If you want to head off regulation arising from evidence that links your product to ill health, muddy the waters by creating the impression of a controversy where none exists. A US study highlights this approach, suggesting the “manufacture of scientific controversy” casting doubt on the connection between sugary drinks, obesity and diabetes. Of 60 studies analysed, all 26 that failed to find a relationship had links to the sugary drinks industry. (Annals of Internal Medicine, doi.org/10/bsm8).
This comes after a September paper in JAMA claimed that the sugar industry “sponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt on the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in coronary heart disease”. Earlier studies confirm the influence of industry funding on science in relation to sugary drinks and nutrition research.
It’s not just the sugar industry. There is an emerging and wide-ranging literature on the extent to which science is biased by industry funding in general – including in randomised controlled trials. In the corporate world, managing science is simply a part of wider strategies to influence government policies to protect profits. Manufacturing scientific controversy is, in other words, part of lobbying by the alcohol, tobacco and sugar industries. This includes establishing or funding seemingly independent “scientific” bodies to manage the way in which their products are regulated or debated.
To avoid the manipulation of science and the manufacture of uncertainty over the need for public health action, we need better, more effective independent regulatory bodies with budgets sufficient to monitor and enforce ethical norms and transparency. (Based on an article by David Miller, professor of sociology at the University of Bath, UK, co-founder of the Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and author of “Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours”. New Scientist ow.ly/Hs60305QI6Y )
For countless centuries sugar in any form was unknown to most of the world’s population. Once we had it planted and harvested by slaves and mass produced (thank you, Tate & Lyle) , the population became increasingly addicted to sugary drinks, cakes, biscuits etc until even soup now has sugar in it. This wouldn’t matter except that sugar is scientifically and conclusively connected with obesity and diabetes, the biggest growing disease in the world, although fast food is also a co-culprit. This cannot be dismissed as a matter of personal choice. Some people are genetically prone to be fat. But for a majority it is largely an unnecessary disease, prevented by good diet and exercise. It affects the health services and their funding all over the world, costing huge, unnecessary sums (beds, wheelchairs, aircraft seats, ambulances etc etc have to be adapted for huge weights never planned for originally). It can lead to the severing of limbs, a lifetime of self-injection , and early death. We, the taxpayers should not have to pay extra for a cash-strapped health service in order to assist the sugar (or fast food) industries. We should fight back against bogus surveys paid by industry. They are contributing to the lack of faith in science generally, a disaster for our society. We must be able to trust our researchers and scientists.
You’re absolutely right about these bogus studies! Nowadays one can find a study to prove almost anything. The only thing I’d add is the need for the media to be more responsible in publishing stories based on these studies. Very often a headline will make a fantastic claim. But then when you click on the article, there will seldom be a reference to the data itself. As someone at university, I find this very frustrating because I can’t use those articles as evidence, only the data itself. Scientists also have a responsibility to present the data in an accessible way, instead of using these highly unreadable graphs and lengthy data tables that don’t get to the point.
What I’m more sceptical about is complaint about people who consume large amounts of sugar on the basis that they burden the health service. You hear a lot of that from consevatives who understandably want to pay less in tax. But I don’t think the state should be in the business of telling people what they should and shouldn’t eat. Yes bogus studies are wrong and ought to be regulated. But equally, living in a free society means having the freedom to make bad choices, even if they come at the expense of the wider population. Also, within the developed world, there is an economic dimension to sugar consumption: somewhat paradoxically, the poor consume more than the rich. So fighting excessive surgar intake should mean lifting people out of poverty, to give them the resources to control their lives, rather than trying to control their lives for them.
“We must be able to trust our researchers and scientists.”
Exactly, and that means aggressive transparency at every step of a scientific project–how hypotheses are formulated, the adequacy of the data collection, and, especially the integrity of experimentation and testing. Violation of any of these procedures disqualifies the endeavor as “scientific.” For example, how rigorous is Big Pharma in reporting all aspects of their drug testing? especially including the failures?
Unfortunately, that’s just a rhetorical question.
What if the problem were phrased differently than whether or not “the state should be in the business of telling people what they should and shouldn’t eat.” For example, it seems to me that the state could legitimately guarantee that nutritional science be monitored so that we are fully and truthfully informed so we would KNOW what to eat or avoid. That sort of information can not be acquired by the isolated individual, it has to be a scientifically authentic communal effort and not left solely to the drug industries.
I completely agree that the state should regulate the truthfulness of science and the food industry. I don’t think the main problem with excessive sugar consumption is that people are being misinformed. They know eating sugar is bad for them, and they do it anyway. My point is that for me, the right to eat what you wish is greater than the right to pay less in tax. I’m all in favour of healthy eating campaigns like the one Michelle Obama has done, increasing exercise done in schools, gym vouchers for the poor, more information on nutrition, etc. But I’m very uncomfortable with the state using stringent regulations and taxes to reduce sugar consumption, because those are imposed upon people, not taken up voluntarily.