The demonization of fats: an agro-industrial plot?

We have seen in previous chapters that carbohydrates have topped the podium of official recommendations issued by the United States, to the detriment of lipids (fats), under the impetus of a lobby, the International Sugar Research Foundation (ISRF, International Sugar Research Foundation).

To this end, the public authorities have based their recommendations on Ancel Keys' 7 countries studywhich correlated fat consumption with a high rate of cardiovascular disease.

Find out more about this chapter in the ideal diet for mankind in PODCAST format:

For his part, John Yudkin, sworn enemy ofAncel KeysFor his part, the author of the first scientific study on the effects of sugar on the health of the human body, Dr. J.-S. K., accused sugar of being the cause of emerging diseases of civilization, such as obesity and cardiovascular disease. But his theory was not taken seriously at the time.

Except that much later, it was proven that the 7-country study was biased. Ancel Keys had deliberately chosen populations that corroborated his thesis, and discarded countries that showed no link between fat consumption and high heart attack rates.

Ancel Keys wasn't the only trigger. The International Sugar Research Foundation, the main lobby for the sugar industrywith the help of cereal companies, has spared no expense in making sugar and carbohydrates an essential component of the human diet.

The best defense is a good offense. And that's how sugar's defenders came to point the finger of blame: fats.

Note: this article is one of the chapters in the Blooness feeding guidea guide to the ingredients of the ideal diet for humankind.

The lipid hunt is on

In 1967, three Harvard researchers, Robert McGandy, David Mark Hegsted and Frederick Starepublished this article in the famous newspaper New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which incriminated fatty acids in the occurrence of cardiovascular events. In their view, the only way to prevent cardiovascular disease was to reduce cholesterol and fat intake. fats saturated.

The only downside was that it was proven much later that ISRF, the famous International Sugar Research Foundation, had paid these scientists approximately 6500$ (or 48,900$ in 2016 with inflation) to draw up these conclusions.

David Mark Hegsted later became director of the USDA.United States Department of Agriculture, where, in 1977, he took part in the drafting of what were to become the US federal government's nutritional guidelines.

The sugar industry's white paper

In 1975, the sugar lobby published a white paper entitled "The role of sugar in the modern diet. The purpose of this document was to counter what John Tatem Jr. "sugar's enemies.

To popularize their theses, the lobbyists sent to the media front line Frederick StareStare was one of three corrupt researchers who blamed fatty acids for cardiovascular disease. The Sugar Association reports that Stare was responsible for promoting sugar on television programs and on over 200 radio stations.

The white paper was also endorsed by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, whose president, George Irving, a former member of the sugar industry's advisory board..

And even though Stare's conflicts of interest were revealed in a 1976 report by the Center for Science entitled "Teachers caught red-handedIt was too late to turn back, the media steamroller had been launched, and fat had become public enemy number 1.

Sugar recognized as "safe

The Nixon administration asked the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to analyze whether sugar was safe. The eleven-member Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology was called in. Or, the mission was led by our famous George Irvingwho spent two years as scientific director of the International Foundation for Sugar Research (ISRF).

Internal documents also show that another committee member, Samuel Fomon, had received funding from the sugar industry over the previous three years.

In addition to these conflicts of interest, the committee's main considerations were the white paper from the controversial associationand other works by the same authors.

In the chapter devoted to heart disease, 11 out of 14 studies presented a conflict of interest linked to the sugar industry. Five studies were written by Francisco Grande, a close friend of Keysand three were signed Edward Biermanthe anti-fat scientist.

In January 1967, the committee issued its conclusions:

• Sugar is not a risk for the general public
• The link with diabetes was indirect
• The link with cardiovascular disease was more than uncertain
• On the other hand, it was accepted that sugar probably contributed to the development of dental caries.

But never mind.

When it comes to the occurrence of cavities, the sugar industry lobby has also been influential. Institut National de Recherche Dentaire to work on treating cavities rather than on measures to reduce sucrose use.

The conclusions of this report were widely publicized, and Tatem, President of the ISRF, promised to publish them. "broadcast to the four corners of the countrywhile the USDA, the United States Department of Agriculture, published its official nutritional recommendationsbased on an analysis written by Bierman, close to Ancel Keys. They did, however, recommend avoiding excess sugar, without going into further detail.

The consequences of these recommendations in favour of sugars, and against lipidsAccording to some scientists, this has had a detrimental effect on the health of several generations of Westerners.

In fact, from the 1980s onwards, Americans reduced the proportion of fat in their diet, and began to consume more fatty foods. carbohydrates instead. Sugar cerealsbread and, above all, potatoes. Lots and lots of potatoes. Since the 2000s, carbohydrates have accounted for more than 50% of food intake.

When we compare the obesity curve in the United States with that of the consumption of carbohydratethere's a clear correlation. Is there a causal link? Is eating too much sugar, and more generally too many carbohydrates, the same thing as making fat? That's the question we're going to answer in the rest of this guide.

But before tackling the scientific issues, what has become of the sugar industry today? Is there still a lobby acting against the health interests of the public?

The sugar lobby today

The authors of the official 2010 recommendations from the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), cite two notes showing that sugary soft drinks do not cause obesity in humans.

The first was written by Sigrid Gibson, a nutrition consultant whose clients include Sugar Bureauthe British equivalent of Sugar Associationand the World Sugar Research Organizationwhich is none other than the former ISRF. The second note was signed by Carrie Ruxton, who had headed the research division of the Sugar Bureau from 1995 to 2000.

The Sugar Bureau is a British organization funded by the sugar industry, set up in 1964 to improve "knowledge and understanding of the contribution of sugar and other carbohydrates to a healthy, balanced diet".

In 2003, the WHO attempted to issue a new recommendation, stating that added sugars should not account for more than 10% of calories absorbedThat's 40% less than the average American estimates.

The then president of the Sugar Association, Andrew Briscoesince reconverted to vice-president of a real estate companywrote to the Director of the WHO to warn him that he was "would prompt the U.S. Congress to question future funding". of the WHO.

Senators Larry Craig and John Breaux, co-chairs of the Senate Sweeteners Committee, wrote to Health Secretary Tommy Thompson to prevent the WHO report from becoming the official position of the international organization.

This WHO report had no influence on the 2004 dietary recommendations.

Next chapter: fat's return to favor.
Previous chapter: The agro-industrial lobby's hunt for fats