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.