According to a report just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a delegation from the Sugar Research Foundation paid off Harvard scientists to produce reports that falsely downplayed the role of sugar in coronary heart disease.

Yep. Sugar contributes to coronary artery disease, more than we have been led to believe.
Reports had linked both dietary sugar and dietary fat to heart disease as early as the mid-50s; by 1960 we knew that low-fat diets high in sugars still resulted in high cholesterol levels. So in 1964, the director of the SRF proposed that the group “embark on a major program” to dispute the data as well as any “negative attitudes toward sugar.” They found a group of Harvard nutrition scientists who would take their money, and started making plans.

Complete with a codename, Project 226 was designed to protect the interests of the sugar industry by “recapturing” the 20% of American calorie intake they expected to lose once this whole sugar-isn’t-great-for-your-heart thing percolated through into public awareness. It resulted in a two-part review published in the prestigious and influential New England Journal of Medicine, which hand-waved away huge swathes of research pointing out the risks of dietary sugar.

The authors went to absurd lengths to discount studies that didn’t tell the story the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to tell. For example, to get the results they wanted, they had to throw out all the studies done on animals, because not a single animal study supported the conclusion they wanted. But after they finished their work, they reported that epidemiological studies showed a positive association between high dietary sugar consumption and better heart disease outcomes. The review concluded that there was “no doubt” that the only way to avoid heart disease was to reduce saturated fat.

How did this get past the sanity check at NEJM? The authors were experts, respected in their fields, and they were at least consistent cherry-pickers. They also conveniently failed to report that the Sugar Research Foundation funded their “study.” NEJM didn’t start requiring authors to report conflicts of interest until 1984, and by then the sugar industry had floated comfortably on their 1964 precedent, funding study after study supporting their pro-sugar narrative “as a main prop of the industry’s defense.”

Nobody knows how many reviewers they paid to endorse the conclusions of their faux science.

Eoin Treacy's view

The role of sugar in contributing to coronary heart disease is now being hotly investigated as consumers become progressively more involved in controlling their nutrition. Inflammation is the new buzz word and the fact that pursuing a diet where processed sugars are limited results in a trimmer figure and lower cholesterol is an additional incentive for many. The sugar lobby has been enormously successful in avoiding the kind of health warnings that have been imposed on the tobacco sector. However it is looking increasingly likely the tide is turning; in the West at least. 

These issues represent challenges for the sugar industry long-term and they are sure to combat the trend of health warnings on food labels. Right now there are concerns supply cannot meet demand. 

Sugar futures remain in a medium-term bull market overall and firmed impressively today to hit a new recovery high. That was despite Dollar strength, which acted as a drag on the wider commodity complex.  A clear downward dynamic would be required to question potential for additional upside. 

Brazil’s Cosan (Est P/E 4.91, DY 1.36%) focuses on sugar for ethanol. The share rallied along with sugar prices until recently, It has pulled back over the last month to challenge the progression of higher reaction lows and will need to find support soon if the medium-term uptrend is to continue to be given the benefit of the doubt. 

German listed Suedzucker (Est P/E 23.5, DY 1.3%) shares a similar pattern with the sugar price.