January 7, 2026
Sweet lies, salty comments
Sugar industry influenced researchers and blamed fat for CVD
Big Sugar paid Harvard to blame fat while sugar skated — commenters furious
TLDR: UCSF found documents showing Big Sugar paid Harvard in the 1960s to shift blame from sugar to fat, with no disclosure. Commenters are furious, split between “this is how all industries play,” date nitpicks, and jokes about flipping the food pyramid—proof that trust in nutrition advice is shaky.
Newly unearthed papers say the sugar industry cozied up to Harvard nutrition scientists in the 1960s, paid the equivalent of $50k, and helped shape a 1967 review in the respected NEJM (a medical journal) that told America to fear fat, not sugar. UCSF researchers say this tilted public opinion and science — without disclosing the funding. Cue the comments: outrage and eye-rolls. One user called Big Sugar’s ethics “nothing that a slave trader wouldn’t do,” while another shrugged, “all big industry plays these games with ‘science’.” The timeline police insisted the headline needs a big, bold (2016), sparking a mini fight over whether old scandals matter when the fallout lasts decades. The most chaotic thread? A practical gotcha: “But sugar-sweetened foods contain saturated fat… so?” Translation: the fat-vs-sugar blame game was always messy because processed treats are both. A long comment riffed on speculation that new guidelines might flip the food pyramid, with folks joking we’ll soon be told butter is a vegetable and donuts are cardio. Meanwhile, someone hit an Error 1009 and declared the internet itself has had enough sugar. The mood: betrayed, cynical, and meme-happy — and very ready to read labels.
Key Points
- •UCSF researchers analyzed over 340 internal sugar industry documents showing efforts to shift CHD focus from sugar to fat in the 1960s.
- •A sugar industry trade group anticipated in 1954 that low-fat diets would boost sucrose consumption and acted to influence science and media.
- •The industry funded and guided a Harvard-led literature review (Project 226), published in NEJM in 1967, without disclosing its role.
- •The 1967 review minimized evidence linking sucrose to CHD, emphasized cholesterol as the key risk factor, and criticized sugar-focused studies.
- •Authors call for unbiased, transparent scientific reviews and financial disclosures; growing evidence links added sugars to hypertension and CVD.