
Sugar lobby paid scientists to blur sugar's role in heart disease (2016) - benaadams
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/12/sugar-industry-paid-research-heart-disease-jama-report
======
PeterStuer
When I first visited the US about 30 years ago, I was often surprised about
how different things like burgers or pizza tasted from here in Europe. It was
like eating candy all the time. These days even over here there's sugar in
almost everything you can buy.

Side note, not related directly: I was also surprised how in some of those
'health' image supermarkets, the fruits like strawberries looked so perfect,
but just had no flavor and tasted just watery. Back here fruits often didn't
look so 'television commercial quality', but exploded with flavors. Again,
these days even here you have to go out of your way to find e.g. a decent
tomato or grow your own.

~~~
cup-of-tea
It's very interesting to take apart some typical American fast food like
McDonalds or Subway and taste it bit by bit, cleansing your pallet as you go.
The bread is literally as sweet as an iced bun or something. Most of the
individual components are tasteless with only things like sauces and pickles
providing flavour.

I've noticed the same thing in supermarket sandwiches and things in the UK.
The one place I haven't noticed it is France. You can buy a sandwich from a
railway station or something there and it will actually taste good.

------
RobertRoberts
Anyone remember Susan Powder in the 90s screaming about how fat was making you
fat? Go checkout the documentary Fed Up, it discusses the massive shift to
low-fat-high-sugar foods being the norm in our grocery stores.

And we wonder why we have such massive preventable disease problems in the US.
(and we are exporting obesity and diabetes around the world now)

Next time you are at the store, check your labels. Almost everything has sugar
in it. There are a dozen names for white sugar now, so check them out.

~~~
ShabbosGoy
A related anecdote: when I was a child I visited Italy with my family, and I
was astonished at how differently pasta sauce tasted in Italy.

I found out much later that the reason was due to the insane amounts of sugar
that are in store bought pasta sauces in the US. The sugar is meant to
compensate for the low quality, unripened tomatoes that go into cheap pasta
sauce brands. To this day, I refuse to use canned pasta sauce. I’d rather make
my own.

~~~
RobertRoberts
Comparing Italian food to US food will quickly spiral out of control in
anecdote-ville. A good friend of mine gets deathly ill from pasta in the US,
but can eat as much as she wants in Italy... (glyphosates is what I suspect
here)

Also, in Italy, I hear they can just get vine ripened veges almost whenever
they want, a bit unfair on the flavor comparison. :(

~~~
randomdata
_> glyphosates is what I suspect here_

That is unlikely.
[https://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp](https://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp)

~~~
RobertRoberts
I no longer trust snopes as I used to.

I got my info from a guy who's job is working in the seed industry confirms
they do actually douse the field in glysophates (is round up the only brand?
not sure)

Also, if you look into Passover flour, Rabbis will insist on this procedure
for their flour to ensure their is no moisture in the wheat before harvest.

Do some more digging instead of just snopes, I suspect they are no longer
completely unbiased.

Edit: I am going to ask my friend for any evidence he can provide, or where I
can find it, in regards to this issue.

~~~
randomdata
_> Do some more digging instead of just snopes_

How about personal experience? I grow wheat. It doesn't get the roundup
treatment. That would be a big waste of money. That's not to say that nobody
does it, but it's not standard practice. Wheat tends to dry down sufficiently
on its own (and there is no such thing as glyphosate-tolerant wheat, so you
would never want to apply it through the growing season).

My colored beans on the other hand... They definitely need the desiccation.
Out of interest, does your friend get sick from beans (not soy)?

~~~
RobertRoberts
Everything I've heard and read is that it's used only at the end of the
season, and just before harvest. Snopes seems to poo-poo this idea. So killing
the wheat isn't the issue, it's already dead.

No idea why glysophates would be used as a desiccant over other dedicated
products... Again, I will be seeing my friend (works in GMO crop industry) in
about 2 weeks, and I will discuss this with him in person, since that is who I
got this information from.

Edit: I suspect that large companies have little motivation to ensure food is
clean and healthy in the same manner as a small farm does. And if you want to
play funny numbers, if you do the math, a _large_ percentage of farmers may
not use glyphosates, but since there are very few large corporate farms, then
that is where Snopes gets it's "small percentage of farmers" comes from. But
ignores the fact that a large percentage of the wheat comes from them. Just a
logic thought on statical manipulation.

~~~
randomdata
_> Everything I've heard and read is that it's used only at the end of the
season, and just before harvest._

Naturally. You'd kill your crop off entirely if you did it any sooner. At the
end of the season you don't care about killing the crop. In fact, it is
desirable.

 _> No idea why glysophates would be used as a desiccant over other dedicated
products..._

And often other products are preferred. However, especially in the case of
beans I grow, it's common to have secondary growth. In this case, you really
do want to kill the plant off completely to ensure it stops producing to allow
harvest to begin. It turns out that roundup is really good at killing plants!

 _> I suspect that large companies have little motivation to ensure food is
clean and healthy in the same manner as a small farm does._

Margins are tight no matter how large your farm is. I have no idea why a farm
of any size of would haphazardly use glyphosate? It is not free, and the cost
of apply it certainly isn't either. Application is quite expensive. Just from
an economic perspective alone, the idea that large farms would randomly douse
their field in roundup makes no sense. It is already a struggle to make money
from wheat in this current market.

I can imagine in some climates that wheat suffers from not dying off fast
enough, similar to the beans I mentioned before, and glyphosate is used in
those circumstances. However, I see nothing to suggest this scenario is
common.

Even if, for argument's sake, we say that it is common: Why does your friend
only react to glyphosate in wheat but not other food products?

~~~
RobertRoberts
>Margins are tight no matter how large your farm is. I have no idea why a farm
of any size of would haphazardly use glyphosate?

The way corporate farms work is different (I'd assume based on other
experiences) than a private farm. One core concept is time to harvest. There
are massive combine harvest schedules that start in the south and work their
way north to harvest. If your crop isn't ready on time, the loss in time and
cost to come back south could be huge cost. Where if you douse a field with
glyphosates, you can guarantee a very specific time for harvest. Both a dead
crop, and a dry one. Which makes it so you don't have to use dryers, something
common around our parts, that cost a lot of money to run.

So I can see a lot of reasons that it would make sense to intentionally soak a
field in the stuff every year weather it killed weeds or not. And this is just
off the top of my head.

>Why does your friend only react to glyphosate in wheat but not other food
products?

I am not suggesting that is the reason in the first place, it's just a guess.
Doctors didn't think unseeable microbes could kill people until the 1800s. And
more recently doctors didn't believe it possible that people would have sever
reactions to latex, yet we know that is true now. So I am not going to assume
anything good about a chemical designed to kill things, and it would be the
first thing I'd remove from my diet if I was getting sick like her from
eating. (vomitting and in bed with fever for days, ick)

~~~
randomdata
_> The way corporate farms work is different (I'd assume based on other
experiences) than a private farm._

I don't see it. Again, the tight margins means that any path to productivity
is quickly adopted by everyone. Especially when it comes to something you can
cashflow like chemicals (fixed assets can be harder to justify for smaller
farms).

 _> There are massive combine harvest schedules that start in the south and
work their way north to harvest._

The large corporate farms have their own equipment. These harvest crews you
speak that travel across the country are more apt to service the small farmer
who cannot justify their own combines. If anything, based on your suggestion,
that would promote more glyphosate use in small farms than the large farms who
have control over their equipment.

But realistically, that harvest run is quite predictable and reliable to begin
with. That seems like the least likely place for needing glyphosate on wheat.
I'm further east and around here even the small farmers own their own combines
due to a small window to get the crops off. You don't dare take the chance on
someone else's schedule like you can in more forgiving climates.

> I am not suggesting that is the reason in the first place, it's just a
> guess.

Fair enough, but you originally said that I should do some more digging. I'm
trying to see the link here, but I'm struggling to see where to go from here.
Would you say the problem limited to durham wheat, or all types of wheat?

~~~
RobertRoberts
>...tight margins means that any path to productivity

But tight margins for a single family owned farm could vary dramatically to
that of a corporate farm, I would estimate. (an educated guess on my part)
Especially if you factor in bulk growth of crops, centralized (and likely
lobbied) subsidies. And the long term desire to push out all privately owned
farms.

An easy comparison here is a mom and pop local hardware store vs a coporate
chain store. Or a local grocery store vs the Walmart grocery store. The
margins can be less for the coporate, and they will still make more money, and
have lower prices. And often times will lose money to grind out the
competition.

You seem to think there is an equal playing field, and discussing it that way.
From my experience and reading, all things large and corporate have a need for
growth inherent in their systems. And the easiest lands to expand into are
small farms. Unless you are an organic farmer? (high profit, low yield)

>The large corporate farms have their own equipment.

Are you sure about that? All of them? And even if they have their own
equipment, don't they still have to start in the south and work their way
north as the harvest seasons shift? Seems like a non-argument.

>But realistically, that harvest run is quite predictable and reliable to
begin with. That seems like the least likely place for needing glyphosate on
wheat.

I am educated guessing and reporting was I was told. I still want to talk to
my friend (GMO worker) as to why he would tell me this. I am now a little more
motivated to just give him a call, but he's a busy guy. :P

_Research_

In the mean time I did some research online, it looks like glyphosates applied
at the end of the harvest increase yield. () So that would explain any extra
cost issues you may think is a deterrent to this practice.

Google search for glyphosates cause hormesis in wheat. It looks like the
amount of glyphosates being used is much less than you'd think to get this
affect. Which again, would affect the costs. (ie, they'd be a lot lower yet
again, because the amounts used are lower than for weed control) Also this
effect (hormesis caused by small doses of weedkiller on plants) has not been
researched much for health reasons, but may be a well known effect in the
corporate farming industry, but not the private farms.

This was interesting to look into. By the time I learn more, I am sure this
post will age too far.

\--

One last link, even Bob's Red Mill says he can't be sure if there glyphosates
in the wheat he sells. (non-organic)

[https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/featured-
articles/glyphosat...](https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/featured-
articles/glyphosate/)

edit: for clarification.

~~~
randomdata
_> But tight margins for a single family owned farm could vary dramatically to
that of a corporate farm, I would estimate._

You're right, large businesses have economic advantages, but I think you may
have misunderstood me. The large farms have tight margins. The small farms
have _no_ margins. I'm not sure why a large operation would throw their
profits away to applying glyphosate for, in this context, absolutely no
reason.

 _> don't they still have to start in the south and work their way north as
the harvest seasons shift?_

Are you sure you're not still thinking of the harvest crews that provide
custom harvesting services to other farmers? They absolutely start in the
south and work north. These businesses generally do not manage the farms
themselves, however. They serve other farmers, typically smaller ones who do
not have the acreage to justify the capital expenditure for harvest equipment
(the cost of new combine alone is rapidly approaching the $1,000,000 mark).

Assuming we're still talking about the US (like you said, pasta does not cause
the same symptoms in other countries) I have found no single grain farm that
is large enough to span that large of a distance. Do you have a particular
business in mind that I may have missed?

 _> it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase
yield._

Increase yield at the _end of harvest_? I mean, I guess. Glyphosate has mass
and adding it to the storage bin will increase the stored weight by some
amount. You'd make _a lot more_ money selling the glyphosate in its pure form
though. It's value by a given mass far exceeds that of wheat. I don't think
this is what you really meant.

If you meant soon after planting, I found one study that suggested that a low
dose in the 3rd leaf stage could stimulate growth to increase yield. The study
was also dated 2016. This is the first I heard of it, and I expect most
farmers are in the same boat. The study said that previously this was thought
to not be possible. Of those who have tried it, we're talking, what,
realistically one crop? Did your friend's problem just start recently when it
was previously not an issue?

I'll add that I'd need to see a ~5% yield bump just to cover the cost of
application, never mind making additional money. Higher yields alone does not
necessarily make it worthwhile, and I'm not convinced that even with the
findings of this study that it would be worth it. There are plenty of things
you can do to increase yield, but it's still a cost/benefit thing. The goal of
farm business is maximizing profit, not maximizing yield.

Also, you didn't answer if your friend's problem was limited to durham wheat
or not. You originally suggested that might be the case, but haven't
elaborated since. It's fine to look at roundup as a potential reason, but why
not discuss all of the potential variables?

 _> One last link, even Bob's Red Mill says he can't be sure if there
glyphosates in the wheat he sells. (non-organic)_

Which is quite telling. When you deliver a load of wheat, the destination will
take a small sample for further analysis. If that small sample contains
glyphosate, they will know about it. The problem is that when you have grain
mixed from many sources, that small sample may not be the area of the load
that does contain traces of glyphosate. As such, it is quite possible for some
to slip through.

The fact that we're only talking small amounts slipping through and not entire
loads "doused" in it, goes to show that the practice is not common, which is
what I said from the start.

~~~
RobertRoberts
>I'm not sure why a large operation would throw their profits away to applying
glyphosate for, in this context, absolutely no reason.

It's not for no reason, it appears that it can increase yield.

>Do you have a particular business in mind that I may have missed?

Nope, I am doing educated guessing, as I have mentioned a number of times.

>Increase yield at the end of harvest?

Go do some research, the answer is "yes". Extra wheat berries/bulbs/seeds (?)
are grown at the end of the season.

>Did your friend's problem just start recently when it was previously not an
issue?

She's had issues for a while, but not her whole life. I'd have to ask. But
people who are weaker in general would be affected by lower doses of poison
than stronger people. I'd consider her a canary for the rest of us.

>Higher yields alone does not necessarily make it worthwhile...

I am not an accountant, so I can't argue for or against this. But if there is
no financial incentive, why would this _ever_ be done? Yet, we know it is
being done, it's not a "maybe", it's an absolute.

All we are arguing over is how common this practice is. Which is a fact,
something you can't debate, we just need the data.

>Also, you didn't answer if your friend's problem was limited to durham wheat
or not. You originally suggested that might be the case, but haven't
elaborated since. It's fine to look at roundup as a potential reason, but why
not discuss all of the potential variables?

I don't know which specific foods (or which specific wheat types) affect her.
I will have to ask her.

>As such, it is quite possible for some to slip through.

The post from Bob's Red Mill was clear, some of his suppliers use it. So
nothing is "slipping through".

Also, the yield improvements from hermosis were based on a far smaller amounts
than I thought possible. But how much added poison is just fine with anyone?

~~~
randomdata
_> It's not for no reason, it appears that it can increase yield._

Based on a study that is so recent, not to mention something that has not
proven to pencil out in the first place, that there is no reason to believe it
is used widely in practice. _Especially_ for crops before the current one
given that the science was completely unknown before that. If your friend's
problem just started in the last few months, maybe you're on to something.

But also, I will point out that 3rd leaf stage is quite early in the plant's
development. What mechanism allows the glyphosate to remain in the system
until harvest? At least with desiccation it is understandable that some
glyphosate will come in contact with the actual consumable product. The
consumable part doesn't exist in third leaf.

 _> Go do some research, the answer is "yes". Extra wheat berries/bulbs/seeds
(?) are grown_

Okay, how? At the end of harvest the crop is out of the field and stored
away/already consumed. That's what harvest means, after all. Remember, you
literally wrote: _" it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the
harvest increase yield."_

How are the berries that are already in the bin, which could be stored
thousands of miles away by that point, maybe even already eaten, going to
multiply by you spraying a barren field with roundup?

This is the strangest agricultural claim I have ever heard – and being a
farmer, I hear a lot of strange claims about agriculture from 'city folk' who
have never been outside of a city.

 _> But if there is no financial incentive, why would this _ever_ be done?
Yet, we know it is being done_

We already established it is done for desiccation in certain climates. Your
links say so, my links say so. My direct experience with agriculture as a
farmer says it is a practice that is done with crops, but not so common in
wheat. Your own link even confirmed this. There's really not much more to say
about this.

 _> I don't know which specific foods (or which specific wheat types) affect
her. I will have to ask her._

How, exactly, have you come up with the theory of glyphosate being the link
when it appears that you know almost nothing about her condition? I am
starting to get the impression you have an axe to grind rather than an
interest in finding out what the source of the problem is, be it glyphosate or
something else.

 _> The post from Bob's Red Mill was clear, some of his suppliers use it. So
nothing is "slipping through"._

Yes, the post is quite clear. The post explicitly states that some of their
suppliers that collect from multiple sources may take in loads that have had
glyphosate applied. When you mix those loads in with all of the loads the
supplier has collected from many farmers, you're going to have pockets of
grain delivered to the mill that cannot be reliably detected for the presence
of glyphosate due to the reasons I outlined before. This is what slipping
through means in my mind. If the product commonly contained traces of
glyphosate, analysis would quickly detect it every time.

~~~
RobertRoberts
> _Based on a study that is so recent_

I didn't quote any particular study, you did. I found a few of them, and I am
not well enough versed or studied to argue for or against them.

> _...there is no reason to believe it is used widely in practice..._

And I have not provided any proof either, I only reported what I have been
told.

> _If your friend 's problem just started in the last few months, maybe you're
> on to something._

Nope, she's had issues for years, but have gotten worse over time. But again,
related to only some food products, as far as I know. (I have never
interviewed her about this, I will now)

> _What mechanism allows the glyphosate to remain in the system until
> harvest?_

I am not an expert, you are arguing with me as if I am claiming this, I am
not, nor have I. I simply reported a few facts relayed to me from 2 different
people, and I did some guessing and reporting of what I found online.

The answer to this question seems to be simple, it's sprayed on the plant
while it is still alive, and it doesn't kill it.

Look up hermosis, I can't explain it.

> _How are the berries that are already in the bin, which could be stored
> thousands of miles away by that point, maybe even already eaten, going to
> multiply by you spraying a barren field with roundup?_

Well, the research I found showed putting small amount of glyphosates on a
living plant, not enough to kill it, caused "hermosis"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis))
in wheat, which caused extra wheat seeds to grow.

> _This is the strangest agricultural claim I have ever heard..._

I didn't make it up, so it would be a decent courtesy of you to recognize that
it's not my idea, I am not a scientist, I am just reporting what I read.

> _We already established it is done for desiccation in certain climates. ...
> There 's really not much more to say about this._

One of your key arguments against the idea of putting round-up on living wheat
crops was because there was no financial incentive. Are you retracting those
statements?

> _How, exactly, have you come up with the theory of glyphosate being the link
> when it appears that you know almost nothing about her condition?_

Logic. She has very specific illness that she thought was related to GMO
wheat. She can eat wheat in foreign countries, and doesn't get sick there. I
just found out last week there is no GMO wheat anywhere on the planet, from a
friend who works in the GMO industry. And in the same conversation he told me
that they spray wheat with glyphosates. It adds up as a distinct possibility.

I have not spoken with either friend since, and was only reporting what I was
told by both.

> _This is what slipping through means in my mind._

Everything I understand about the phrase "slipping through" means something
gets through, even though it's trying to be stopped. If people know about it,
they are "letting it through", I think that's an important distinction.

------
teslabox
> Influential research that downplayed the role of sugar in heart disease in
> the 1960s was paid for by the sugar industry, according to a report released
> on Monday. With backing from a sugar lobby, scientists promoted dietary fat
> as the cause of coronary heart disease instead of sugar, according to a
> historical document review published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Is this article implying that trans fats have been cleared of the charges
against them [0]?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Coronary_artery_dise...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Coronary_artery_disease)

I think naturally-saturated fats have mostly been vindicated of the charges
leveled against them in the 1950's and 1960's, but the medical guild hasn't
updated their message.

~~~
pascalxus
No trans fat are extremely dangerous and should never be eaten in any large
quantity. FDA trans fat ban: Proposal makes clear no amount is safe:
[http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-fda-trans-
fats-2...](http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-fda-trans-
fats-20131107-story.html)

Saturated fats are a bit more complicated. There's a little bit of Sat fats in
everything, even vegetables and fruits ~0.5-2%. A certain amount is okay, up
to about 5-6% of your diet can be sat fats. but you don't want to go more than
that, or you risk increasing your LDL. Some people can handle more, some
can't, this will vary from person to person. But, if you get back from a blood
test and it says your LDL is too high, you'll need to cut back on Sats.

------
Sephr
The corruption is so bad that the sugar industry may have had a hand in
writing the import/export laws for Canada. High-fat foods like Soylent are
illegal to import there.

~~~
jnwatson
Soylent the “food” isn’t illegal. Soylent the “meal replacement” is.

One of their competitors, KetoChow gets around this by tongue-in-cheek
requiring that their Canadian customer add a cup of maple syrup before
consuming.

~~~
Sephr
Correct, I am referring to Soylent as-is, with its current marketing copy.

The company should not have to suggest unhealthy preparations to get around
unjust import laws.

------
partycoder
Science in most cases represents a local maximum... the frontier of our
understanding. But having a limited understanding is different from willfully
presenting false information.

The latter is unethical and should have consequences, especially when the
result is loss of life. Consequences not limited to: admitting that the
information is false, loss of license, jail, etc.

------
rand_r
“Sugar”, like “drugs”, is too general a term to use in a discussion on health.
Glucose and fructose, both forms of sugar, are metabolized differently and
have different health effects.

~~~
icelancer
People spend far too much time discussing the specifics, like glucose vs.
fructose. Then they eat 8500 kcal/day but eat the "right" sugar and they're
supposedly healthy. It's easier to care about fancy things rather than the
basics.

Physics dominates everything, first and foremost. Thermodynamics governs diet
through energy conservation laws that run the universe. That's rule #0.
Everything else is maybe 20%. Human biology does not trump the laws of nature.

~~~
reureu
Our body functions predominantly on ATP, not on glucose or fructose or fat or
protein. ATP gets generated from those other macromolecules in pretty
complicated biochemistry. You're definitely right that thermodynamics governs
everything, but it governs it at the ATP level and not at the macronutrient
level. Those additional layers of abstraction distort the whole calories in-
calories out math.

Eating the "right" thing is more important than eating the "right" number.
Consider eating 800 calories of protein versus 800 calories of alcohol (also
technically a macronutrient). You're going to metabolize each differently, and
you'll probably feel better eating the former than the latter. This is
obviously an extreme example, but the point is that things that you eat affect
your body in ways beyond that magic calorie number.

~~~
Tharkun
I can assure you, I feel a lot better after 800kcal worth of alcohol (about 3
beers) than after 800g of protein (a small chicken).

------
speby
Nothing to see here ... move along please. Any industry, anywhere, anytime,
that has even the slightest threat to their existence from bad news coming
from scientific data being published to the mainstream will always have
industry players and their respective lobbying groups making various attempts
to block, downplay, twist, blur, and other manipulate the storyline. Why? It's
simple... if sugar were determined to be a "sinful ingredient" to the health
of the masses, the sugar industry would be ruined.

We've seen it over and over again in so many industries (not the least of
which is tobacco) that its almost expected and in fact, if you merely attempt
to look for these kinds of player actions in any industry, you will absolutely
find them.

------
merricksb
Same report discussed in this post 2 months ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15759562](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15759562)

------
mixmastamyk
There’s a good doc on Netflix called “Sugar Coated,” that compares the
industry to big tobacco.

------
kevin_thibedeau
And what would that role be?

~~~
hristov
It causes it.

~~~
sreaching
little to no high quality evidence from RCTs to support this view.

~~~
bitwize
Because the sugar industry suppressed it... doy.

------
jlebrech
sure, sugar is BAD. but this is the meat industry's last diversion before they
get scrutinised.

