SchwartzReport: Big Sugar Does a Big Tobacco — True Cost of Sugar to Society

03 Economy, 06 Family, 07 Health, 11 Society, Communities of Practice, Corruption, IO Impotency, Lessons

Does Sugar Kill? How the Sugar Industry Hid the Toxic Truth

For decades, the industry kept scientists from asking: Does sugar kill?


November 15, 2012 |

This article first appeared in Mother Jones Magazine. Get your magazine  subscription here.

Click on Image to Enlarge

ON A BRISK SPRING Tuesday in 1976, a pair of executives from the Sugar Association stepped up to the podium of a Chicago ballroom to  accept the Oscar of the public relations world, the  Silver Anvil  award for excellence in ” the forging of public opinion. ” The trade group had recently pulled off one of the greatest turnarounds in PR history. For nearly a decade, the sugar industry had been buffeted by crisis after crisis as the media and the public soured on sugar and scientists began to view it as a likely cause of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Industry ads claiming that eating sugar helped you lose weight had been  called out  by the Federal Trade Commission, and the Food and Drug Administration had  launched a review  of whether sugar was even safe to eat. Consumption had declined 12 percent in just two years, and producers could see where that trend might lead. As John “JW” Tatem Jr. and Jack O'Connell Jr., the Sugar Association's president and director of public relations, posed that day with their trophies, their smiles only hinted at the coup they'd just pulled off.

Their winning campaign, crafted with the help of the prestigious public relations firm Carl Byoir & Associates, had been  prompted by a poll  showing that consumers had come to see sugar as fattening, and that most doctors suspected it might exacerbate, if not cause, heart disease and diabetes. With an initial annual budget of nearly $800,000 ($3.4 million today) collected from the makers of Dixie Crystals, Domino, C&H, Great Western, and other sugar brands, the association recruited a stable of medical and nutritional professionals to allay the public's fears, brought snack and beverage companies into the fold, and bankrolled scientific papers that contributed to a “highly supportive” FDA ruling, which, the Silver Anvil application boasted, made it “unlikely that sugar will be subject to legislative restriction in coming years.”

The story of sugar, as Tatem told it, was one of a harmless product under attack by ” opportunists dedicated to exploiting the consuming public. ” Over the subsequent decades, it would be transformed from what the New York Times in 1977 had deemed ” a villain in disguise ” into a nutrient so seemingly innocuous that even the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association approved it as part of a healthy diet. Research on the suspected links between sugar and chronic disease largely ground to a halt by the late 1980s, and scientists came to view such pursuits as a career dead end. So effective were the Sugar Association's efforts that, to this day, no consensus exists about sugar's potential dangers. The industry's PR campaign corresponded roughly with a significant rise in Americans' consumption of ” caloric sweeteners, ” including table sugar (sucrose) and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). This increase was accompanied, in turn, by a surge in the chronic diseases increasingly linked to sugar. Since 1970,  obesity rates  in the United States have more than doubled, while the  incidence of diabetes  has more than tripled. (The chart below uses sugar “availability” numbers rather than the USDA's  speculative new consumption figures .)

Precisely how did the sugar industry engineer its turnaround? The answer is found in more than 1,500 pages of internal memos, letters, and company board reports  we discovered buried in the archives  of now-defunct sugar companies as well as in the recently released papers of deceased researchers and consultants who played key roles in the industry's strategy. They show how Big Sugar used Big Tobacco-style tactics to ensure that government agencies would dismiss troubling health claims against their products. Compared to the tobacco companies, which knew for a fact that their wares were deadly and spent billions of dollars trying to cover up that reality, the sugar industry had a relatively easy task. With the jury still out on sugar's health effects, producers simply needed to make sure that the uncertainty lingered. But the goal was the same: to safeguard sales by creating a body of evidence companies could deploy to counter any unfavorable research.

Read full article (seven screens)

Phi Beta Iota:  It must be emphasized that while government bears a responsibility here for being corrupt, so also do the other seven tribes: academia, civil society, commerce, media, military, and non-goivernment/non-profit.  Across the board, everyone was bribed or cajoled into going along with massive lies that are without question against the public interest.

See Also:

21st Century Intelligence Core References 2007-2013

2011 Open Source Agency: Executive Access Point

Graphic: Analytic Pathologies Map

Graphic: Information Pathologies

Review: Trust Me, I’m Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator

Robert Steele: Data Is the New Oil BUT No One Is Serious About Holistic Analytics, True Cost Economics, Machine or Man-Machine Translation, or M4IS2

Robert Steele: Intelligence for the President Revisited

Financial Liberty at Risk-728x90