User:HLHJ/sandbox/Sugar industry funding and health information

Sugar refiners and manufacturers of sugary foods and drinks have sought to influence medical research and public health recommendations, with substantial spending documented from the 1960s to 2016. The results of research on the health effects of sugary food and drink differ significantly, depending on whether the researcher has financial ties to the food and drink industry. The authors of a 2016 review of funding bias concluded that "This industry seems to be manipulating contemporary scientific processes to create controversy and advance their business interests at the expense of the public's health". A 2013 review concluded that "unhealthy commodity industries should have no role in the formation of national or international NCD [ non-communicable disease ] policy".

The Sugar Research Foundation, a trade association for the sugar industry, conceived, funded, and participated in an influential 1967 medical review in response to other medical research. It was called "SRF Funds Project 226", and published as "Dietary Fats, Carbohydrates and Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease". While this took place in 1965-1967, it was documented in a 2016 JAMA Internal Medicine publication which reviewed industry documents. Taking into account "other recent analyses of sugar industry documents", the review concludes that such actions were part of a wider industry-sponsored research program in the 1960s and 1970s. It also concludes that "Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies".

The U.S. National Institute of Dental Research's 1971 National Caries Program was lobbied by the sugar industry, which substantially influenced the types of research the caries program called for. Research on food cariogenicity that could have harmed the sugar industry was omitted from funding priorities. The NIDR's public health task force on caries and an industry task force on caries had almost exactly the same members. The NIDR copied 78% of the industry groups' report into their own, with portions being copied verbatim.

Industry groups cast doubt on the evidence behind the World Health Organization 2003 recommended limit on free sugar consumption. When the WHO updated the recommendations, a decade later, it commissioned two reviews, and found support for both the earlier recommendation and a new, stricter one.

In 2011, the competing Corn Refiners Association (which makes sugar syrups) and the Sugar Association became involved in a lawsuit against one another, which continued as of 2015. In the course of this lawsuit, numerous internal documents were made public. These revealed funding of over $10 million to James Rippe for health research and media outreach, and a combined $4 million to Citizens for Health and Center for Consumer Freedom, which publicly opposed one another's views on the healthiness of the rival products without acknowledging their funding (such shilling is legal following the Citizens United ruling).

In 2015, it was reported that Coca-cola was paying millions to promote public health messages. The money went to researchers, dietitians, health experts, research organizations, and professional associations, among others.

Following this media attention, Coca-cola released information on almost $120 million U.S. dollars given out to medical, health and community organizations between 2010 and 2015. These include $29 million for academic research; the largest donation was $7.5 million to Louisiana State University's Pennington Biomedical Research Center. Coca-cola has now announced that it will "pull back" (reporter's phrasing) from funding health experts and obesity research, in order to improve its transparency.

A 2016 investigation of PepsiCo and Coca-cola sponsorship and lobbying found funding going to "63 public health groups, 19 medical organizations, seven health foundations, five government groups and two food supply groups", including the National Institutes of Health, the American Diabetes Association, and professional associations of medical specialists. They found evidence that PepsiCo had funded 14% of the organizations, and Coca-cola had funded 99%. However, the authors suspect this difference is overestimated; Coca-cola had recently released some funding data (see previous paragraph), while, they say, PepsiCo is “known for making its sponsorship data extremely difficult to track”.

Working notes
This section is not intended to be posted as part of the article, it's a grab bag of things to maybe use later.

Report with many financial details: https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/cspi_soda_philanthropy_online.pdf paying for individual articles by nutritionists: http://www.startribune.com/coke-a-good-snack-health-experts-working-with-coke-say-so/296404461/

Removed refs

...public's health".

...verbatim.

...vascular disease".

Sugar and unhealthy food taxes:

Australian paradox sugar consumption and obesity in Australia

Sponsored:
 * "63 public health groups, 19 medical organizations, seven health foundations, five government groups and two food supply groups"
 * American Diabetes Association
 * National Institutes of Health
 * American Red Cross
 * Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (has now stopped taking funding)
 * American Academy of Pediatrics (has now stopped taking funding)
 * Save the Children (stopped advocating soda taxes after getting Coca-cola funding)
 * ... and others. Could someone wil full-text access complete this list? I think the cite should be added to the articles of these organizations.

PepsiCo “known for making its sponsorship data extremely difficult to track”

First sentence:

The Schillinger paper got a lot of news coverage, as it was published just before a relevant ballot measure: http://time.com/4553110/soda-industry-sugar-obesity-diabetes/ https://www.statnews.com/2016/10/31/sugar-industry-bias/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/when-soda-makers-fund-studies-links-to-obesity-weaken/ https://www.sfgate.com/health/article/UCSF-doctor-cites-bias-in-health-studies-linked-10426031.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Doctor-cites-bias-in-health-studies-linked-to-10426416.php https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/industry-funded-soda-studies-don-t-recognize-obesity-risks/ (republication)

https://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/industry/LBNL-52307.pdf - capital costs of a refinery

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/11/14-031114.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/482027a

https://retractionwatch.com/2015/11/25/prominent-nutrition-researcher-marion-nestle-retracting-recent-article/

http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.f7654


 * ~$10 million plus a $41,000-a-month retainer to James Rippe, at least some of it for health research and media outreach
 * $0.5 million to Citizens for HealthCenter for Consumer Freedom
 * $3.5 million in confidential funds to Berman & Company, of which $3.2 million went to support the Center for Consumer Freedom


 * $29 million for academic research
 * >$3 million American Academy of Pediatrics (the academy ended the relationship at the end of 2015)
 * $3.1 million to the American College of Cardiology
 * >$3.5 million to the American Academy of Family Physicians
 * $2 million to the American Cancer Society
 * ~$1.7 million to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
 * $1.5 million to the Global Energy Balance Network
 * $7.5 million to Louisiana State University's Pennington Biomedical Research Center

Comment
Please put future comments on Talk:Sugar to keep the discussion centralized


 * This reads like a soapbox editorial; WP:SOAP. It combines several news articles on the same topic as "extensive evidence", discusses the sugar-caries issue already represented in the article, elaborates on Coca-Cola which sells Coke, not sugar, alleges links of research outcomes to sugar industry financing (unconvincing), and doesn't educate us about sugar in society beyond the present concise statement. If you can add one sentence supported by a strong source to the present article content, I and perhaps other editors may agree to it. But the mess above is not worth further time, so I am finished in dealing with this. Zefr (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Zefr, I didn't see that you'd responded here and thought that you hadn't responded. If you ping me next time I'll try to get back faster. I'll work on addressing your concerns tomorrow. I was not intending this to be a general statement on sugar in society; that's why I changed the section title. Thank you for you patience. HLHJ (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)