Sugar industry shaped NIH agenda on dental research

first_img Email Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country The sugar industry convinced the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) that studies that might persuade people to cut back on sugary foods should not be part of a national plan to fight childhood tooth decay, a new study of historical documents argues. The authors say the industry’s activities, which occurred more than 40 years ago, are reminiscent of the tobacco companies’ efforts to minimize the risks of smoking.University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), health policy postdoc Cristin Kearns came across the 319 letters, meeting minutes, and other documents dating from 1959 to 1971 in the papers of Roger Adams, an organic chemist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, who consulted for sugar industry–funded research organizations. Kearns found that sugar companies acknowledged as far back as 1950 that consuming sugar contributed to tooth decay. Yet the industry “adopted a strategy to deflect attention” away from reducing sugar consumption and toward ways of reducing its harms, she and her co-authors write.For example, sugar and food companies funded research on a vaccine to prevent tooth decay and on adding an enzyme to foods to break up dental plaque. (A 1968 newspaper article headlined “These monkeys may save your teeth” described a monkey lab that was studying the idea of mixing the enzyme with raw sugar.)center_img In addition, the membership of a sugar industry expert panel was nearly identical to that of a committee at the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) working on the 1971 National Caries Program. After gathering the industry group’s input, NIDR included 78% of its recommendations in its first request for research proposals, the UCSF team found in their analysis, published online today in PLOS Medicine. “What didn’t get done is [research on] developing objective tests to categorize foods as to whether they are safe or harmful to teeth,” Kearns says. That lack of information has limited the ability of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to label certain foods as cavity-promoting, she says.UCSF co-author Stanton Glantz compares the sugar industry’s tactics with what tobacco companies did in persuading the National Cancer Institute not to fund smoking cessation programs. “Our findings are a wake-up call for government officials charged with protecting the public health, as well as public health advocates, to understand that the sugar industry, like the tobacco industry, seeks to protect profits over public health,” Glantz said in a press release. Glantz uncovered tobacco industry documents in the 1990s that led to multibillion-dollar settlements with dozens of state governments.Lillian Shum, director of extramural research at the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (the former NIDR), says she can’t comment on the PLOS Medicine study because “that was 40 years ago and there’s nobody still here who was involved.” But the institute’s current research agenda on dental caries includes the role of eating sugary foods, she notes. And the need to limit sugar consumption “is a message that we deliver,” Shum adds.The Sugar Association, which grew out of one of the industry groups analyzed in the paper, says its staff could not comment directly on the period discussed in the paper. But its statement attacks the paper’s authors for their “use of attention-grabbing headlines and scare tactics that liken consumption of all-natural sugar … to a known carcinogen,” calling it “a ‘textbook’ play from the activist agenda.” The association notes that U.S. dietary guidelines advise the public to lower their risk of cavities by reducing the amount of time that sugars and starches are in contact with teeth before brushing. Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*)last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *