A new report in appearing in a prestigious medical journal alleges the Sugar Association funded research in the 1960s and 1970s to shift the blame for coronary heart disease from sugar to fat and cholesterol, but the group countered the authors are biased.

The report by three University of California, San Francisco, researchers examined correspondence between the association—then known as the Sugar Research Foundation—and prominent nutrition scientists of the time. The authors concluded the association funded research that exonerated sugar from its role in causing heart disease, which was at odds with a growing body of evidence that made the link.

Sugar Association funding was never publicly disclosed. The authors said the research ultimately tainted scientific opinion on the subject, with few scientists seeing a link between added sugars and coronary heart disease by the 1980s. Medical opinion has since shifted although the Sugar Association downplays the realtionship.

"This historical account of industry efforts demonstrates the importance of having reviews written by people without conflicts of interest and the need for financial disclosure," the author wrote in their report, which appears in the most recent issue of JAMA Internal Medicine. "Scientific reviews shape policy debates, subsequent investigations and the funding priorities of federal agencies." http://bit.ly/2clqLv4

In a statement, the Sugar Association acknowledged its predecessor should have sought more transparency in its research activities. However, the group also pointed out the studies were published at a time when disclosure guidelines for funding research were not as strict as they are now.

"Generally speaking, it is not only unfortunate but a disservice that industry-funded research is branded as tainted," the association said. "What is often missing from the dialogue is that industry-funded research has been informative in addressing key issues."

The association also blasted the report for framing "historical occurrences to conveniently align with the currently trending anti-sugar narrative." The group said it was disappointed in JAMA and "the growing use of headline-baiting articles to trump quality scientific research." http://bit.ly/2cDBb9Y

MORE CEO DATELINE

• Fly-in events this week include United Fresh debate on Trump, Clinton by former USDA chiefs
• National Milk Producers Federation settles lawsuit alleging dairy price fixing
• Retail groups urge passage of trade deal
• State ballot measures keeping associations busy
• District attorneys group says bite-mark review has no teeth