recent research paper on sugar industry

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

The Two-Way

50 years ago, sugar industry quietly paid scientists to point blame at fat.

Camila Domonoske

A newly discovered cache of internal documents reveals that the sugar industry downplayed the risks of sugar in the 1960s. Luis Ascui/Getty Images hide caption

A newly discovered cache of internal documents reveals that the sugar industry downplayed the risks of sugar in the 1960s.

In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to "refute" concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.

Sugar Shocked? The Rest Of Food Industry Pays For Lots Of Research, Too

The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.

The authors of the new article say that for the past five decades, the sugar industry has been attempting to influence the scientific debate over the relative risks of sugar and fat.

"It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion," co-author Stanton Glantz told The New York Times .

Money on the line

How The Food Industry Manipulates Taste Buds With 'Salt Sugar Fat'

In the article, published Monday, authors Glantz, Cristin Kearns and Laura Schmidt aren't trying make the case for a link between sugar and coronary heart disease. Their interest is in the process. They say the documents reveal the sugar industry attempting to influence scientific inquiry and debate.

The researchers note that they worked under some limitations — "We could not interview key actors involved in this historical episode because they have died," they write. Other organizations were also advocating concerns about fat, they note.

There's no evidence that the SRF directly edited the manuscript published by the Harvard scientists in 1967, but there is "circumstantial" evidence that the interests of the sugar lobby shaped the conclusions of the review, the researchers say.

For one thing, there's motivation and intent. In 1954, the researchers note, the president of the SRF gave a speech describing a great business opportunity.

If Americans could be persuaded to eat a lower-fat diet — for the sake of their health — they would need to replace that fat with something else. America's per capita sugar consumption could go up by a third .

In 'Soda Politics,' Big Soda At Crossroads Of Profit And Public Health

But in the '60s, the SRF became aware of "flowing reports that sugar is a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates," as John Hickson, SRF vice president and director of research, put it in one document.

He recommended that the industry fund its own studies — "Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors."

The next year, after several scientific articles were published suggesting a link between sucrose and coronary heart disease, the SRF approved the literature-review project. It wound up paying approximately $50,000 in today's dollars for the research.

One of the researchers was the chairman of Harvard's Public Health Nutrition Department — and an ad hoc member of SRF's board.

"A different standard" for different studies

Glantz, Kearns and Schmidt say many of the articles examined in the review were hand-selected by SRF, and it was implied that the sugar industry would expect them to be critiqued.

Obesity And The Toxic-Sugar Wars

In a letter, SRF's Hickson said that the organization's "particular interest" was in evaluating studies focused on "carbohydrates in the form of sucrose."

"We are well aware," one of the scientists replied, "and will cover this as well as we can."

The project wound up taking longer than expected, because more and more studies were being released that suggested sugar might be linked to coronary heart disease. But it was finally published in 1967.

Hickson was certainly happy with the result: "Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print," he told one of the scientists.

The review minimized the significance of research that suggested sugar could play a role in coronary heart disease. In some cases the scientists alleged investigator incompetence or flawed methodology.

"It is always appropriate to question the validity of individual studies," Kearns told Bloomberg via email. But, she says, "the authors applied a different standard" to different studies — looking very critically at research that implicated sugar, and ignoring problems with studies that found dangers in fat.

Epidemiological studies of sugar consumption — which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world — were dismissed for having too many possible factors getting in the way. Experimental studies were dismissed for being too dissimilar to real life.

One study that found a health benefit when people ate less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because that dietary change was not feasible.

Another study, in which rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because "such diets are rarely consumed by man."

The Harvard researchers then turned to studies that examined risks of fat — which included the same kind of epidemiological studies they had dismissed when it came to sugar.

Citing "few study characteristics and no quantitative results," as Kearns, Glantz and Schmidt put it, they concluded that cutting out fat was "no doubt" the best dietary intervention to prevent coronary heart disease.

Sugar lobby: "Transparency standards were not the norm"

In a statement, the Sugar Association — which evolved out of the SRF — said it is challenging to comment on events from so long ago.

"We acknowledge that the Sugar Research Foundation should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities, however, when the studies in question were published funding disclosures and transparency standards were not the norm they are today," the association said.

"Generally speaking, it is not only unfortunate but a disservice that industry-funded research is branded as tainted," the statement continues. "What is often missing from the dialogue is that industry-funded research has been informative in addressing key issues."

The documents in question are five decades old, but the larger issue is of the moment, as Marion Nestle notes in a commentary in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine:

"Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor? Yes, it is, and the practice continues. In 2015, the New York Times obtained emails revealing Coca-Cola's cozy relationships with sponsored researchers who were conducting studies aimed at minimizing the effects of sugary drinks on obesity. Even more recently, the Associated Press obtained emails showing how a candy trade association funded and influenced studies to show that children who eat sweets have healthier body weights than those who do not."

As for the article authors who dug into the documents around this funding, they offer two suggestions for the future.

"Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry-funded studies," they write.

They also call for new research into any ties between added sugars and coronary heart disease.

• heart disease

• Review Article
• Published: 10 May 2023

Adsorption Technology in the Sugar Industry: Current Status and Future Perspectives

• Kingsley O. Iwuozor   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1161-2147 1 , 2 ,
• Adewale George Adeniyi 3 , 4 ,
• Ebuka Chizitere Emenike 2 ,
• Bashir Oladapo Olaniyi 1 , 5 ,
• Valentine Ugochukwu Anyanwu 1 , 6 ,
• Joy Oluwafemi Bamigbola 3 &
• Happiness Taiwo Ojo 3  

Sugar Tech volume  25 ,  pages 1005–1013 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

165 Accesses

1 Citations

Metrics details

Adsorption technology has emerged as a promising method for the separation and purification of various materials in the sugar industry. This perspective paper provides an overview of the current status of the use of adsorption technology in the sugar industry, including the challenges and opportunities associated with the technology as well as some future perspectives. The significance of this work lies in addressing the high cost and sustainability concerns associated with the use of commercial activated carbon as the adsorbent in the sugar industry. By exploring alternative, efficient, and cost-effective adsorbents, this review presents findings that have important implications for the advancement and sustainability of the sugar industry. Adsorption is utilized in various processes in the industry, such as the decolourization of raw sugar in melt form and in water and wastewater treatment. It was observed that commercial activated carbon in granular or powdered form is commonly utilized as an adsorbent in the industry. However, the high cost of activated carbon has propelled researchers to explore sustainable alternatives. Despite the potential benefits of adsorption technology, there are still several challenges that need to be addressed, such as the high cost of adsorbents and the need for efficient regeneration processes. This review concludes by identifying future directions and research opportunities for the application and development of adsorption processes in the sugar industry. The development of new and innovative adsorption technologies and the optimization of existing processes will be critical in ensuring the continued success and sustainability of the sugar industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution .

Access options

Buy single article.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Rent this article via DeepDyve.

Adegoke, K.A., K.O. Oyedotun, J.O. Ighalo, J.F. Amaku, C. Olisah, A.O. Adeola, K.O. Iwuozor, K.G. Akpomie, and J. Conradie. 2022. Cellulose derivatives and cellulose-metal-organic frameworks for CO2 adsorption and separation. Journal of CO 2 Utilization 64: 102163.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Afiomah, C.S., and K.O. Iwuozor. 2020. Nutritional and Phytochemical Properties of Beta vulgaris Linnaeus (Chenopodiaceae)–A Review. Nigerian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Applied Science Research 9 (4): 38–44.

Google Scholar  

Ahmedna, M., M. Johns, S. Clarke, W. Marshall, and R. Rao. 1997. Potential of agricultural by-product-based activated carbons for use in raw sugar decolourisation. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 75 (1): 117–124.

Akpomie, K.G., J. Conradie, K.A. Adegoke, K.O. Oyedotun, J.O. Ighalo, J.F. Amaku, C. Olisah, A.O. Adeola, and K.O. Iwuozor. 2023. Adsorption mechanism and modeling of radionuclides and heavy metals onto ZnO nanoparticles: A review. Applied Water Science 13 (1): 20.

Akpomie, K.G., K.A. Adegoke, K.O. Oyedotun, J.O. Ighalo, J.F. Amaku, C. Olisah, A.O. Adeola, K.O. Iwuozor, and J. Conradie. 2022. Removal of bromophenol blue dye from water onto biomass, activated carbon, biochar, polymer, nanoparticle, and composite adsorbents. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery : 1–29.

Amaku, J.F., C. Olisah, A.O. Adeola, K.O. Iwuozor, K.G. Akpomie, J. Conradie, K.A. Adegoke, K.O. Oyedotun, and J.O. Ighaloi. 2022. Multiwalled carbon nanotubes versus metal-organic frameworks: a review of their hexavalent chromium adsorption performance. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry : 1–23.

Asgharnejad, H., E. Khorshidi Nazloo, M. Madani Larijani, N. Hajinajaf, and H. Rashidi. 2021. Comprehensive review of water management and wastewater treatment in food processing industries in the framework of water-food-environment nexus. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 20 (5): 4779–4815.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Congsomjit, D., and C. Areeprasert. 2021. Hydrochar-derived activated carbon from sugar cane bagasse employing hydrothermal carbonization and steam activation for syrup decolorization. Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery 11 (6): 2569–2584.

Devnarain, P., D. Arnold, and S. Davis Production of activated carbon from South African sugarcane bagasse. In: Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass, 2002. Citeseer, pp 477–489.

Emenike, E.C., K.O. Iwuozor, and S.U. Anidiobi. 2022a. Heavy Metal Pollution in Aquaculture: Sources, Impacts and Mitigation Techniques. Biological Trace Element Research 200: 4476–4492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-021-03037-x .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Emenike, E.C., J. Adeleke, K.O. Iwuozor, S. Ogunniyi, C.A. Adeyanju, V.T. Amusa, H.K. Okoro, and A.G. Adeniyi. 2022c. Adsorption of crude oil from aqueous solution: A review. Journal of Water Process Engineering 50: 103330.

Article   Google Scholar  

Emenike, E.C., A.G. Adeniyi, P.E. Omuku, K.C. Okwu, and K.O. Iwuozor. 2022b. Recent Advances in Nano-adsorbents for the sequestration of Copper from Water Journal of Water Process Engineering 47 (102715). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2022.102715 .

Emenike, E.C., A.G. Adeniyi, K.O. Iwuozor, C.J. Okorie, A.U. Egbemhenghe, P.E. Omuku, K.C. Okwu, and O.D. Saliu. 2023. A critical review on the removal of mercury (Hg 2+ ) from aqueous solution using nanoadsorbents. Environmental Nanotechnology, Monitoring & Management 100816.

Ewuzie, U., O.D. Saliu, K. Dulta, S. Ogunniyi, A.O. Bajeh, K.O. Iwuozor, and J.O. Ighalo. 2022. A review on treatment technologies for printing and dyeing wastewater (PDW). Journal of Water Process Engineering 50: 103273.

Farmani, B., M. Djordjević, S. Bodbodak, K. Alirezalu, and A. Ghanbarpour. 2022. Powdered activated carbon treatment of sugar beet molasses for liquid invert sugar production: Effects of storage time and temperatures. Sugar Tech 24 (2): 522–531.

Fito, J., N. Tefera, and S.W. Van Hulle. 2019a. Sugarcane biorefineries wastewater: Bioremediation technologies for environmental sustainability. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture 6: 1–13.

Fito, J., N. Tefera, H. Kloos, and S.W. Van Hulle. 2019b. Physicochemical properties of the sugar industry and ethanol distillery wastewater and their impact on the environment. Sugar Tech 21: 265–277.

Games, V., and J. Hayashi. 2006. Evaluation of New Adsorbents and Parametric Analysis for Determining Effectiveness in Sugar Decolourisation. Developments in Chemical Engineering and Mineral Processing 14 (1–2): 239–248.

Giri, A.K., and P.C. Mishra. 2023. Optimization of different process parameters for the removal efficiency of fluoride from aqueous medium by a novel bio-composite using Box-Behnken design. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 11 (1): 109232.

Han, X., X. Zhang, L. Zhong, X. Yu, and H. Zhai. 2022. Preparation of sulfamethoxazole molecularly imprinted polymers based on magnetic metal–organic frameworks/graphene oxide composites for the selective extraction of sulfonamides in food samples. Microchemical Journal 177: 107259.

Ighalo, J., S. Rangabhashiyam, K. Dulta, C.T. Umeh, K.O. Iwuozor, C.O. Aniagor, S. Eshiemogie, F.U. Iwuchukwu, and C. Igwegbe. 2022a. Recent advances in hydrochar application for the adsorptive removal of wastewater pollutants. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 184: 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2022.06.028 .

Ighalo, J.O., P.-S. Yap, K.O. Iwuozor, C.O. Aniagor, T. Liu, K. Dulta, F.U. Iwuchukwu, and S. Rangabhashiyam. 2022e. Adsorption of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) from the aqueous environment by nano-adsorbents: A review. Environmental Research 212: 113123.

Ighalo, J.O., K.O. Iwuozor, C.A. Igwegbe, and A.G. Adeniyi. 2021. Verification of Pore Size Effect on Aqueous-Phase Adsorption Kinetics: A Case Study of Methylene Blue. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 626: 127119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2021.127119 .

Ighalo, J.O., F.O. Omoarukhe, V.E. Ojukwu, K.O. Iwuozor, and C.A. Igwegbe. 2022b. Cost of Adsorbent Preparation and Usage in Wastewater Treatment: A Review. Cleaner Chemical Engineering : 100042.

Ighalo, J.O., B. Yao, Y. Zhou, K.O. Iwuozor, I. Anastopoulos, C.O. Aniagor, and S. Rangabhashiyam. 2022c. Utilization of avocado (Persea americana) adsorbents for the elimination of pollutants from water: a review. Biomass-Derived Materials for Environmental Applications : 333–348.

Ighalo, J.O., Y. Zhou, Y. Zhou, C.A. Igwegbe, I. Anastopoulos, M.A. Raji, and K.O. Iwuozor. 2022d. A review of pine-based adsorbents for the adsorption of dyes. Biomass-Derived Materials for Environmental Applications : 319–332.

Ighalo, J.O., J.F. Amaku, C. Olisah, A.O. Adeola, K.O. Iwuozor, K.G. Akpomie, J. Conradie, K.A. Adegoke, and K.O. Oyedotun. 2022f. Utilisation of Adsorption as a Resource Recovery Technique for Lithium in Geothermal Water. Journal of Molecular Liquids : 120107.

Iwuozor, K.O., L.A. Ogunfowora, and I.P. Oyekunle. 2021a. Review on Sugarcane-Mediated Nanoparticle Synthesis: A Green Approach. SugarTech 23: 12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-021-01038-7 .

Iwuozor, K.O., I.P. Oyekunle, I.O. Oladunjoye, E.M. Ibitogbe, and T.S. Olorunfemi. 2021b. A Review on the Mitigation of Heavy Metals from Aqueous Solution using Sugarcane Bagasse. SugarTech 23: 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-021-01051-w .

Iwuozor, K.O., J.O. Ighalo, E.C. Emenike, L.A. Ogunfowora, and C.A. Igwegbe. 2021c. Adsorption of methyl orange: A review on adsorbent performance. Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 4: 16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crgsc.2021.100179 .

Iwuozor, K.O., K.G. Akpomie, J. Conradie, K.A. Adegoke, K.O. Oyedotun, J.O. Ighalo, J.F. Amaku, C. Olisah, and A.O. Adeola. 2022h. Aqueous phase adsorption of aromatic organoarsenic compounds: A review. Journal of Water Process Engineering 49: 103059.

Iwuozor, K.O., J.O. Ighalo, L.A. Ogunfowora, A.G. Adeniyi, and C.A. Igwegbe. 2021d. An Empirical Literature Analysis of Adsorbent Performance for Methylene Blue Uptake from Aqueous Media. Journal of environmental chemical engineering 9 (4): 105658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105658 .

Iwuozor, K.O., J.O. Ighalo, E.C. Emenike, C.A. Igwegbe, and A.G. Adeniyi. 2021e. Do Adsorbent Pore Size and Specific Surface Area Affect The Kinetics of Methyl Orange Aqueous Phase Adsorption? Journal of Chemistry Letters 4: 11. https://doi.org/10.22034/JCHEMLETT.2022.327407.1048 .

Iwuozor, K.O., A.G. Adeniyi, E.C. Emenike, M.I. Adepoju, and M.O. Ahmed. 2022a. Sugarcane juice powder produced from spray drying technology: a review of properties and operating parameters. Sugar Tech : 1–11.

Iwuozor, K.O., V.U. Anyanwu, B.O. Olaniyi, P.S. Mbamalu, and A.G. Adeniyi. 2022b. Adulteration of Sugar: A Growing Global Menace. Sugar Tech : 1–6.

Iwuozor, K.O., E.C. Emenike, J.O. Ighalo, S. Eshiemogie, P.E. Omuku, and A.G. Adeniyi. 2022c. Valorization of Sugar Industry’s By-products: A Perspective. Sugar Tech : 1–27.

Iwuozor, K.O., P.S. Mbamalu, B.O. Olaniyi, V.U. Anyanwu, E.C. Emenike, and A.G. Adeniyi. 2022d. Fortification of Sugar: A Call for Action. Sugar Tech : 1–11.

Iwuozor, K.O., E.C. Emenike, C.O. Aniagor, F.U. Iwuchukwu, E.M. Ibitogbe, O.B. Temitayo, P.E. Omuku, and A.G. Adeniyi. 2022e. Removal of pollutants from aqueous media using cow dung-based adsorbents. Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry : 100300.

Iwuozor, K.O., E.C. Emenike, F.A. Gbadamosi, J.O. Ighalo, G.C. Umenweke, F.U. Iwuchukwu, C.O. Nwakire, and C.A. Igwegbe. 2022f. Adsorption of Organophosphate Pesticides from Aqueous Solution: A Review of Recent Advances. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology In press: .

Iwuozor, K.O., I.P. Oyekunle, E.C. Emenike, S.M. Okoye-Anigbogu, E.M. Ibitogbe, O. Elemile, J.O. Ighalo, and A.G. Adeniyi. 2022g. An overview of equilibrium, kinetic and thermodynamic studies for the sequestration of Maxilon dyes. Cleaner Materials : 100148.

Jamil, S., P. Loganathan, S.J. Khan, J.A. McDonald, J. Kandasamy, and S. Vigneswaran. 2021. Enhanced nanofiltration rejection of inorganic and organic compounds from a wastewater-reclamation plant’s micro-filtered water using adsorption pre-treatment. Separation and Purification Technology 260: 118207.

Jiang, W., L. Zhang, X. Guo, M. Yang, Y. Lu, Y. Wang, Y. Zheng, and G. Wei. 2021. Adsorption of cationic dye from water using an iron oxide/activated carbon magnetic composites prepared from sugarcane bagasse by microwave method. Environmental Technology 42 (3): 337–350.

Kushwaha, J.P. 2015. A review on sugar industry wastewater: Sources, treatment technologies, and reuse. Desalination and Water Treatment 53 (2): 309–318.

Lakdawala, M. 2016. Biological oxygen demand (BOD) removal of sugar industry waste water-a comparative study of adsorption capacity of PAC and GAC. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research 8 (2): 765–772.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Lakdawala, M., and J. Lakdawala. 2012. Adsorption study of BOD content from sugar industry waste water by low cost material fly ash. Der Chemica Sinica 3 (2): 497–502.

Lakdawala, M.M., and Y.S. Patel. 2012. The effect of low cost material bagasse fly ash to the removal of COD contributing component of combined waste water of sugar industry. Archives of Applied Science Research 4 (2): 852–857.

Lima, I.M., C. Clayton, A. Tir, A. Wierdak, C. Parker, E. Sarir, and G. Eggleston. 2021. Design and operation of a scaled-up pilot plant for the removal of sugar beet extract colorants using powdered activated carbon. Sugar Tech 23 (1): 167–177.

Lumadede⃰⃰⃰⃰, H., P. Kuloba, F. Kengara, and C. Kowenje. 2020. Decolourisation of sugar syrup by using activated carbon generated from sugarcane bagasse with a comparison to commercial activated carbons. Journal of Engineering in Agriculture and the Environment 6 (1): 12.

Martins, M.A., A.E. Rodrigues, J.M. Loureiro, A.M. Ribeiro, and I.B. Nogueira. 2021. Artificial Intelligence-oriented economic non-linear model predictive control applied to a pressure swing adsorption unit: Syngas purification as a case study. Separation and Purification Technology 276: 119333.

Mohan, N., and M. Yadav. 2020. Carbonation and Phosphatation Process for Refined Sugar Production: A Comparative Evaluation. Sugar and Sugar Derivatives: Changing Consumer Preferences : 225–240.

Mohan, N. 2020. An Insight to Defco Melt Crystallization Process. Sugar and Sugar Derivatives: Changing Consumer Preferences : 263–272.

Mohan, N. 2021. An Insight to Sugar Manufacture. Kratika Printers, Kanpur.

Moodley, M., S. Davis, E. Hardwick, and T. Kermeen Pilot plant trials with granular activated carbon at Malelane Refinery. In: Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass, 1998. Citeseer, pp 249–254.

Mostafa, F.A., A.N. Gad, A.-A.M. Gaber, and A.-M.A. Abdel-Wahab. 2023. Preparation, characterization and application of calcium oxide nanoparticles from waste carbonation mud in clarification of raw sugar melt. Sugar Tech 25 (2): 331–338.

Mudoga, H., H. Yucel, and N. Kincal. 2008. Decolorization of sugar syrups using commercial and sugar beet pulp based activated carbons. Bioresource Technology 99 (9): 3528–3533.

Ogunfowora, L.A., K.O. Iwuozor, J.O. Ighalo, and C.A. Igwegbe. 2021. Trends in the treatment of aquaculture effluents using nanotechnology. Cleaner Materials 2: 100024.

Ogunlalu, O., I.P. Oyekunle, K.O. Iwuozor, A.D. Aderibigbe, and E.C. Emenike. 2021. Trends in the mitigation of heavy metal ions from aqueous solutions using unmodified and chemically-modified agricultural waste adsorbents. Current Research in Green and Sustainable Chemistry 4: 18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crgsc.2021.100188 .

Ohale, P.E., C.A. Igwegbe, K.O. Iwuozor, E.C. Emenike, C.C. Obi, and A. Białowiec. 2023. A review of the adsorption method for norfloxacin reduction from aqueous media. MethodsX : 102180.

Palacios-Bereche, M., R. Palacios-Bereche, A. Ensinas, A.G. Gallego, M. Modesto, and S. Nebra. 2022. Brazilian sugar cane industry–A survey on future improvements in the process energy management. Energy 259: 124903.

Parande, A.K., A. Sivashanmugam, H. Beulah, and N. Palaniswamy. 2009. Performance evaluation of low cost adsorbents in reduction of COD in sugar industrial effluent. Journal of Hazardous Materials 168 (2–3): 800–805.

Parvez, A.M., S. Hafner, M. Hornberger, M. Schmid, and G. Scheffknecht. 2021. Sorption enhanced gasification (SEG) of biomass for tailored syngas production with in-situ CO2 capture: Current status, process scale-up experiences and outlook. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 141: 110756.

Patel, D., and Z. Painter. 2017. Batch and Column Study for Treatment of Sugar Industry Effluent by using lowcost adsorbent. International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas 3 (3): 8.

Patel, R.K., R. Shankar, P. Khare, and P. Mondal. 2021. Treatment of sugar industry wastewater in continuous electrochemical process followed by low-cost adsorbent bed: Performance evaluation and economic analysis. Separation and Purification Technology 271: 118874.

Raghunandan, A., C. Jensen, T. Mtembu, and F. Ahmed. 2014. The beneficiation of refinery molasses into liquid sugars using ion exchange technology at Huletts refinery. In: 86th Annual Congress of the South African Sugar Technologists' Association (SASTA 2013), Durban, South Africa, 6–8 August 2013, 2014. South African Sugar Technologists' Association, pp 448–456.

Rashid, R., I. Shafiq, P. Akhter, M.J. Iqbal, and M. Hussain. 2021. A state-of-the-art review on wastewater treatment techniques: The effectiveness of adsorption method. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 28: 9050–9066.

Razman, K.K., M.M. Hanafiah, A.W. Mohammad, and A.W. Lun. 2022. Life cycle assessment of an integrated membrane treatment system of anaerobic-treated palm oil mill effluent (POME). Membranes 12 (2): 246.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rudolph, G., T. Virtanen, M. Ferrando, C. Güell, F. Lipnizki, and M. Kallioinen. 2019. A review of in situ real-time monitoring techniques for membrane fouling in the biotechnology, biorefinery and food sectors. Journal of Membrane Science 588: 117221.

Sundaram, M., and K. Jagadeesh. 2020. Sugar Quality: Process Options to Address Sustainability of Sugar Industry. Sugar and Sugar Derivatives: Changing Consumer Preferences : 77–91.

Tan, L.C., and P.N. Lens. 2021. Addition of granular activated carbon during anaerobic oleate degradation overcomes inhibition and promotes methanogenic activity. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 7 (4): 762–774.

Varsha, M., P.S. Kumar, and B.S. Rathi. 2022. A review on recent trends in the removal of emerging contaminants from aquatic environment using low-cost adsorbents. Chemosphere 287: 132270.

Wang, J., B. Wu, S. Yang, Y. Liu, A.G. Fane, and J.W. Chew. 2016. Characterizing the scouring efficiency of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) particles in membrane fouling mitigation via wavelet decomposition of accelerometer signals. Journal of Membrane Science 498: 105–115.

Zango, Z.U., K. Jumbri, N.S. Sambudi, A. Ramli, N.H.H. Abu Bakar, B. Saad, M.N.H. Rozaini, H.A. Isiyaka, A.H. Jagaba, and O. Aldaghri. 2020. A critical review on metal-organic frameworks and their composites as advanced materials for adsorption and photocatalytic degradation of emerging organic pollutants from wastewater. Polymers 12 (11): 2648.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the staff and management of the Nigeria Sugar Institute, Ilorin, for their support during the writing of this manuscript.

There was no external funding for the study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nigeria Sugar Institute, Ilorin, Nigeria

Kingsley O. Iwuozor, Bashir Oladapo Olaniyi & Valentine Ugochukwu Anyanwu

Department of Pure and Industrial Chemistry, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, P. M. B. 5025, Awka, Nigeria

Kingsley O. Iwuozor & Ebuka Chizitere Emenike

Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Ilorin, P. M. B. 1515, Ilorin, Nigeria

Adewale George Adeniyi, Joy Oluwafemi Bamigbola & Happiness Taiwo Ojo

Chemical Engineering Department, Landmark University, Omu-Aran, Nigeria

Adewale George Adeniyi

Department of Industrial Chemistry, University of Ilorin, P. M. B. 1515, Ilorin, Nigeria

Bashir Oladapo Olaniyi

Chemistry Department, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria

Valentine Ugochukwu Anyanwu

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

KOI, AGA and ECE were responsible for conceptualization, investigation, writing—review and editing, and supervision; KOI, AGA, ECE, BOO, VUA, JOB, and HTO were involved in writing—original draft preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kingsley O. Iwuozor or Adewale George Adeniyi .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Human or Animal Participannts

This article does not contain any studies involving human or animal subjects.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Iwuozor, K.O., Adeniyi, A.G., Emenike, E.C. et al. Adsorption Technology in the Sugar Industry: Current Status and Future Perspectives. Sugar Tech 25 , 1005–1013 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-023-01272-1

Download citation

Received : 10 March 2023

Accepted : 27 April 2023

Published : 10 May 2023

Issue Date : October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-023-01272-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Activated carbon
• Decolourization
• Material development
• Purification
• Water treatment

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research

Associated data.

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.

In the 1950s, disproportionately high rates of coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in American men led to studies of the role of dietary factors, including cholesterol, phytosterols, excessive calories, amino acids, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, and minerals in influencing CHD risk. 1 By the 1960s, 2 prominent physiologists were championing divergent causal hypotheses of CHD 2 , 3 : John Yudkin identified added sugars as the primary agent, while Ancel Keys identified total fat, saturated fat, and dietary cholesterol. However, by the 1980s, few scientists believed that added sugars played a significant role in CHD, and the first 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans 4 focused on reducing total fat, saturated fat, and dietary cholesterol for CHD prevention.

Although the contribution of dietary sugars to CHD is still debated, what is clear is that the sugar industry, led by the Sugar Association, the sucrose industry’s Washington, DC–based trade association, 5 steadfastly denies that there is a relationship between added sugar consumption and CVD risk. 6 , 7 This Special Communication uses internal sugar industry documents to describe how the industry sought to influence the scientific debate over the dietary causes of CHD in the 1950s and 1960s, a debate still reverberating in 2016.

The Sugar Association evolved from the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), founded in 1943. 8 We located correspondence between the SRF and Roger Adams, a professor who served on the SRF’s scientific advisory board (SAB) between 1959 and 1971, in the University of Illinois Archives 9 (319 documents totaling 1551 pages). We located correspondence between the SRF and D. Mark Hegsted, professor of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health and codirector of the SRF’s first CHD research project from 1965 to 1966, 10 in the Harvard Medical Library 11 (27 documents totaling 31 pages).

We collected additional SRF materials through a World Cat search including annual reports, symposium proceedings, and internal reviews of research. We reviewed historical reports and statements contextualizing scientific debates in the 1950s and 1960s on dietary factors causally related to CHD published by the National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council (NAS-NRC), US Public Health Service, the American Heart Association (AHA), and American Medical Association (AMA). Findings were assembled chronologically into a narrative case study.

SRF’s Interest in Promoting a Low-Fat Diet to Prevent CHD

Sugar Research Foundation president Henry Hass’s 1954 speech, “What’s New in Sugar Research,” 12 to the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists identified a strategic opportunity for the sugar industry: increase sugar’s market share by getting Americans to eat a lower-fat diet: “Leading nutritionists are pointing out the chemical connection between [American’s] high-fat diet and the formation of cholesterol which partly plugs our arteries and capillaries, restricts the flow of blood, and causes high blood pressure and heart trouble…if you put [the middle-aged man] on a low-fat diet, it takes just five days for the blood cholesterol to get down to where it should be… If the carbohydrate industries were to recapture this 20 percent of the calories in the US diet (the difference between the 40 percent which fat has and the 20 percent which it ought to have) and if sugar maintained its present share of the carbohydrate market, this change would mean an increase in the per capita consumption of sugar more than a third with a tremendous improvement in general health.” 12

The industry would subsequently spend $600 000 ($5.3 million in 2016 dollars) to teach “people who had never had a course in biochemistry… that sugar is what keeps every human being alive and with energy to face our daily problems.” 12

Growing Evidence That Sucrose Elevates Serum Cholesterol Level

In 1962, the SRF became concerned with evidence showing that a low-fat diet high in sugar could elevate serum cholesterol level. At its November 1962 SAB meeting, 13 the SRF considered an AMA Council on Foods and Nutrition report, The Regulation of Dietary Fat , 14 that, according to the SRF, “indicate[d] that, in low fat diets, the kind of carbohydrate ingested may have an influence on the formation of serum cholesterol.” 13 The SAB concluded, “that research developments in the [CHD] field should be watched carefully.” 13 The SRF’s vice president and director of research, John Hickson, started closely monitoring the field. 15

In December 1964, Hickson reported to an SRF subcommittee 15 that new CHD research was a cause for concern: “From a number of laboratories of greater or lesser repute, there are flowing reports that sugar is a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates, eg,—Yudkin.” 15 Since 1957, British physiologist John Yudkin 16 had challenged population studies singling out saturated fat as the primary dietary cause of CHD and suggested that other factors, including sucrose, were at least equally important. 17 , 18

Hickson proposed that the SRF “could embark on a major program” to counter Yudkin and other “negative attitudes toward sugar.” 15 He recommended an opinion poll “to learn what public concepts we should reinforce and what ones we need to combat through our research and information and legislative programs” and a symposium to “bring detractors before a board of their peers where their fallacies could be unveiled.” 15 Finally, here commended that SRF fund CHD research: “There seems to be a question as to whether the [atherogenic] effects are due to the carbohydrate or to other nutrient imbalance. We should carefully review the reports, probably with a committee of nutrition specialists; see what weak points there are in the experimentation, and replicate the studies with appropriate corrections. Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors.” 15

In 1965, the SRF asked Fredrick Stare, chair of the Harvard University School of Public Health Nutrition Department 19 to join its SAB as an ad hoc member. 20 Stare was an expert in dietary causes of CHD and had been consulted by the NAS, 1 National Heart Institute, 21 and AHA, 22 as well as by food companies and trade groups. 19 Stare’s industry-favorable positions and financial ties would not be widely questioned until the 1970s. 23

Link Between Sucrose and Elevated Serum Triglyceride Level

On July 1, 1965, the SRF’s Hickson visited D. Mark Hegsted, a faculty member of Stare’s department, 24 , 25 after publication of articles in Annals of Internal Medicine in June 1965 26 – 29 linking sucrose to CHD. The first 2 articles 26 , 27 reported results from an epidemiological study suggesting that blood glucose levels were a better predictor of atherosclerosis than serum cholesterol level or hypertension. The third 28 (p210) demonstrated that sucrose, more than starches, aggravated carbohydrate-induced hypertriglyceridemia and hypothesized that “perhaps fructose, a constituent of sucrose but not of starch, [was] the agent mainly responsible.” An accompanying editorial 29 (p1330) argued that these findings corroborated Yudkin’s research and that if elevated serum triglyceride levels were a CHD risk factor, then “sucrose must be atherogenic.”

On July 11, 1965, the New York Herald Tribune ran a full-page article on the Annals articles stating that new research “threatened to tie the whole business [of diet and heart disease] in a knot.” 30 It explained that, while sugar’s association with atherosclerosis was once thought to be theoretical and supported by limited studies, the new research strengthened the case that sugar increased the risk of heart attacks.

SRF Funds Project 226: A Literature Review on Sugars, Fats, and CHD

On July 13, 1965, 2 days after the Tribune article, the SRF’s executive committee approved Project 226, 31 a literature review on “Carbohydrates and Cholesterol Metabolism” by Hegsted and Robert McGandy, overseen by Stare. 10 The SRF initially offered $500 ($3800 in 2016 dollars) to Hegsted and $1000 ($7500 in 2016 dollars) to McGandy, “half to be paid when you start work on the project, and the remainder when you inform me that the article has been accepted for publication.” 31 Eventually, the SRF would pay them $6500 32 ($48 900 in 2016 dollars) for “a review article of the several papers which find some special metabolic peril in sucrose and, in particular, fructose.” 31

On July 23, 1965, Hegsted asked Hickson to provide articles relevant to the review. 33 Most of the articles Hickson sent 34 – 40 contained findings that could threaten sugar sales, which suggests that the industry expected the review authors to critique them. Hickson also sent the Tribune article 30 and a letter to the editor that criticized findings questioning the therapeutic value of corn oil. 41 , 42

On July 30, 1965, Hickson emphasized the SRF’s objective for funding the literature review to Hegsted: “Our particular interest had to do with that part of nutrition in which there are claims that carbohydrates in the form of sucrose make an inordinate contribution to the metabolic condition, hitherto ascribed to aberrations called fat metabolism. I will be disappointed if this aspect is drowned out in a cascade of review and general interpretation.” 34

In response, Hegsted assured Hickson that “We are well aware of your particular interest in carbohydrate and will cover this as well as we can.” 43

Nine months into the project, in April 1966, Hegsted told the SRF that the review had been delayed because of new evidence linking sugar to CHD: “Every time the Iowa group publishes a paper we have to rework a section in rebuttal [emphasis added].” 44 The “Iowa group” included Alfredo Lopez, Robert Hodges, and Willard Krehl, who had reported a positive association between sugar consumption and elevated serum cholesterol level. 45

It is not clear whether the SRF commented on or edited drafts of the review. However, on September 6, 1966, Hickson asked Hegsted, “Am I going to get another copy of the draft shortly?” 40 suggesting Hickson had been involved. Hegsted responded on September 29, “I expect to get it down to you within a week or two.” 46 Hickson received the final draft on October 25, 1966, a few days before Hegsted intended to submit it for publication. 47 On November 2, Hickson told Hegsted, “Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print.” 47

Publication of Project 226

Project 226 resulted in a 2-part literature review by McGandy, Hegsted, and Stare “Dietary Fats, Carbohydrates and Atherosclerotic Disease,” in the New England Journal of Medicine ( NEJM ) in 1967. 48 , 49 Industry and nonindustry funding of the review authors’ experimental research was disclosed, but the SRF’s funding and participation in the review was not. Evidence reported in the review was relevant to 2 questions: (1) Does the high sucrose content of the American diet cause CHD? and (2) What is the comparative effectiveness of interventions modifying the sucrose or saturated fat content of the diet for the prevention of CHD? The review concluded there was “no doubt” that the only dietary intervention required to prevent CHD was to reduce dietary cholesterol and substitute polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat in the American diet. 49 (p246)

High Sucrose Content of the American Diet and CHD

The review summarized findings from epidemiologic, experimental, and mechanistic studies examining the role of sucrose in CHD (see eTable 1 in the Supplement ). It reported that epidemiologic studies showed a positive association between high sucrose consumption and CHD outcomes 48 (pp187–189) and that experimental studies showed that sucrose caused serum cholesterol and serum triglyceride levels to rise in healthy individuals, 48 (pp190–192) and serum triglyceride levels to rise in those with hypertriglyceridemia. 49 (pp242–243) Finally, it reported that mechanistic studies demonstrated the biological plausibility of (1) sucrose affecting serum cholesterol level mediated through changes to the intestinal microbiome, 49 (p243) and (2) fructose, a component of sucrose, affecting serum triglyceride levels mediated through endogenous lipogenesis in the liver, adipose tissues, and other organs. 49 (pp244–246)

The review evaluated the quality of individual studies, including the work of Yudkin and the Iowa Group 48 (pp187–188) (see eTables 1 and 2 in the Supplement ), investigators whom the SRF had identified as threatening before initiating the review 15 and in correspondence while it was being prepared. 34 , 44 The review discounted these studies on the grounds that they contained questionable data or incorrect interpretation. 48 (pp187–189) 49 (pp242–243) It questioned whether entire classes of evidence were relevant (see eTables 1 and 3 in the Supplement ). It discounted epidemiologic evidence for identifying dietary causes of CHD because of multifactorial confounding 48 (p188) and experimental evidence from short-term studies using large doses of sucrose because they were not comparable with amounts typically consumed in the American diet. 48 (pp191–192) It discounted mechanistic studies conducted with fructose or glucose, not sucrose, 49 (p244) and animal evidence because of species differences and because people rarely consumed low-fat diets typically fed to rats. 49 (pp243–244) Overall, the review focused on possible bias in individual studies and types of evidence rather than on consistency across studies and the coherence of epidemiologic, experimental and mechanistic evidence.

Comparative Effectiveness of Dietary Interventions for the Prevention of CHD

The NEJM review summarized findings from human randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of sucrose interventions on serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels in healthy and hypertriglyceridemic individuals, and the effect of fat interventions on serum cholesterol levels in healthy persons (see eTable4 in the Supplement ). Regarding sucrose interventions, it argued that substituting fat for sucrose caused a large improvement in serum triglyceride levels in healthy individuals, 48 (p190) substituting starch for sucrose caused a large improvement in serum triglyceride levels in patients with hypertriglyceridemia, 49 (pp242–243) and that substituting leguminous vegetables for sucrose caused a large improvement in serum cholesterol levels in healthy individuals. 48 (pp190–191) Finally, it reported that substituting starch for sucrose caused a small improvement in serum cholesterol levels in healthy individuals. 48 (pp190–191) Regarding fat interventions, the review reported that reducing dietary cholesterol and substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat caused a large improvement in serum cholesterol level in healthy persons. 48 (pp189–190)

The review discounted RCTs that had shown that substituting starch for sucrose had a large effect on improving serum triglyceride levels and implied that only studies that had used serum cholesterol level as a biomarker of CHD risk should be used to compare the efficacy of sucrose interventions to fat interventions (see eTable 4 in the Supplement ). The review then discounted RCTs that had shown that substituting fat or vegetables for sucrose had a large effect on improving serum cholesterol level, by arguing this intervention was infeasible 48 (p191) (see eTables 4 and 5 in the Supplement ). Substituting refined starches (sweetened with artificial sweeteners) for sucrose, despite being feasible, was dismissed because the magnitude of effect on serum cholesterol level was minimal compared with reducing dietary cholesterol level and substituting polyunsaturated for saturated fat. 48 (pp190–191)

Unlike its summary of sucrose intervention RCTs, the review reported few study characteristics and no quantitative results in its summary of fat intervention RCTs. 48 (pp189–190) Consulting the original fat intervention RCTs reveals that the review overstated the consistency of studies (see eTable 6 in the Supplement ). Only 1RCT, conducted by Hegsted et al, 50 concluded that reducing dietary cholesterol and substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat substantially improved serum cholesterol levels. Consulting the original clinical studies cited to substantiate reducing dietary cholesterol and substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat reveals that they were not well controlled. Despite arguing earlier in the review that epidemiologic evidence was irrelevant to determining dietary causes of CHD, 48 (pp187–189) the review implied that the epidemiologic evidence pointed to dietary cholesterol and saturated fat as the primary dietary causes of CHD. 49 (p246) The review argued that the lack of mechanistic evidence confirming the biological plausibility that dietary cholesterol and saturated fat raised serum cholesterol levels was unimportant. 49 (p246) Finally, the review emphasized that polyunsaturated fats were readily available and would be well accepted as substitute for saturated fats in the American diet. 49 (p246)

These internal documents show that the SRF initiated CHD research in 1965 to protect market share and that its first project, a literature review, was published in NEJM in 1967 without disclosure of the sugar industry’s funding or role. The NEJM review served the sugar industry’s interests by arguing that epidemiologic, animal, and mechanistic studies associating sucrose with CHD were limited, implying they should not be included in an evidentiary assessment of the CHD risks of sucrose. Instead, the review argued that the only evidence modality needed to yield a definitive answer to the question of how to modify the American diet to prevent CHD was RCTs that exclusively used serum cholesterol level as a CHD biomarker. Randomized clinical trials using serum cholesterol level as the CHD biomarker made the high sucrose content of the American diet seem less hazardous than if the entire body of evidence had been considered.

Following the NEJM review, the sugar industry continued to fund research on CHD and other chronic diseases “as a main prop of the industry’s defense.” 51 For example, in 1971, it influenced the National Institute of Dental Research’s National Caries Program to shift its emphasis to dental caries interventions other than restricting sucrose. 8 The industry commissioned a review, “Sugar in the Diet of Man,” which it credited with, among other industry tactics, favorably influencing the 1976 US Food and Drug Administration evaluation of the safety of sugar. 51 These findings, our analysis, and current Sugar Association criticisms of evidence linking sucrose to cardiovascular disease 6 , 7 suggest the industry may have a long history of influencing federal policy.

This historical account of industry efforts demonstrates the importance of having reviews written by people without conflicts of interest and the need for financial disclosure. Scientific reviews shape policy debates, subsequent investigations, and the funding priorities of federal agencies. 52 The NEJM has required authors to disclose all conflicts of interest since 1984, 53 and conflict of interest disclosure policies have been widely implemented since the sugar industry launched its CHD research program. Whether current conflict of interest policies are adequate to withstand the economic interests of industry remains unclear. 54

Many industries sponsor research to influence assessments of the risks and benefits of their products. 55 – 57 The influence of industry sponsorship on nutrition research is receiving increased scrutiny. 58 Access to documents not meant for public consumption has provided the public health community unprecedented insight into industry motives, strategies, tactics, and data designed to protect companies from litigation and regulation. 59 This insight has been a major factor behind successful global tobacco control policies. 60 Our analysis suggests that research using sugar industry documents has the potential to inform the health community about how to counter this industry’s strategies and tactics to control information on the adverse health effects of sucrose.

Study Limitations

The Roger Adams papers and other documents used in this research provide a narrow window into the activities of 1 sugar industry trade association; therefore, it is difficult to validate that the documents gathered are representative of the entirety of SRF internal materials related to Project 226 from the 1950s and 1960s or that the proper weight was given to each data source. There is no direct evidence that the sugar industry wrote or changed the NEJM review manuscript; the evidence that the industry shaped the review’s conclusions is circumstantial. We did not analyze the role of other organizations, nutrition leaders, or food industries that advocated that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol were the main dietary cause of CHD. We could not interview key actors involved in this historical episode because they have died.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the sugar industry sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965 to downplay early warning signals that sucrose consumption was a risk factor in CHD. As of 2016, sugar control policies are being promulgated in international, 61 federal, 62 , 63 state, and local venues. 64 Yet CHD risk is inconsistently cited as a health consequence of added sugars consumption. Because CHD is the leading cause of death globally, the health community should ensure that CHD risk is evaluated in future risk assessments of added sugars. 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. 65

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

Funding/Support : This work was supported by the UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, a donation by the Hellmann Family Fund to the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, the UCSF School of Dentistry Department of Orofacial Sciences and Global Oral Health Program, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research grant DE-007306 and National Cancer Institute Grant CA-087472.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor : The funders had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Additional Contributions : We thank Kimber Stanhope, PhD, RD, for advice on the analysis of the SRF-funded NEJM review and the original studies it cited. No compensation was received for her contribution.

Author Contributions : Drs Kearns and Glantz had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of data analysis.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Kearns.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Glantz.

Obtained funding: Glantz.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Kearns, Glantz.

Study supervision: Schmidt, Glantz.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures : None reported.

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Sugar Industry Influence on the Scientific Agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: A Historical Analysis of Internal Documents

Affiliations Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, Department of Orofacial Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America

Affiliations Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America, Department of Anthropology, History and Social Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America

• Cristin E. Kearns, 
• Stanton A. Glantz, 
• Laura A. Schmidt

• Published: March 10, 2015
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798
• Reader Comments

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.

Editors' Summary

Background..

Tooth decay (dental caries) is the leading chronic disease of children and adolescents. Although largely preventable, 42% of children in the US have some decay in their baby (primary) teeth, and 59% of adolescents have cavities in their permanent teeth. Tooth decay occurs when the hard enamel covering the tooth surface is damaged by acid, which is produced by bacteria in the mouth. Plaque, a sticky substance of bacteria, food particles, and saliva, constantly forms on teeth. When you eat food—particularly sugary foods and drinks—the bacteria in plaque produce acids that attack the tooth enamel. The stickiness of the plaque keeps the acids in contact with the teeth. Plaque buildup can be prevented by regular brushing and flossing. Dentists can detect tooth decay before it causes toothache through visual examination or by taking dental X-rays, and can treat the condition by removing the decay and plugging the hole with a “dental filling.” However, if the decay has damaged the nerve in the center of the tooth, root canal treatment or removal of the tooth may be necessary.

Why Was This Study Done?

Experts generally agree that sugars play a causal role in tooth decay. Consequently, in 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a draft guideline that recommended a daily limit on the consumption of “free” sugars (sugars added to food by manufacturers, cooks, or consumers). Also in 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed that the nutrition facts panels on US packaged food products should list added sugars. As with similar proposals made in the past, the World Sugar Research Organisation, a trade organization that represents companies with economic interests in sugar production, is challenging these proposals, arguing that, rather than trying to limit sugar intake, public health interventions to prevent tooth decay should focus on reducing the harms of sugar consumption. Here, the researchers explore how the sugar industry has historically sought to undermine or subvert policies to restrict sugar consumption, by examining internal industry documents related to the launch of a targeted research program to identify interventions to eradicate tooth decay—the National Caries Program (NCP)—by the US National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) in 1971.

What Did the Researchers Do and Find?

The researchers analyzed an archive of 319 internal sugar industry documents from 1959 to 1971 (the “Roger Adams papers”) and NIDR documents to explore how the sugar industry sought to influence the setting of research priorities for the NCP. Their analysis indicates that, as early as 1950, sugar industry trade organizations had accepted that sugar damaged teeth and had recognized that the dental community favored restricting sugar intake as a key way to control caries. The sugar industry therefore adopted a strategy to deflect attention towards public health interventions that would reduce the harms of sugar consumption. This strategy included tactics such as funding research into enzymes that break up dental plaque and into a vaccine against tooth decay, and cultivating relationships with the NIDR leadership. Notably, 78% of a report submitted to the NIDR by the sugar industry was directly incorporated into the NIDR’s first request for research proposals for the NCP, and research that could have been harmful to sugar industry interests (specifically, research into methods to measure the propensity of specific foods to cause caries) was omitted from the research priorities identified at the launch of the NCP.

What Do These Findings Mean?

These findings, although limited by the researchers’ reliance on a single source of industry documents and by the absence of interviews with key actors in the launch of the NCP, reveal an alignment of research agendas between the NIDR and the sugar industry in the early 1970s. The findings also suggest that the NCP was a missed opportunity to develop a scientific understanding of how to restrict sugar consumption to prevent tooth decay. Indeed, although tooth decay declined by 20% between 1971/1973 and 1980, 64% of children still developed caries a decade after the NCP was launched. Most importantly, these findings illustrate how the sugar industry has protected itself from potentially damaging research in the past; a similar approach has also been taken by the tobacco industry. These findings highlight the need to carefully scrutinize industry opposition to the proposed WHO and FDA guidelines on sugar intake and labeling, respectively, to ensure that industry interests do not interfere with current efforts to improve dental public health.

Additional Information.

Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798 .

• The US National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (the successor to the NIDR) provides detailed information on tooth decay (in English and Spanish)
• The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides information on dental caries
• The UK National Health Service Choices website provides detailed information about all aspects of tooth decay ; it also provides an analysis of a recent news report concerning research supporting the proposed WHO guideline for limiting sugar intake
• MedlinePlus provides links to additional information about tooth decay (in English and Spanish)
• Information about the 2014 WHO draft guideline on sugar intake and about the changes proposed to the nutrition facts label by the FDA are available (in English and Spanish)

Citation: Kearns CE, Glantz SA, Schmidt LA (2015) Sugar Industry Influence on the Scientific Agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: A Historical Analysis of Internal Documents. PLoS Med 12(3): e1001798. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798

Academic Editor: Simon Capewell, University of Liverpool, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: October 30, 2014; Accepted: January 29, 2015; Published: March 10, 2015

Copyright: © 2015 Kearns et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Data Availability: The Roger Adams Papers, 1812–1971, Record Series Number: 15/5/23 are available for research at the University of Illinois Archives at 19 Library, 1408 W. Gregory Drive, Urbana, IL 61801.

Funding: This work was supported by the UCSF Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, a donation by the Hellmann Family Fund to the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, the UCSF School of Dentistry Department of Orofacial Sciences and Global Oral Health Program, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research grant DE-007306 and National Cancer Institute Grant CA-087472. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; ISRF, International Sugar Research Foundation; NCI, National Cancer Institute; NCP, National Caries Program; NIDR, National Institute of Dental Research; NIDCR, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research; NIH, National Institutes of Health; RFC, request for contracts; SA, the Sugar Association; SRF, Sugar Research Foundation; TIRC, Tobacco Industry Research Committee; TWG, Tobacco Working Group; WHO, World Health Organization; WSRO, World Sugar Research Organisation

Introduction

Despite overwhelming consensus on the causal role of sugars in tooth decay [ 1 ] and recommendations by expert committees [ 2 – 4 ], quantitative targets restricting the intake of sugars to control dental caries have not been widely implemented [ 5 ]. In 2003, a joint committee of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recommended limiting “free” or added sugars, defined as “monosaccharides and disaccharides added to foods by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit concentrates” to 10% of total calories [ 3 ]. The World Sugar Research Organisation (WSRO), a trade organization representing more than 30 international members with economic interests in the cane and beet sugar industry, including the Sugar Association (SA) in the US and Coca-Cola [ 6 ], successfully blocked the 2003 WHO/FAO joint committee recommendation from becoming WHO policy [ 7 ]. The WHO/FAO joint committee quantitative recommendation to limit free sugars [ 3 ] was replaced with the nonspecific recommendation to “limit the intake of free sugars” [ 8 ]. In 2014, based largely on the global burden of dental disease, the WHO Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group issued draft guidelines with strong quantitative recommendations to limit daily consumption of free sugars to 10% of total calories, with a further suggestion to limit free sugars to less than 5% of total calories [ 4 ]. As with the 2003 WHO recommendation, WSRO and its members have submitted comments in opposition to the 2014 WHO draft recommendation [ 9 , 10 ] and have signaled willingness to contest the 2014 recommendations with equal force as in 2003 [ 11 , 12 ]. WSRO argued that dental public health interventions should focus on reducing the harm of sugar consumption with methods such as the “regular use of fluoride toothpaste” rather than restricting sugar intake [ 9 , 13 ].

Publications about food industry influence on public health policy are growing [ 14 – 21 ], but analyses of food industry documents are rare [ 22 ]. Historical analyses of internal tobacco industry documents have proven key to informing policy and litigation successes in tobacco control [ 23 – 27 ]. There are similar historical internal documents related to WSRO that could inform public health efforts by illuminating sugar industry activities designed to undermine or subvert policies to restrict sugar consumption [ 28 ].

We analyzed previously unexplored sugar industry documents to trace industry interactions with the US National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR, which changed its name to the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research [NIDCR] in 1998) between 1966 and 1971, a critical period for dental caries control policy when the NIDR planned the launch of the National Caries Program (NCP) with the goal of eradicating dental caries within one decade [ 29 ]. Reflecting the research priorities of the sugar industry, the 1971 NCP research priorities ignored strategies to limit sugar consumption and focused instead on fluoride delivery, reducing the virulence of oral bacteria, and modifying food products with additives to counter sugar’s harmful effects [ 30 ]. Ultimately, the NCP, which drove the US dental caries research agenda for more than a decade, failed to significantly reduce the burden of dental caries [ 31 ], a preventable disease that remains the leading chronic disease in children and adolescents in the US [ 32 ].

Data Sources

Sugar industry documents..

This study drew substantially on previously unexplored WSRO-related internal documents from between 1959 and 1971 [ 33 ]. WSRO was formed from a number of related sugar industry trade organizations including the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) and the International Sugar Research Foundation (ISRF) ( Fig. 1 ) [ 6 , 34 – 36 ]. The first author located these documents in 2010 in an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams housed in the University of Illinois Archives through a Google search using the terms “International Sugar Research Foundation” and “archives” [ 33 ]. Roger Adams, Emeritus Professor of Organic Chemistry, served on the SRF and then ISRF Scientific Advisory Board [ 37 ] from 1959 until his death in 1971 [ 38 , 39 ]. Adams’s files contain correspondence with sugar industry executives, meeting minutes, and other relevant reports. After reviewing the inventory of the Roger Adams papers and consulting with University of Illinois archivists, the first author identified 319 documents (1,551 pages) related to SRF/ISRF. Additional material authored by SRF, ISRF, and WSRO was located through a WorldCat search, including annual reports, symposium proceedings, and reviews of research. Documents were carefully reviewed for relevance to dental caries research and policy.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

In 1943, SRF was founded in New York, New York. In 1949, SA was created to oversee the research activities of SRF (the research arm) and the newly created Sugar Information (the public relations arm). In 1968, SRF dissociated from SA and was reorganized as ISRF. SA joined ISRF as a member (shown as a dotted line). In 1973, SA discontinued Sugar Information because there was no longer a meaningful separation of duties between SA and Sugar Information. In 1978, ISRF was reorganized to become WSRO, and SA joined WSRO as a member.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798.g001

National Institute of Dental Research documents.

We located sources related to the NIDR NCP through searches of PubMed and WorldCat, and by contacting NIDCR directly. Materials included NCP primary publications [ 40 – 45 ] and two historical reviews commissioned by the NIDR: a description of the first decade of the NCP by its project officer, William E. Rogers [ 29 ], and a history of the NIDR by historian Ruth Roy Harris [ 31 ].

Findings were assembled chronologically into a narrative case study. Part of the analysis called for systematically comparing two key reports for similarities: (1) Dental Caries Research—1969 [ 46 ], a document submitted by ISRF to the NIDR, and (2) the NIDR’s 1971 Opportunities for Participation in the National Caries Program [ 30 ], which defined the research priorities at the launch of the NCP. Both documents were entered into Microsoft Word using a monospaced font at 12 characters per inch (average of 12 words per line). After line numbering both documents, we compared the documents, classifying each line of the 1971 NIDR document and the 1969 ISRF document as different, paraphrased, or verbatim. “Paraphrased” was defined as some identical words with the same overall meaning.

Emergence of the National Caries Program, 1966–1967

Table 1 provides a timeline of events during the planning and launch of the NCP.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798.t001

In June 1966, President Lyndon Johnson initiated a major reappraisal of National Institutes of Health (NIH) research agendas, requesting that directors of NIH institutes submit their programs’ “priorities and objectives in the national attack on disease and disability” [ 29 ]. The NIDR Director Seymour Kreshover’s report to President Johnson in November 1966 stated that “an accelerated program of research during the next decade could reasonably provide the means for virtual eradication of dental caries” [ 31 ].

The threat of the NIDR’s dental research program to the sugar industry began to crystallize in July 1967, after the president praised Kreshover’s report [ 31 ]. While it had long been known that bacteria caused tooth decay [ 54 ], Kreshover based his plans on the work of NIDR scientists Robert Fitzgerald and Paul Keyes, who had singled out the bacterial strain Streptococcus mutans as a major culprit in the production of acids that caused dental caries [ 55 , 56 ]. Research suggested that sucrose was more hazardous than other types of sugars because it caused S . mutans to form dextrans, sticky molecules that caused the bacteria to tenaciously adhere to one another in the plaque and on the tooth’s surface [ 57 ]. The NIDR’s increased interest in S . mutans brought renewed scrutiny to sucrose consumption and dental caries risk.

In October 1967, the NIDR’s National Dental Advisory Council identified three main areas of emphasis to inform research priorities to eradicate caries: reducing the virulence of bacteria once exposed to sugars, fluoride delivery, and, of most concern to the sugar industry, dietary modification [ 31 ]. A particular threat was research conducted by NIDR scientist Robert Stephan, initiated in the 1940s, on the “cariogenic” (decay-causing) potential of foods [ 58 – 60 ]. According to Stephan, as of 1966:

There have been a great many observations, discussions, and controversies published in the literature concerning the role of different foods and particularly sweets in the etiology [of dental caries]. However…there seems to be little controlled experimental proof to show which foods are cariogenic and which noncariogenic in humans. [ 61 ]

Stephan had initiated work to develop an animal model that could “evaluate cariogenicity and anticariogenicity of different foods and beverages that people like and commonly consume” [ 61 ]. Based on existing research at the time, foods containing sucrose were in danger of being placed at the top of the list of harmful cariogenic products [ 62 ].

Industry Deflection of Attention Away from Limiting Sugar Intake

Industry position on caries control..

At least as early as 1950, SRF knew its product damaged teeth and appreciated that both the scientific evidence and the dental community favored restricting sugar intake as a key way to control caries [ 63 ]. The 1950 SRF annual report stated:

The ultimate aim of the Foundation in dental research has been to discover effective means of controlling tooth decay by methods other than restricting carbohydrate intake . This program has both laboratory and clinical aspects.

There is evidence tending to show that carbohydrates , including sugar , and perhaps other food types , are implicated in tooth decay . There is also evidence, though less convincing, that soluble sugars may play a bigger role than starches. Besides the relatively clear evidence there are many conjectures, traditions and myths that confuse the picture.

Until recently the great majority of the dental profession had adopted the view that practical control of tooth decay could be achieved only by restriction of carbohydrates , particularly sugar in the diet . Scientific logic, nevertheless, points to many other promising possibilities and many of these are supported by preliminary laboratory observations. [ 63 ] (emphasis added)

The 1950 SRF annual report also shows that industry research was selected as part of a strategy to deflect attention away from sugar restriction as a means to control caries [ 63 ].

Funding research to divert attention from limiting sugar intake.

Consistent with a deflection strategy, between 1967 and 1970, SRF funded Project 269 to bolster research on interventions not requiring sugar restriction to control dental caries [ 47 ]. Project 269, led by Professor Bertram Cohen at the Royal College of Surgeons of England, sought to render S . mutans less destructive to teeth after sugar was consumed using enzymes called dextranases to break the sticky dextrans in dental plaque formed after sugar was consumed [ 47 ]. Project 269 also attempted to develop a vaccine against tooth decay that would allow people to continue to consume sugar [ 47 ]. The NIDR had investigated both methods in the 1960s [ 31 ] and found that although dextranases added to the food and water of rodents had shown some promise of being effective, more research was necessary before human applications could be developed [ 64 ], and a vaccine against S . mutans tested in hamsters failed to prevent tooth decay [ 65 ]. By 1962, NIDR scientists were suggesting that measures other than a vaccine would be needed to control dental caries [ 31 ].

SRF allocated US$12,000 (US$85,455 in 2014 dollars) to Project 269 between 1967 and 1970 [ 47 ]. Project 269 was primarily funded by the chocolate and confectionary industries and had an annual budget of US$120,000 (US$854,558 in 2014 dollars) [ 47 ]. A confidential report mailed to Roger Adams summarizing Project 269 indicated that SRF considered dental caries “one of the major troublesome factors in the nonacceptance of sucrose” [ 47 ]. SRF leaders hoped that their support for this new project would prove a “significant way of solving the problem” [ 47 ].

Funding from SRF and the chocolate and confectionary industry allowed Cohen to create a new laboratory to use monkeys for the development of dextranases and a tooth decay vaccine for human application [ 47 ]. SRF hoped that the work on dextranases and a vaccine could be handed over to drug companies to develop commercial quantities [ 47 ]. A 1968 Montreal Gazette article, “These Monkeys May Save Your Teeth,” reported that one practical application for dextranase under consideration was “to mix it with raw sugar and use it as a powder on desserts and cakes and in soft drinks” [ 66 ]. Cohen was described as having “little sympathy for those who would ban sweet things,” and was quoted as saying “Why should people be denied pleasure? It would obviously be far better to eliminate the harmful effects” [ 66 ]. While at the time there was less attention paid to scientific conflicts of interest than in 2015, the article mentioned that a grant from the Nuffield Foundation funded the building of the research unit that housed the monkeys, but not that the sugar or chocolate and confectionary industries were also supporting Cohen’s work [ 66 ].

Setting Research Priorities for the National Caries Program, 1968–1969

At a June 1968 press conference, NIDR Director Kreshover announced the creation of the Caries Task Force chaired by NIDR Laboratory of Microbiology chief Henry Scherp to develop the NCP [ 31 ]. A subcommittee, the Caries Task Force Steering Committee, was assigned the essential task of identifying research priorities [ 29 ]. Task force members were largely drawn from federal agencies and academia ( Table 2 ). Professor Basil Bibby, with a strong background in developing models that could evaluate the cariogenicity of foods, would be assigned a leading role in evaluating research supporting dietary interventions to eliminate tooth decay [ 29 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798.t002

In 1968, SRF reorganized as ISRF to carry on SRF’s research mission at the global level [ 48 ]. Existing SRF research projects, including Project 269, continued to be supported by ISRF [ 67 ]. ISRF was also interested in engaging federal research agencies. On July 1, 1968, Dr. Philip Ross became ISRF president [ 48 ]. Ross had ties to the NIH, having served as chief of the NIDR/NIH Research Grants Section from 1963 to 1965, then as assistant head of the NIH Special International Programs Section until 1967 [ 49 ]. Moreover, that summer, ISRF moved its headquarters from New York to Bethesda, Maryland, near the NIH [ 68 ].

Industry reviews dental caries literature.

As the NIDR Caries Task Force Steering Committee began meeting to discuss research priorities in 1969, ISRF scheduled a series of meetings to select “the areas of research that [ISRF] should be attacking” [ 69 ]. Table 3 provides an overview of the research priorities discussed by the NIDR and ISRF committees at key moments leading up to the launch of the NCP. According to ISRF President Ross, ISRF meetings would consider “critical reviews of the major areas [concerning] sugar,” including a range of public health topics: “dental caries, overweight and obesity, [and] atherosclerotic vascular disease” [ 69 ]. Panels of outside consultants would be convened, and the results of these activities compiled and sent to ISRF Scientific Advisory Board members by December 1969 [ 70 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798.t003

ISRF launched its critical review of dental caries by inviting Dr. G. Neil Jenkins, a professor at the University of Newcastle Dental School, to speak at an ISRF symposium in London in June 1969 [ 51 ]. Jenkins’s assessment of research on interventions that reduced the harm of sugar consumption without restricting intake ( Table 3 , column A) was largely unfavorable [ 51 ]. Jenkins reviewed food additives, which in preliminary studies reduced the yield of bacterial acid produced after sugar consumption, and concluded that the dose of additives needed might be so high as to render the methods impractical or cause harmful side effects [ 51 ]. Perhaps unaware that ISRF was supporting research on dextranase and a tooth decay vaccine at the time under Project 269, Jenkins expressed skepticism about these lines of research:

Several lines of evidence have tended to emphasize, and perhaps exaggerate, the importance of dextrans.…As an enzyme its instability would limit its application, and the whole basis of this idea depends on the unresolved question of the importance of dextrans. [ 51 ]

On the caries vaccine Jenkins noted, that while “a successful preliminary experiment along these lines has been reported in three monkeys,” the promise of this result was limited because “it is admitted that the organisms used in the above experiment would be unsuitable for human use and it is not yet possible to incriminate any individual species [of bacteria] as the sole cause of human caries” [ 51 ]. Jenkins saw fluoridation as “the only thoroughly well-established method of reducing caries which does not require the active (and usually reluctant) participation of the patient” [ 51 ].

Industry receives a preview of the NIDR’s research priorities.

ISRF got a preview of the NIDR’s research priorities for the NCP at the second ISRF symposium in September 1969 in Bethesda [ 52 ]. Richard Greulich, the NIDR’s intramural scientific director [ 31 ], spoke on “The Future of Caries Control” one month before the NIDR Caries Task Force Steering Committee would first discuss NCP research priorities ( Table 1 ) [ 52 ]. Greulich said that while water fluoridation (which had been accepted in the US in 1965 as a “proved highly beneficial public health measure ready for widespread implementation” [ 29 ]) had achieved some success, The NIDR knew it was not the sole answer to eradicating dental caries:

From a public health point of view, we do not feel confident that fluoride is the only answer; and biologically speaking, it obviously is not because we have not talked to the other enterprises here. We have mentioned a host factor as represented or reflected by fluoridation. We have not talked to the microbes; we have not talked to the substrate or to nutrition. [ 52 ]

Greulich’s symposium presentation downplayed the value of limiting sucrose consumption as a means to control dental caries:

One could say, on logical grounds and good evidence, that if we could eliminate the consumption of sucrose, we could eliminate the problem—because we would be denying these pathogens their primary source of nutrient. We are realists, however, and we recognize the value of sucrose to nutrition. So while it is theoretically possible to take this approach to demonstrate it , and it has been demonstrated certainly in animal models , it is not practical as a public health measure . It is like saying the maximum speed of a jet plane is the speed of light. It just is not practical to try and evolve on to that point. And so in smooth surface caries, we have a more practical goal in working on the microorganism. [ 52 ] (emphasis added)

Similar to the approaches the sugar industry was promoting, Greulich identified interventions targeting bacteria as promising to the NIDR ( Table 3 , column B), including dextranases, for which the NIDR had been working with the pharmaceutical company Merck Sharpe & Dohme to think through the steps necessary for practical application [ 52 ]. The NIDR was also hopeful about a laboratory finding on “low molecular weight dextrans,” another substance that might be delivered to keep bacteria from producing harmful acid when exposed to sugar [ 52 ].

Beyond its focus on decay-causing bacteria, Greulich told ISRF that the NIDR was investigating ways to modify sugar to reduce its harmful effects [ 52 ]. These dietary modification interventions included adding phosphates to sugar, and the possibility of replacing table sugar, in the form of sucrose, with a liquid sugar, that split the sucrose molecules into glucose and fructose, which were thought to be less harmful to teeth [ 47 ]. Just before concluding, Greulich again assured ISRF that the NIDR research was not a threat to sugar consumption: “I reiterate that the role of sucrose [in dental caries] is undeniable, yet there is very little that anyone would want to do about this other than to explore some of these possible [dietary] modifications” [ 52 ].

Industry convenes a panel that includes many members of the NIDR Caries Task Force.

In October 1969, the NIDR Caries Task Force Steering Committee met to identify research priorities [ 29 ]. As Greulich predicted, the main approaches reviewed focused on interfering with bacteria and dietary modification of sugar ( Table 3 , column C) [ 29 ]. However, a summary of the Caries Task Force Steering Committee meeting indicates that they “also reviewed the agenda for a conference on the role of human foodstuffs in dental caries” [ 29 ]. Caries Task Force Steering Committee member Basil Bibby would participate in the conference organization [ 42 ], and would have the chance to discuss the state of research on models identifying the cariogenicity of foods with the Caries Task Force, but not until March 1970 [ 43 ].

In October 1969, the same month the Caries Task Force Steering Committee was evaluating research priorities to eradicate dental caries ( Table 1 ) [ 31 , 71 ], ISRF President Ross convened his Panel Meeting of the Dental Caries Task Force to consult on ISRF’s dental caries research priorities [ 53 ]. As Table 2 illustrates, the membership of ISRF’s panel overlapped almost completely with the NIDR Caries Task Force Steering Committee. All members of the NIDR Caries Task Force Steering Committee sat on the ISRF expert panel, with the exception of Fitzgerald, whose research on S . mutans had identified sucrose as the worst offender in smooth surface cavities [ 31 , 53 ]. The significant overlap between the membership of the ISRF expert panel and that of the NIDR Caries Task Force Steering Committee gave ISRF direct access to the NIDR’s Caries Task Force Steering Committee.

ISRF’s summary of the ISRF Panel Meeting of the Dental Caries Task Force indicates that the ISRF panel “recommended that a study be made of the cariogenicity of carbohydrate-containing foodstuffs” but did not mention studying the tooth-decay-causing potential of foods in its final “major approaches to caries” [ 71 ] ( Table 3 , column D).

Industry submits recommendations to the NIDR.

ISRF submitted the findings from its series of meetings to the NIDR Caries Task Force late in 1969 in a report titled Dental Caries Research—1969 [ 46 ]. While recognizing the causative role of sugar in tooth decay, ISRF downplayed the feasibility of restricting consumption of sugars while promoting advances made in areas of dextranase and caries vaccine research [ 46 ]. It also summarized dental caries interventions that would reduce the harm of sugar without impacting consumption, including phosphate food additives, protective sealants, and fluoride delivery through expanded community water programs, topical application, and addition to sugar, salt, or flour [ 46 ]. The research priorities identified by the NIDR Caries Task Force Steering Committee in October 1969 ( Table 3 , column C) are strongly aligned with ISRF’s submission ( Table 3 , column E), with the notable exception of developing a model to identify the cariogenicity of foods.

During fall 1969, the Nixon administration focused on biomedical research policy and showed signs of interest in supporting the NCP [ 31 ]. In January 1970, Caries Task Force Chairman Scherp submitted the report A National Caries Program of the National Institute of Dental Research : Ten-Year Program of Research and Development [ 41 ] in response to a request from the Office of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare for a detailed plan for developing dental caries interventions [ 31 ]. Scherp’s report was based on the work of the NIDR Caries Task Force Steering Committee at its October meeting [ 31 ]. Later that month, the Assistant Secretary for Health indicated that President Nixon would endorse the program [ 31 ].

Launch of the National Dental Caries Program, 1970–1971

During his February 1970 budget message, President Nixon announced support for “substantial increases in research on cancer, heart disease, serious childhood illnesses, and dental health—where current findings promise significant advances for the future” [ 31 ]. A line item in the budget allocated US$5 million (US$30.6 million in 2014 dollars) for the NCP in fiscal year 1971 [ 29 ].

In February 1970, after President Nixon’s public endorsement of the NCP but before the NIDR officially released the NCP research priorities, ISRF mailed its report International Sugar Research Foundation Special Report : Dental Caries [ 50 ] to its Scientific Advisory Board. The ISRF report began, “The correlation between sugar and dental decay—a practical concern of the sugar industry for many years—may become a purely academic issue within the foreseeable future,” then described the work ISRF leaders had invested to influence the NCP [ 50 ]. ISRF President Ross had collaborated with the NIDR Caries Task Force Chairman Scherp and had submitted a report created by ISRF staff on dental caries research priorities directly to the NIDR Caries Task Force:

Dental caries has been a constant worry to many consumers of sugar and sugar products. To some scientists, dental caries and sugar are considered almost “synonymous.” ISRF, in its concern about this image, has supported research to uncover many of the unknowns, and has kept in close communication with other institutions which concentrate on such research. The National Institute of Dental Research, of the U.S. Public Health Service’s National Institutes of Health, is the most prominent U. S. organization conducting dental caries research on a broad scale. Last year the Institute formed a Dental Caries Task Force to work “toward the goal of virtually eliminating tooth decay in the United States.” Dr. Philip Ross, ISRF President, met with the Dental Caries Task Force and has worked closely with its Chairman, Dr. Henry W. Scherp. Dental Caries Research—1969, prepared several months ago by the staff of ISRF, reviewed current knowledge of the subject and was submitted to the Task Force for its consideration. [ 50 ]

The NIDR Caries Task Force held its conference on dietary research priorities one month later ( Table 1 ) [ 42 ]. At the NIDR Role of Human Foodstuffs in Caries Workshop Conference, Caries Task Force Steering Committee member Basil Bibby presented a paper, “Methods for Comparing the Cariogenicity of Foodstuffs,” which reviewed the status of research on experimental models to identify food products harmful to teeth [ 43 ]. These models were important, according to Bibby, because it was “desirable to have a relatively speedy and economical method of evaluating cariogenicity, especially of snack-type foods, so that parents can be warned against the more destructive products” [ 43 ]. Bibby’s presentation summarized 12 different models to identify the cariogenicity of foods, ranging from “acid production from foods incubated in saliva” to the production of caries in rats, monkeys, and pigs [ 43 ]. During the discussion of Bibby’s presentation, Caries Task Force members established that “a quick screening method was needed to provide presumptive evidence of the potential cariogenicity of accepted foods and new products that appear almost daily on the shelves of food markets,” although there were differences of opinion on what the best model would be to screen for cariogenicity [ 44 ]. No one argued that the NIDR not pursue standardization of a test that would rank foods on their potential for tooth decay [ 44 ].

Comparison of ISRF and the NIDR Research Priorities

Soon after Nixon’s February 1970 endorsement of the NCP, Scherp began operational planning for program implementation at the NIDR [ 29 ]. Research priorities were first published in an omnibus request for contracts (RFC) [ 29 ] titled Opportunities for Participation in the National Caries Program [ 30 ] in early 1971. The NIDR received 112 proposals and funded 17 contracts [ 29 ] totaling US$3 million (US$18.3 million in 2014 dollars) out of the NCP’s budget of US$6 million (US$36.7 million in 2014 dollars) [ 31 ]. While the 1971 NCP RFC was the first of several RFCs [ 73 ], it established the NIDR’s research priorities for years [ 29 ].

The research priorities in the 1971 NCP RFC largely reflected the research priorities identified at the October 1969 NIDR Caries Task Force Steering Committee meeting (compare columns C and G in Table 3 ). Despite being published nearly a year after the NIDR Caries Task Force Role of Human Foodstuffs in Caries Workshop Conference ( Table 1 ), the 1971 NIDR RFC omitted developing a standardized model to identify the cariogenicity of foods as a research priority.

Comparison of the research priorities identified by ISRF and submitted to the NIDR in 1969 ( Table 3 , column E) with those published by the NIDR in its 1971 NCP RFC (column G) shows that ISRF and the NIDR research priorities were largely aligned. Indeed, a side-by-side comparison of overlapping text from the ISRF submission to the NIDR, Dental Caries Research—1969 [ 46 ], and the 1971 NCP RFC, Opportunities for Participation in the National Caries Program [ 30 ], reveals that 78% of the ISRF submission to the NIDR was directly incorporated into the 1971 NCP RFC. ( S1 Table provides the actual text from the ISRF submission and 1971 NCP RFC.) Of the 274 total lines in the 1971 NCP RFC describing research priorities, 110 lines, or 40%, were taken verbatim or closely paraphrased from the ISRF submission. Of these 110 lines, 34% were copied verbatim from the ISRF report, and 66% were paraphrased.

This study analyzes a series of papers discussing previously undocumented cane and beet sugar industry activities between 1959 and 1971 regarding strategies to influence the research priorities of the NIDR’s 1971 NCP. The documents show that the sugar industry knew that sugar caused dental caries as early as 1950 and did not attempt to deny the causative role of sucrose in tooth decay. Instead, through trade associations, the sugar industry adopted a strategy to deflect attention to public health interventions that would reduce the harm of sugar consumption, rather than restricting intake.

After the NIDR announced it was considering a research program to eradicate dental caries in 1966, the sugar industry used tactics designed to protect sucrose sales. In collaboration with the chocolate and confectionary industries, SRF funded research that supported the idea that enzymes and a tooth decay vaccine could be developed that could eradicate dental decay without requiring sugar restrictions. ISRF conducted reviews of the dental caries literature to identify potential interventions that might reduce the health harms of sugar consumption other than by restricting sugar intake. ISRF cultivated relationships with the NIDR leadership through meetings with the Caries Task Force chairman and through a consultation with members of the NCP steering committee charged with selecting research priorities. A sugar industry report submitted to the NIDR became the basis for the research priorities published in the first NCP RFC.

While not officially recognized as participating in the NIDR Caries Task Force, the sugar industry effectively contributed to the research priorities developed for the launch of the NCP. Research priorities identified in the first NIDR NCP RFC focused on sugar harm reduction strategies, as opposed to sugar restriction, and were strongly aligned with sugar industry research priorities. The NIDR, like ISRF, took the position that sugar restriction was impractical.

The first policies related to the declaration of conflicts of interest for federal advisory committees were implemented in the early 1960s [ 74 ]. Prior to that, concern that industry interests were a threat to scientific integrity was not a majority view [ 75 ]. Significant consumer concern about corporate influence on expert committees would not surface until the 1970s, after the launch of the NCP. By contrast, in 2015, the NIH had an entire program dedicated to ethical contact within its institutes [ 76 ] because of the greater awareness of industry conflicts of interest and how they can adversely impact the scientific enterprise.

The 1970s Missed Opportunity

The majority of the research priorities promoted by the sugar industry and those selected for the 1971 NCP RFC failed to lead to widespread application [ 31 ]. By 1976, clinical studies of dextranase mouth rinses in humans had failed to duplicate the success of using dextranases to inhibit new dental caries in experimental animals [ 31 ]. The NIDR found that the pharmaceutical industry had limited interest in research, development, and distribution of antimicrobial agents, because of the high cost of regulatory approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and doubts about identifying an agent that would be successful on a large scale [ 31 ]. By 1977, NCP researchers had found that their plan to substitute sucrose with a mixture of glucose and fructose “would effect little reduction in food cariogenicity” [ 29 ]. In addition, by 1978, the NIDR had terminated clinical trials on phosphates added to foods because they were ineffective [ 31 ].

The most successful interventions selected for funding following the 1971 NCP RFP were topical fluoride and sealants [ 31 ]. While a 1980 prevalence survey found that the burden of dental disease in children had decreased by more than 30% since the last survey in 1971–1973, 64% of children still exhibited dental caries, far short of the NCP’s founding goal of eradicating the disease [ 31 ].

It is not clear why the NIDR adopted the position in 1969 that reducing sugar intake as a public health measure was impractical. Proposals centered on ways to limit sucrose consumption were just around the corner. In its multi-year review of foods generally recognized as safe initiated in 1969, the FDA deemed sucrose consumption at 1976 levels as unsafe for teeth [ 77 ]. In the coming years, the FDA would consider food labels “to warn against the hazards to the teeth of consuming a particular product” and debate whether warning labels should be placed on foods based on the percentage of sugar content, or on some measure of cariogenic potential [ 78 ].

When reflecting on the NCP in 1990, Basil Bibby, a member of the Caries Task Force Steering Committee, noted that the NIDR approved only “one or two small research grants” related to food cariogenicity compared to the “hundreds of generous awards [that] were made for investigations with so-called high scientific content” [ 79 ]. He also noted that since the NIDR was the major funding source for dental research in the US, “the failure of the National Institute for Dental Research to support research on foods meant that there was no group of investigators in the United States who had enough financial support to undertake significant research on food cariogenicity” [ 79 ].

In 1977, the NIDR finally moved to develop a standardized animal model to identify the tooth-decay-causing potential of foods “with the objective of its being widely accepted in industry, and in regulatory agencies and in academic research, as a basis for distinguishing cariogenic from non-cariogenic snacks” [ 29 ]. While research on an animal model was initiated at the NIDR [ 29 ], the bulk of the research was conducted outside the NIDR, largely funded by the American Dental Association Health Foundation [ 80 ]. Based on the promise of the development of a standardized model to identify harmful foods, in 1978 the US Federal Trade Commission proposed restrictions on advertising cariogenic products to children [ 81 ]. The first US Department of Health and Human Services Healthy People objectives, issued in 1980, proposed banning cariogenic products from schools as a means to control dental caries [ 82 ]. While lobbying efforts of the food, advertising, and broadcasting industries were a major reason for the failure of the FDA, Federal Trade Commission, and Healthy People proposals, another common factor cited for these policy failures is the lack of a standardized model to identify foods harmful to teeth [ 78 , 81 , 83 ].

With industry input, consensus was finally achieved on a standard method to screen foods for cariogenicity at a conference sponsored by the Foods, Nutrition and Dental Health Program of the American Dental Association in 1985, but only to support claims that food products were safe for teeth [ 84 ]. In 1996, the FDA began allowing health claims (i.e., “does not promote tooth decay”) on food products containing sugar substitutes based on a standard screening method for cariogenicity [ 85 ]. The FDA did not, however, require disclosure or labeling of harmful foods. In 1999, a group of clinicians and dental scientists updated the methodology agreed upon in 1985 with the aim of identifying which methods were “suitable as research tools but also for regulatory assessments” [ 86 ]. However, the use of these methods to identify foods harmful to teeth remained controversial [ 87 ].

With the implementation of the nutrition facts panel on packaged food products in 1993, the FDA required the declaration of total sugars [ 88 ], a requirement that remained unchanged as of January 2015. As of January 2015, the FDA was considering a proposed rule to require disclosure of added sugars on the nutrition facts panel [ 88 ], and SA was opposing it, citing “the lack of science to justify ‘added sugars’ labeling” [ 89 ].

Comparison to the Tobacco Industry

The sugar industry formed SRF in 1943 to fund research that supported the industry position [ 34 ], 11 years before the creation of the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) in 1954 to play a similar role for the tobacco industry [ 90 ]. In 1954, the TIRC hired SRF’s first scientific director, Robert Hockett, to serve as the TIRC’s associate scientific director [ 91 ], where he was positioned to help the tobacco industry learn key science manipulation tactics from the sugar industry.

At the same time that the NIDR was planning the NCP, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was pursuing its Smoking and Health Program [ 92 – 94 ]. Like NCP, which focused on sugar harm reduction strategies, the Smoking and Health Program focused on harm reduction strategies with the primary goal of developing a safe cigarette [ 93 ]. The NCI invited tobacco industry representatives to join the NCI’s Tobacco Working Group (TWG), the planning committee for the effort to develop a less hazardous cigarette [ 93 ]. The NCI did so on the assumption that tobacco manufacturers were interested in promoting new, safer cigarettes and had product expertise the NCI lacked [ 94 ]. The NCI also believed industry participation was advantageous because implementation would fall to tobacco companies and, if approached in a positive way, the companies would agree to collaborate [ 94 ]. The willingness of the NIDR leaders to interact with the sugar industry during planning for the NCP may have reflected similar thinking, particularly because responsibility for manufacturing and incorporating additives to reduce the risk of dental caries would fall to food and pharmaceutical industries.

The tobacco industry used its involvement in the TWG to oppose funding of projects, such as smoking cessation programs, that were seen as a threat to industry interests [ 94 ]. The tobacco industry also withheld knowledge about the biological effects of cigarette smoke and human smoking behavior, which negatively impacted the NCI’s efforts [ 94 ]. Indeed, industry use of the TWG to block effective tobacco control strategies was cited by federal Judge Gladys Kessler in her 2006 ruling that the major cigarette companies and their research and lobbying organizations had formed an illegal enterprise to defraud the public in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [ 95 ].

Litigation against tobacco companies has been a major factor in achieving meaningful policy change. Successful litigation could not have been achieved without industry documents research illuminating the strategies and tactics of tobacco companies. This analysis demonstrates that sugar industry documents research has the potential to define industry strategies and tactics, which may potentially prove useful in future litigation.

Limitations

While we were fortunate to discover the Roger Adams papers, we recognize that it provides a narrow window into the activities of just one sugar industry trade association, particularly because other industries had an interest in the outcome of the NCP, including the chocolate and confectionary industries, the pharmaceutical industry, and food companies interested in developing food additives and sugar substitutes. To help compensate for limited access to industry documents, we used other historical materials to cross-validate findings as they emerged throughout the analysis. Another limitation was that we could not interview key actors.

This historical example illustrates how industry protects itself from potentially damaging research, which can inform policy makers today. While it may be valuable in theory for the industry to contribute data about their products to the research community, industry should not have the opportunity to influence public health research priorities [ 94 ]. Regulatory science to support sensible and defensible policies to limit added sugar consumption was not pursued in the 1970s because of the alignment of the NIDR’s research priorities with those of the sugar industry. Actions taken by the sugar industry to impact the NIDR’s NCP research priorities, which echo those of the tobacco industry, should be a warning to the public health community. The sugar industry’s current position—that public health recommendations to reduce dental caries risk should focus on sugar harm reduction as opposed to sugar restrictions—is grounded in more than 60 years of protecting industry interests. Industry opposition to current policy proposals—including a WHO guideline on sugars proposed in 2014 and changes to the nutrition facts panel proposed in 2014 by the FDA—should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that industry interests do not supersede public health goals.

Supporting Information

S1 table. comparison of isrf’s submission to the nidr caries task force, dental caries research—1969 , to nidr’s 1971 national caries program request for contracts, opportunities for participation in the national caries program ..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798.s001

Acknowledgments

We thank Ernest Newbrun, Aubrey Sheiham, Ben Chaffee, Lauren Lempert, Rachel Barry, Lauren Dutra, Margaret Kulik, Randy Uang, and Clayton Velicer for helpful comments on the manuscript. We thank Linda Stahnke, Cara Bertram, and Willam Maher at the University of Illinois Archives for their assistance with the Roger Adams papers. We thank George Coy for his assistance locating documents related to the NCP at NIDCR.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: CEK SAG LAS. Performed the experiments: CEK. Analyzed the data: CEK SAG LAS. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: CEK. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: CEK SAG LAS. Agree with manuscript results and conclusions: CEK SAG LAS. All authors have read, and confirm that they meet, ICMJE criteria for authorship.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 2. Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (2014) Draft carbohydrates and health report—scientific consultation: 26 June to 1 September 2014. http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/339771/Draft_SACN_Carbohydrates_and_Health_report_consultation.pdf . Accessed 30 June 2014.
• 3. (2003) Joint WHO/FAO expert consultation on diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. WHO Technical Report Series No. 916. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/who_trs_916.pdf . Accessed 20 October 2014.
• 4. World Health Organization Nutrition Guideline Advisory Group (2014) Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children—draft guidelines on free sugars released for public consultation, 5 March 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization.
• 5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2014) Food-based dietary guidelines. http://www.fao.org/ag/humannutrition/nutritioneducation/fbdg/en/ . Accessed 20 October 2014.
• 6. World Sugar Research Organisation (2012) About WSRO. http://www.wsro.org/AboutWSRO.aspx . Accessed 7 March 2014.
• 8. World Health Organization (2004) Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health. http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/strategy_english_web.pdf . Accessed 19 December 2014.
• 9. World Sugar Research Organisation (2014) Comments from World Sugar Research Organisation on WHO draft “Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adults and Children.”. http://www.wsro.org/Portals/12/Docs/public/documents/News/FINAL%20WSRO%20Comments%20on%20Draft%20WHO%20Guideline%20on%20sugars.pdf . Accessed 30 January 2015.
• 10. The Sugar Association (2014) Draft guidelines on free sugars released for public consultation, 5 March 2014: “Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adults and Children.” http://www.sugar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Sugar-Association-Comments-Sugars-Intake-Draft-Guidelines.pdf . Accessed 22 August 2014.
• 11. The Sugar Association (2014) The Sugar Association voices concern regarding the World Health Organization (WHO) draft guideline development process and lack of transparency. http://www.sugar.org/sugar-association-voices-concern-regarding-world-health-organization-draft-guideline-development-process-lack-transparency/ . Accessed 12 October 2014.
• 12. Briscoe AC, Gaine PC (2014 Aug 28) [Letter to Margaret Chan, Director General, World Health Organization.] Washington (District of Columbia): The Sugar Association. http://www.sugar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/WHO-Letter-Signed-8-28-14.pdf . Accessed 10 October 2014.
• 16. Taubes G, Couzens CK (2012) Big sugar’s sweet little lies: how the industry kept scientists from asking, does sugar kill? Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign . Accessed 17 October 2014.
• 19. Nestle M (2013) Food politics: how the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley (California): University of California Press.
• 20. Brownell KD, Horgen KB (2004) Food fight: the inside story of the food industry, America’s obesity crisis, and what we can do about it. Chicago: Contemporary Books.
• 21. Freudenberg N (2014) Lethal but legal: corporations, consumption, and protecting public health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 24. Eubanks SY, Glantz SA (2013) Bad acts: the racketeering case against the tobacco industry. Washington (District of Columbia): American Public Health Association.
• 25. World Health Organization (2003) WHO framework convention on tobacco control. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241591013.pdf?ua=1 . Accessed 20 October 2014.
• 27. California Department of Health Services Tobacco Control Section (1998) Model for change: the California experience in tobacco control. Sacramento: California Department of Health Services. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Documents/CTCPmodelforchange1998.pdf . Accessed 2 October 2014.
• 28. Couzens CK (2012) How a former dentist drilled the sugar industry. Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/former-dentist-sugar-industry-lies . Accessed 22 August 2014.
• 29. Rogers WE (1983) The National Caries Program: the first ten years, a brief history of the National Caries Program at the National Institute of Dental Research. Washington (District of Columbia): US Government Printing Office.
• 30. National Institute of Dental Research (1971) Opportunities for participation in the National Caries Program. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003436264 . Accessed 16 May 2014.
• 31. Harris RR (1992) Dental science in a new age: a history of the National Institute of Dental Research. Ames (Iowa): Iowa State University Press.
• 32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Division of Oral Health (2013) Preventing dental caries with community programs. http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/publications/factsheets/dental_caries.htm . Accessed 23 October 2014.
• 33. (1889–1971) Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives. http://archives.library.illinois.edu/ead/ua/1505023/1505023f.html . Accessed 10 October 2010.
• 34. Sugar Research Foundation (1945) Some facts about the Sugar Research Foundation, Inc. and its prize award program. New York: Sugar Research Foundation.
• 35. The Sugar Association (1976) The Sugar Association, Inc. Board of Directors Meeting October 14, 1976 Scottsdale, Arizona. Records of the Great Western Sugar Company. Fort Collins (Colorado); Agricultural and Natural Resources Archive, Colorado State University.
• 36. The Sugar Association (1978) The Sugar Association, Inc. Annual Meeting of Members May 11, 1978, Washington, D.C. Records of the Great Western Sugar Company. Fort Collins (Colorado): Agricultural and Natural Resources Archive, Colorado State University.
• 37. Adams R (1959) Letter to Ernest W. Greene, President of The Sugar Association (September 17). In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 38. Ross P (1968) Letter to Roger Adams of Sugar Research Foundation Scientific Advisory Board (October 3) In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 39. Adams R (1971) Letter to John L. Hickson, Vice President of International Sugar Research Foundation (February 26). In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 40. National Institute of Dental Research (1970) Oral disease: target for the 70’s: five-year plan of the National Institute of Dental Research for optimum development of the nation’s dental research effort. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003253592 . Accessed 13 May 2014.
• 41. National Institute of Dental Research (1970) A National Caries Program of the National Institute of Dental Research: ten-year program of research and development. Bethesda (Maryland): US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health.
• 45. National Caries Program Evaluation Project (1980) Evaluation of the National Institute of Dental Research National Caries Program. Bethesda (Maryland): US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health.
• 46. International Sugar Research Foundation (1969) Dental caries research—1969. In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 47. International Sugar Research Foundation (1969) The International Sugar Research Foundation quadrennial report of research for the years 1965–1969. In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 48. Johnson V (1968) Letter to Scientific Advisory Board of the Sugar Research Foundation (November 19). In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 49. Ross P (1968) Philip Ross, curriculum vitae. In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 50. International Sugar Research Foundation (1970) International Sugar Research Foundation special report: dental caries. In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 51. International Sugar Research Foundation (1969) International Sugar Research Foundation symposium on the status of research in sucrochemistry, diet and heart disease, obesity, dental caries, and clinical nutrition. In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 52. International Sugar Research Foundation (1969) International Sugar Research Foundation research symposium: seeking new approaches to old problems. In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 53. International Sugar Research Foundation (1969) International Sugar Research Foundation dental caries task force October 20, 1969. In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 54. Miller WD (1890) The micro-organisms of the human mouth: the local and general diseases which are caused by them. Philadelphia: S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company.
• 63. Sugar Research Foundation (1950) Progress and prospects, scientific research in physiology, nutrition and special uses of sugar: seventh annual report, 1950. New York: Sugar Research Foundation.
• 65. Fitzgerald R, Keyes P (1962) Attempted immunization of albino hamsters against induced dental caries [abstract]. 40th General Meeting of the International Association for Dental Research; March 1962; St. Louis, MO, US.
• 66. (1968 Nov 16) These monkeys may save your teeth. Montreal Gazette. Montreal: Postmedia Network.
• 67. Cheek DW (1974) Sugar Research, 1943–1972. Bethesda (Maryland): International Sugar Research Foundation.
• 68. International Sugar Research Foundation (1968) The International Sugar Research Foundation, Inc. announces its move to new headquarters. In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 69. Ross P (1969) Memorandum to Executive Committee regarding Research Program (August 11). In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 70. Ross P (1969) Letter to Roger Adams, ISRF Scientific Advisory Board Member (November 14). In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 71. International Sugar Research Foundation (1969) Summary of the discussion and recommendations of the International Sugar Research Foundation panel meeting of the Dental Caries Task Force, October 20–21, 1969. In: Roger Adams: an inventory of the papers of Roger Adams at the University of Illinois Archives. Record Series Number 15/5/23. Urbana (Illinois): University of Illinois Archives.
• 73. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1972) National Caries Program: National Institute of Dental Research—status report 1972. Bethesda (Maryland): US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health.
• 74. Lo B, Field MJ, Institute of Medicine, Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice (2009) Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington (District of Columbia): National Academies Press.
• 76. National Institutes of Health (2014) NIH ethics program overview. https://ethics.od.nih.gov/overview.htm . Accessed 9 February 2015.
• 77. US Department of Health and Human Services (2013) Food and Drug Administration Select Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS) opinion: sucrose. http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/GRAS/SCOGS/ucm260083.htm . Accessed 24 March 2014.
• 78. Miller SA (1981) Sugar, oral health and regulation: a strategy for prevention of oral disease. In: Hefferen JJ, Koehler MS, editors. Foods, nutrition and dental health. Park Forest South (Illinois): Pathotox Publishers. pp. 385–394.
• 79. Bibby BG (1990) Food and the teeth. New York: Vantage.
• 80. Hefferen JJ, Koehler MS, editors (1981) Foods, nutrition and dental health. Park Forest South (Illinois): Pathotox Publishers. 417 p.
• 82. US Department of Health and Human Services (1980) Promoting health/preventing disease: objectives for the nation. Washington (District of Columbia): Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
• 83. United States Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (1986) The 1990 health objectives for the nation: a midcourse review. Washington (District of Columbia): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
• 84. Hefferren J, editor (1986) Scientific consensus conference on methods for assessment of the cariogenic potential of foods: November 17–21, 1985, San Antonio, Texas: proceedings. J Dent Res 65S. 72 p.
• 85. US Food and Drug Administration (2014) Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Volume 2. Part 101—food labeling. Subpart E—specific requirements for health claims. Sec. 101.80. Health claims: dietary noncariogenic carbohydrate sweeteners and dental caries. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.80 . Accessed 20 October 2014.
• 88. US Food and Drug Administration (2014) Proposed changes to the nutrition facts label. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm . Accessed 18 December 2014.
• 89. The Sugar Association (2014) The Sugar Association calls for withdrawal of ‘added sugars’ labeling proposal in comments filed to FDA. http://www.sugar.org/sugar-association-calls-withdrawal-added-sugars-labeling-proposal-comments-filed-fda/ . Accessed 18 December 2014.
• 90. Glantz SA, Slade J, Bero LA, Hanauer P, Barnes DE (1996) The cigarette papers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• 91. Tobacco Industry Research Committee (1954 Dec 6) Scientific associate named by tobacco research group. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/noe6aa00 . Accessed 19 December 2014.
• 92. Gori GB (2000) Virtually safe cigarettes: reviving an opportunity once tragically rejected. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
• 95. US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (2009) United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 449 F. Supp. 2d 1, 157 (D.D.C. 2006), aff’d in part & vacated in part, 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam), cert. denied, 561 US ___, 130 S. Ct. 3501 (2010).