Nowadays, people are aware that they should avoid sugar as much as possible because it is harmful to the health. But, are we genuinely aware how damaging it is?
Well, it seems like few people knew nearly half a century ago. Yes, this is true.
According to a recent review from UCSF, i.e., University of California at San Francisco, one U.S. sugar industry research group might have canceled a study. Study which linked sugar to adverse effects on the health 5 decades ago.
The journal PLOS Biology published a paper on November 21. In this paper, the UCSF researchers actually made a review of the internal documents from the specific U.S. sugar industry.
Scientists Stanton Glantz, Cristin Kearns, and Dorie Apollonio came to the discovery that the ISRF, i.e., International Sugar Research Foundation which is known by the name Sugar Association actually funded animal testing.
This testing was funded in order to assess the effects of sucrose on the cardiovascular system. But, the findings did not go public.
More About Project 259
As a matter of fact, this type of behavior calls into question the studies funded by the sugar industry as a reliable source of info when it comes to public policymaking.
Moreover, the ISRF began a study on rats by the name “Project 259” in 1968. According to the new ISRF study, the purpose of that study was to measure the nutritional effects of the organisms in the intestinal tract.
They compared the nutritional effects of consuming starch versus sucrose. According to this study on rats gut bacteria actually helped moderate the adverse effects of sugar on the cardiovascular health.
However, it also showed that sugar might increase the risk of developing bladder cancer. In addition, the study came to the discovery that consuming sucrose led to higher cholesterol levels. This is in comparison to consuming starch.
According to Glantz, Kearns, and Apollonio, this incidental finding of the Project 259 in 1968 showed to ISRF that starch versus sucrose consumption leads to different metabolic effects.
Also, it suggested that sucrose stimulates the urinary beta-glucuronidase. And therefore might have a role when it comes to the pathogenesis of the bladder cancer.
The Reason the Funding for the Project Stopped
Back in the 1960s, the scientists disagreed whether sugar might elevate triglycerides as starch does. To make things more clear, triglycerides are a type of fat in the blood. According to the UCSF researchers, this study would have proven that sugar, in fact, might raise triglycerides.
The researchers said that their study contributes to a more substantial body of literature. Body which documents the industry manipulation of science.
Based on the interpretation of the preliminary results of ISRF, extending the funding of the project 259 would have been unfavorable to the commercial interests of the sugar industry.
The UCSF study notes that in an internal document from 1969, ISRF called the “Project 259” one among first demonstrations. Demonstrations of a biological difference between starch and sucrose-fed rats.
After learning more about the findings of the study, ISRF called off the fundings for this project before its completion date.
The researchers say that when this study suggested a link between sucrose and bladder cancer and heart disease, the foundation called off the project. Also, it failed to publish the results.