearns, Dorie Apollonio and Stanton Glantz from the University of California at San Francisco reviewed internal sugar industry documents and discovered that the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) funded animal research to evaluate sucrose's effects on cardiovascular health. When the evidence seemed to indicate that sucrose might be associated with heart disease and bladder cancer, they found, the foundation terminated the project without publishing the results.

In a previous analysis of the documents, Kearns and Glantz found that SRF had secretly funded a 1967 review article that downplayed evidence linking sucrose consumption to coronary heart disease. That SRF-funded review noted that gut microbes may explain why rats fed sugar had higher cholesterol levels than those fed starch, but dismissed the relevance of animal studies to understanding human disease.

In the new paper in PLOS Biology, the team reports that the following year, SRF (which had changed its name in 1968 to the International Sugar Research Foundation, or ISRF) launched a rat study called Project 259 'to measure the nutritional effects of the [bacterial] organisms in the intestinal tract' when sucrose was consumed, compared to starch.

 

#####

 

Of course, it may be that this topic is best posted in some other forum than "News."

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Carol Joy

[John Cuthber]

Research is a good thing. Suppressing the outcome is not legitimately part of research.