In 1965, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) secretly funded a review in the New England Journal of Medicine that discounted evidence linking sucrose consumption to blood lipid levels and hence coronary heart disease (CHD). SRF subsequently funded animal research to evaluate sucrose's CHD risks. The objective of this study was to examine the planning, funding, and internal evaluation of an SRF-funded research project titled "Project 259: Dietary Carbohydrate and Blood Lipids in Germ-Free Rats," led by Dr. W.F.R. Pover at the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom, between 1967 and 1971. A narrative case study method was used to assess SRF Project 259 from 1967 to 1971 based on sugar industry internal documents. Project 259 found a statistically significant decrease in serum triglycerides in germ-free rats fed a high sugar diet compared to conventional rats fed a basic PRM diet (a pelleted diet containing cereal meals, soybean meals, whitefish meal, and dried yeast, fortified with a balanced vitamin supplement and trace element mixture). The results suggested to SRF that gut microbiota have a causal role in carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia. A study comparing conventional rats fed a high-sugar diet to those fed a high-starch diet suggested that sucrose consumption might be associated with elevated levels of beta-glucuronidase, an enzyme previously associated with bladder cancer in humans. SRF terminated Project 259 without publishing the results. The sugar industry did not disclose evidence of harm from animal studies that would have (1) strengthened the case that the CHD risk of sucrose is greater than starch and (2) caused sucrose to be scrutinized as a potential carcinogen. The influence of the gut microbiota in the differential effects of sucrose and starch on blood lipids, as well as the influence of carbohydrate quality on beta-glucuronidase and cancer activity, deserve further scrutiny.

Early warning signals of the coronary heart disease (CHD) risk of sugar (sucrose) emerged in the 1950s. We examined Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) internal documents, historical reports, and statements relevant to early debates about the dietary causes of CHD and assembled findings chronologically into a narrative case study. The SRF sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of CHD and downplayed evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. The SRF set the review's objective, contributed articles for inclusion, and received drafts. The SRF's funding and role was not disclosed. Together with other recent analyses of sugar industry documents, our findings suggest the industry sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry-funded studies and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development.

Background

In 1966, the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) began planning a targeted research program to identify interventions for widespread application to eradicate dental caries (tooth decay) within a decade. In 1971, the NIDR launched the National Caries Program (NCP). The objective of this paper is to explore the sugar industry's interaction with the NIDR to alter the research priorities of the NIDR NCP.

Methods and findings

We used internal cane and beet sugar industry documents from 1959 to 1971 to analyze industry actions related to setting research priorities for the NCP. The sugar industry could not deny the role of sucrose in dental caries given the scientific evidence. They therefore adopted a strategy to deflect attention to public health interventions that would reduce the harms of sugar consumption rather than restricting intake. Industry tactics included the following: funding research in collaboration with allied food industries on enzymes to break up dental plaque and a vaccine against tooth decay with questionable potential for widespread application, cultivation of relationships with the NIDR leadership, consulting of members on an NIDR expert panel, and submission of a report to the NIDR that became the foundation of the first request for proposals issued for the NCP. Seventy-eight percent of the sugar industry submission was incorporated into the NIDR's call for research applications. Research that could have been harmful to sugar industry interests was omitted from priorities identified at the launch of the NCP. Limitations are that this analysis relies on one source of sugar industry documents and that we could not interview key actors.

Conclusions

The NCP was a missed opportunity to develop a scientific understanding of how to restrict sugar consumption to prevent tooth decay. A key factor was the alignment of research agendas between the NIDR and the sugar industry. This historical example illustrates how industry protects itself from potentially damaging research, which can inform policy makers today. Industry opposition to current policy proposals-including a World Health Organization guideline on sugars proposed in 2014 and changes to the nutrition facts panel on packaged food in the US proposed in 2014 by the US Food and Drug Administration-should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that industry interests do not supersede public health goals.

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement.

Background

In 1976, the U.S. Sugar Association (SA), a globally networked trade organization representing the cane and beet sugar industry, won the Public Relations Society of America's (PRSA) Silver Anvil Award for a crisis communication campaign. Their campaign successfully limited the diffusion of sugar restriction policies to control obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and dental caries, and marked the beginning of the modern-day SA. The sugar industry continues to resist measures to reduce sugar consumption, therefore understanding and addressing industry opposition is crucial to achieving global targets to reduce non-communicable disease.

Methods

We critically analyze common crisis management rhetorical strategies used by SA to defend itself from perceived wrongdoing, and sugar from perceptions of harm using a thematic content analysis based on Hearit's Corporate Apologia theory. Data sources were internal SA documents related to the 1976 Silver Anvil Award in 1) PRSA records, 2) Great Western Sugar Company records, and 3) William Jefferson Darby Papers.

Results

SA, using prototypical apologia stances (counterattack, differentiation, apology, and corrective action) and rhetorical dissociation strategies (appearance/reality, opinion/knowledge, and act/essence) constructed a persuasive narrative to successfully defend sugar from a product safety crisis, and the sugar industry from a social legitimacy crisis. SA's overarching narrative was that restricting sugar, which it claimed was a valuable food that makes healthy foods more palatable, would cause harm and that claims to the contrary were made by opportunists, pseudoscientists, food-faddists, lay nutritionists or those who had been misled by them. SA's apologia does not meet criteria for truthfulness or sincerity.

Conclusion

Corporate apologia theory provides an accessible way of understanding sugar industry crisis communication strategies. It enables public health actors to recognize and predict industry corporate apologia in response to ongoing product safety and social legitimacy challenges. Industry counterarguments can be examined for truthfulness and sincerity (or the lack thereof), and explained to policymakers considering sugar restriction policies, and to the public, thereby decreasing the effectiveness of illegitimate industry communication efforts to oppose regulation and legislation.

Background

Employees with fluoridated drinking water access at work can reap oral health benefits. The purpose of this study was to assess the availability, appeal, and promotion of fluoridated tap water in publicly accessible spaces compared with retail beverages at the University of California, San Francisco.

Methods

The authors collected information on beverages available in publicly accessible spaces at University of California, San Francisco hospitals and campuses in San Francisco, California, from December 2019 through February 2020 using a web-based survey tool. Data collected included fluoridated water and retail beverage locations; type of water or retail beverage source; number of water sources per station; cleanliness, flow, and any obstruction of water sources; proximity of water stations to retail beverage locations; signage near the beverage locations about water and beverage consumption; and type of retail beverages available.

Results

Fluoridated water stations were identified in 230 locations and had 377 water sources (for example, traditional drinking fountain and motion-sensor bottle-filling station). One water station was available for every 80 students and employees; however, 25% were obstructed, dirty, or had unsatisfactory flow. Approximately 1 in 5 watercoolers lacked disposable cups. Of 41 retail beverage locations identified, 29% had a water station within sight. Only 11% of beverage locations had signage encouraging healthier beverage choices.

Conclusions

A systematic assessment of work site access to fluoridated water can provide actionable evidence to improve availability, appeal, and promotion.

Practical implications

This study provides a model to assess work site availability of fluoridated drinking water that can be used for future evaluations.

Purpose

Evaluate associations of adolescents' beverage marketing receptivity with sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) perceived harm and intake.

Design

School-based cross-sectional health behavior survey.

Setting

Seven rural schools in California, 2019-2020.

Subjects

815 student participants in grades 9 or 10.

Measures

Participants viewed 6 beverage advertisement images with brand obscured, randomly selected from a larger pool. Ads for telecommunications products were an internal control. Receptivity was a composite of recognizing, liking, and identifying the displayed brand (later categorized: low, moderate, high). Weekly SSB servings were measured with a quantitative food frequency questionnaire and perceived SSB harm as 4 levels ("no harm" to "a lot").

Analysis

Outcomes SSB intake (binomial regression) and perceived harm (ordered logistic regression) were modeled according to advertisement receptivity (independent variable), with multiple imputation, school-level clustering, and adjustment for presumed confounders (gender, age, screen time, etc.).

Results

In covariable-adjusted models, greater beverage advertisement receptivity independently predicted higher SSB intake (ratio of SSB servings, high vs. low receptivity: 1.48 [95% CI: 1.15, 1.89]) and lower perceived SSB harm (odds ratio, high vs. low receptivity: 0.59 [0.40, 0.88]). Perceived SSB harm was inversely associated with SSB intake.

Conclusion

Beverage advertisement receptivity was associated with less perceived SSB harm and greater SSB consumption in this population. Policy strategies, including marketing restrictions or counter-marketing campaigns could potentially reduce SSB consumption and improve health.