Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

New Evidence Shows the Sugar Industry Suppressed Scientific Research That Linked Sugar to Heart Disease and Bladder Cancer in Rats (Video)

Thursday, November 23, 2017 4:17
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.


By N.Morgan

New evidence exposes that the sugar industry suppressed scientific research that linked sugar to heart disease and bladder cancer in rats.

The Sugar Research Foundation, the group funding the studies, cut the project short and didn’t publish the results.

Nutritionists caution that sugar, not fat, is largely to blame for many of the problems in our modern diets.

For several decades, sugar lobbyists have been taking aim at studies linking sugar and cancer and doing anything they could to discredit the truth.

When a study last year found that mice on sugar-heavy diets were more likely to develop breast cancer, the Sugar Association, one of the biggest sugar lobbying groups in the US, called it “sensationalised.”

The group insists that “no credible link between ingested sugars and cancer has been established.”

However doctors and researchers claim the sugar industry may have been intentionally keeping research about that link from getting published.

A new study in the journal PLOS Biology reveals how the Sugar Association worked to suppress scientific findings on the harmful effects of table sugar on rodents nearly 50 years ago.

The report details the results of two unpublished studies, known as Project 259, which were funded by the sugar lobby in the late 1960s. Both involved research on the effects of feeding sugar to rats.

In the first study, one group of rats was fed a balanced diet of cereal, beans, fish and yeast, while the other rats were given a high-sugar diet.

The researchers found that the sugar eaters test group were at greater risk for strokes, heart attacks and heart disease, and had higher-than-normal levels of fat (triglycerides) in their blood.

The second study compared sugar-fed rats with starch-fed rats and found that the sugar-eating rodents were more likely to have elevated levels of an enzyme associated with bladder cancer in humans.

None of that rodent research saw the light of day, though. The Sugar Research Foundation cut Project 259 short and didn’t publish any of the results.

“Our study contributes to a wider body of literature documenting industry manipulation of science,” the researchers, who hail from the University of California San Francisco, wrote in their report.

In a statement, the Sugar Association denied that allegation, saying the new study is just “a collection of speculations and assumptions about events that happened nearly five decades ago, conducted by a group of researchers and funded by individuals and organisations that are known critics of the sugar industry.”

“We reviewed our research archives and found documentation that the study in question ended for three reasons, none of which involved potential research findings: the study was significantly delayed; it was consequently over budget; and the delay overlapped with an organizational restructuring,” the group said.

But this is not the first time we’ve learned that ‘big sugar’ has gotten in the way of science.

Last year, some of the same researchers found that the Sugar Research Foundation – the former name of the Sugar Association – paid off three Harvard scientist in 1967 to make sugar seem less unhealthy and suggest that fat was the problem in our diets instead.

“The kind of manipulation of research is similar to what the tobacco industry does,” study co-author Stanton Glantz said in a release.

Decades of research on sugar since Project 259 have linked sugar consumption to a glut of serious health problems, including high cholesterol, heart disease, and kidney disease, to name a few.

Recent research also demonstrates that sugar may play a role in tumour growth, but scientists don’t think it makes cancer grow faster, and still aren’t certain whether sugar consumption has any link to cancer formation.

After years of fuelling up on high-sugar, low fat foods, consumers are finally becoming wise to the problems with sugar that were hidden for so many years.

The US Food and Drug Administration is, too – by 2021, all nutrition labels will have to include the per cent daily value of added sugars for the first time, while the “calories from fat” column will get scrubbed.


More Stories Contributed By N. Morgan

We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 11 comments
  • Freeus

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. One look at kids from lower society that eat mainly sugar laden food and drinks tells us everything. Time to get sugar and lying Monsanto GMOS out of our food- let big pharm and doctors can go broke.

  • Pink Slime

    Hello Angle#3,

    Charlie here. How sweet! The real truth is excess and NOT eating in foods in moderation. You wanna know the real cause of human diseases?? Eating vast amounts of unclean foods. Pork, shellfish, crabs, lobsters, etc., that they got you fueled into thinking it’s “gourmet” food. So laughable! :lol: :lol:

    So called “gourmet” foods are creatures that live off the carrion of dead animals. The PIG may be the WORST of all. You should be asking what STARTS cancer?? Not what feeds it! :wink: :wink:

    Doughnuts are clean foods. I recommend no more than a dozen a day. I consider that a moderate amount. :lol: :lol:


    Charlie (oh, you’re welcome. You can have your doughnut and eat it too. Happy Thanksgiving!) :lol: :lol:

    • Andy

      unclean foods, you should be referring to processed foods & factory farmed foods which are full of toxic poisons like antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, GMO’s, trans-fats. humectants, surfectants, anti-caking agents, preservatives (specifically designed to KILL LIFE), artificial colour, artificial flavours, artificial sweeteners, processed/refined sugars etc etc etc etc etc

      pork? shellfish? crabs? lobsters? you get your nutritional information from a fairy-tale lol – your ignorance is astounding – shellfish are filter feeders and eat live organisms, crabs and lobsters are HUNTERS, and guess what, all hunters eat DEAD things, because they kill them

      eat only organic freerange unprocessed foods and you won’t even get colds or flu anymore – almost all disease is a result of poor nutrition

      • Pink Slime

        I don’t know how to reply to your vast ignorance. I could tell you how toopid you are. But I won’t. Your ignorance is like kryptonite to me.

        Just can’t believe what you said. :arrow: :neutral:

      • Gus Fung

        Nothing like the headache caused by reading the knowledge(sewage) imparted from Andy-Pix.

    • 4A7777

      Pink slime is finally on to something…

      Yes. In fact, during the Civil War, feral hogs would feed on the bodies of Confederate Soldiers. That is why feral hogs were not to be eaten. They could be identified by their black skin. Pink pigs, therefore, became highly valuable, and, as such, the Hatfields and McCoys nearly reignited the Civil War over one little pink 🐖.

  • Jan Beute

    The medical industry needs a good shake-up The cholesterol myth is another big lie. For example, in the early 1900′s, Stefansson undertook what was thought to be the most radical diet in history. Then under complete medical supervision for one year Stefansson ate NOTHING but meat. No fruit, no vegetables, no fiber: simply meat. Fatty meat at that. One year later, the physicians reported this: “The most remarkable thing about this study is that nothing remarkable occurred.” Stefansson himself reported dramatic fat loss, incredible energy and never looked back. Low cholesterol can cause cancer, hormone imbalance, immune and liver problems. Statins alter the enzymes in your liver.

  • beLIEve

    Secret Evil Truth Behind the Medical Oath Doctors take,

  • unidentified

    yes sugar and sugar substitutes cause cancer and diabetes :sad:

  • 4A7777

    Right. And the solution was to replace sugar with carcinogenic substitutes.

    Then they replaced butter with margarine.

    Meat with pink slime.

    It all flows downhill.

    But what else could they do? There’s seven billion mouths to feed.

  • The Real Deal

    All one has to do is take a stroll to a local mall or shopping center, sit down, and just watch all the far people walk by. Americans are fucking fat and disgusting. Seriously, don’t take my word for it… just open your eyes and look around. Everyone is a FAT!!! Americans could give a shit about sugar because if you look at all the fatties, they don’t even care about themselves.

Top Stories
Recent Stories


Top Global

Top Alternative



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.