I came across a very interesting article in The New York Times about sugar.
It is a bit long, but worth the read. If every American read this we would be a healthier nation.
Here are some highlights.
“Until Lustig came along, the last time an academic forcefully put forward the sugar-as-toxin thesis was in the 1970s, when John Yudkin, a leading authority on nutrition in the United Kingdom, published a polemic on sugar called “Sweet and Dangerous.” Through the 1960s Yudkin did a series of experiments feeding sugar and starch to rodents, chickens, rabbits, pigs and college students. He found that the sugar invariably raised blood levels of triglycerides (a technical term for fat), which was then, as now, considered a risk factor for heart disease. Sugar also raised insulin levels in Yudkin’s experiments, which linked sugar directly to type 2 diabetes. Few in the medical community took Yudkin’s ideas seriously, largely because he was also arguing that dietary fat and saturated fat were harmless. This set Yudkin’s sugar hypothesis directly against the growing acceptance of the idea, prominent to this day, that dietary fat was the cause of heart disease, a notion championed by the University of Minnesota nutritionist Ancel Keys. …
…By the end of the 1970s, any scientist who studied the potentially deleterious effects of sugar in the diet, according to Sheldon Reiser, who did just that at the U.S.D.A.’s Carbohydrate Nutrition Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., and talked about it publicly, was endangering his reputation. “Yudkin was so discredited,” Reiser said to me. “He was ridiculed in a way. And anybody else who said something bad about sucrose, they’d say, ‘He’s just like Yudkin.’ ” ”
The fact that the whole scientific establishment has been wrong about the dangers of sugar for decades, and that there existed a climate that represses dissenting views, should be sobering for those who believe that global warming must be true because the scientists declare it to be so… and as we all know scientists are only interested in the raw truth and politics never plays a role in how scientists behave or in their conclusions. The fact is that science can be corrupted like anything else.
” Unfortunately, we’re unlikely to learn anything conclusive in the near future. As Lustig points out, sugar and high-fructose corn syrup are certainly not “acute toxins” of the kind the F.D.A. typically regulates and the effects of which can be studied over the course of days or months. The question is whether they’re “chronic toxins,” which means “not toxic after one meal, but after 1,000 meals.” This means that what Tappy calls “intervention studies” have to go on for significantly longer than 1,000 meals to be meaningful. At the moment, the National Institutes of Health are supporting surprisingly few clinical trials related to sugar and high-fructose corn syrup in the U.S. All are small, and none will last more than a few months.”
What a surprise. We are currently undergoing a health crisis in the US whose costs are bankrupting the nation. Considering that the leading diseases are all lifestyle caused one one would think that tackling this problem would be national priority no. 1. Instead the government regulatory agencies say that no conclusions can be drawn due to a supposed lack of evidence and neither are they much interested in doing much more research into the matter. The government´s lack of curiosity and concern leads directly to powerful moneyed interests who want to maintain the profitable status quo.