User:HLHJ/sandbox/Sugar industry funding and health information (medrs version)

''Written as a section of the sugar article and the subject of dispute on Talk:Sugar. This is a version with fewer refs; an overcited version is at 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. One review of funding bias concluded "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".

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 National Institute of Dental Research's 1971 National Caries Program was lobbied by the sugar industry, which substantially influenced the types of research the National Caries Program called for. Research that could have harmed the sugar industry was omitted from funding priorities. A U.S. National Institute of Dental Research task force on caries and an industry task force on caries had almost exactly the same members, and the former copied 40% of its report verbatim from the latter.

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 scientists who promote public health messages that are "misleading and part of an effort by Coke to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks have played in the spread of obesity and Type 2 diabetes", according to health experts.

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 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”.