The Sugar Conspiracy

[johnnya24]

Terrific article on the politics and history of food science. Well worth the read.

Robert Lustig is a paediatric endocrinologist at the University of California who specialises in the treatment of childhood obesity. A 90-minute talk he gave in 2009, titled Sugar: The Bitter Truth, has now been viewed more than six million times on YouTube. In it, Lustig argues forcefully that fructose, a form of sugar ubiquitous in modern diets, is a “poison” culpable for America’s obesity epidemic.

A year or so before the video was posted, Lustig gave a similar talk to a conference of biochemists in Adelaide, Australia. Afterwards, a scientist in the audience approached him. Surely, the man said, you’ve read Yudkin. Lustig shook his head. John Yudkin, said the scientist, was a British professor of nutrition who had sounded the alarm on sugar back in 1972, in a book called Pure, White, and Deadly.

“If only a small fraction of what we know about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive,” wrote Yudkin, “that material would promptly be banned.” The book did well, but Yudkin paid a high price for it. Prominent nutritionists combined with the food industry to destroy his reputation, and his career never recovered. He died, in 1995, a disappointed, largely forgotten man.

I cut excess (unnecessary) sugar from my diet a while back, and noticed an almost immediate effect. No way I'm dropping carbs, but removing processed foods which are full of heavily processed sugar and other crap, sugar in coffee tea and general sweet stuff was pretty easy and well worth it.

[johnnya24]

Pretty sure this guy is well outside the scientific mainstream with his unsupported claims, which is not surprising given how outlandish they are.

The "scientific mainstream" is one of the points / targets of the article.

[chancellor]

The information on Yudkin, other than opposition from sugar interests and some opposing epidemiologists, is wholly false. He wrote a number of successful books after Pure, White, and Deadly, and wrote prolifically (and profitably) for a number of newspapers and magazines.

Moreover, his advice was taken into account in the US in the late 1970s.

[johnnya24]

The information on Yudkin, other than opposition from sugar interests and some opposing epidemiologists, is wholly false. He wrote a number of successful books after Pure, White, and Deadly, and wrote prolifically (and profitably) for a number of newspapers and magazines.

Moreover, his advice was taken into account in the US in the late 1970s.

The article mentions the book was successful. In fact that's probably why the response was so fierce. Science isn't as open as it likes to believe. People have life's work, careers and reputations to protect. The point of the article was about the attitude of scientific community towards an idea that didn't fit with the mainstream views (which turned out to be dangerously false) ... and IMO it's even more interesting because the debate is still in flux.

[revo]

The Sugar Conspiracy would be a good name for a band.

[chancellor]

The article mentions the book was successful. In fact that's probably why the response was so fierce. Science isn't as open as it likes to believe. People have life's work, careers and reputations to protect. The point of the article was about the attitude of scientific community towards an idea that didn't fit with the mainstream views (which turned out to be dangerously false) ... and IMO it's even more interesting because the debate is still in flux.

Well, let's break it down to specifics. The article implies he was forced out of his professorship by the sugar industry and other commercial interests. There is likely truth in the fact that major industries may have put pressure on his university. However, his resignation aligns closely to when he was finishing his next book and writing a lot for other publications.

Destroyed his reputation? Hardly. If anything, they enhanced it and he made much more money in his career after being a professor than he would have staying. Moreover, as I noted, his recommendations clearly influenced US government recommendations in the late 70s, so his reputation still must have been pretty good.

I'm not sure where the "disappointed, largely forgotten man" comes from, other than thin air. He was a very popular writer, so he was hardly forgotten. He was active in many areas, published in academic journals further, and lived a decently long life.

[johnnya24]

As a rule, when one's argument requires massive, international conspiracy to make sense it's something that's probably bullshit. And conveniently, this type of conspiracy makes the outlandish claim unassailable --- "well, that's what THEY want you to think! Of COURSE the secret triad of sugar companies, government shills, and evil researchers want you to think sugar isn't toxic!"

If claims like "sugar is worse than the bubonic plague" cannot stand on their own merits, they should be discredited - and they are.

Did you read the article. Guess not. No-one said it was a massive conspiracy. It was the prevailing scientific attitude in the post-war period that the simplistic (and common sense) association that saturated fat was the cause of obesity. When a view came along that challenged the norm, it's not a conspiracy (god I hate how the overuse of that word has turned it into an insult), it's what happens almost every time ... the community that depends on the norm rally in defense of the prevailing status quo and attack conflicting opinions ... discrediting the purveyors and putting fear into the new generation that their could find themselves on the outside.

This is how science works. They even quoted Max Plancks view of how the scientific community responds to challenges.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

This prevailing and highly polarized attitude that something is either a conspiracy or truth is nonsense ... and dangerous to critical thinking.

[johnnya24]

Well, let's break it down to specifics. The article implies he was forced out of his professorship by the sugar industry and other commercial interests. There is likely truth in the fact that major industries may have put pressure on his university. However, his resignation aligns closely to when he was finishing his next book and writing a lot for other publications.

Destroyed his reputation? Hardly. If anything, they enhanced it and he made much more money in his career after being a professor than he would have staying. Moreover, as I noted, his recommendations clearly influenced US government recommendations in the late 70s, so his reputation still must have been pretty good.

I'm not sure where the "disappointed, largely forgotten man" comes from, other than thin air. He was a very popular writer, so he was hardly forgotten. He was active in many areas, published in academic journals further, and lived a decently long life.

Read the article. He retired in 1971 to write the book. So no, the article does not imply anything about being forced out of his professorship. His department replaced him with a more orthodox scientist, then reneged on a promise to let him use the facilities.

He had been presenting these idea from 1957, and as the article stats, his ideas were initially taken seriously. But his work became marginalised by the mainstream ... which happens in almost every field of science in every generation (or it's a conspiracy according to some apparently). By the late 70's the damage was done, because the views that high fat diets were the primary cause of heart disease had already become entrenched.

[johnnya24]

I did read the article (and it most certainly claimed massive conspiracy --- it's necessary to pursue this line of thinking in the first place, anyways) and have read this guy's claims in the past. Kernel of truth, truckload of bullshit.

Nothing to do with "conspiracy". It's how institutions and communities -- in this case the scientific community -- protect themselves against conflicting opinions that challenge their accepted norms ... especially when an issue is in flux.

In fact it's a large part of the scientific process, and is repeated over and over. It's a natural process, not a conspiracy.

[chancellor]

Read the article. He retired in 1971 to write the book. So no, the article does not imply anything about being forced out of his professorship. His department replaced him with a more orthodox scientist, then reneged on a promise to let him use the facilities.

He had been presenting these idea from 1957, and as the article stats, his ideas were initially taken seriously. But his work became marginalised by the mainstream ... which happens in almost every field of science in every generation (or it's a conspiracy according to some apparently). By the late 70's the damage was done, because the views that high fat diets were the primary cause of heart disease had already become entrenched.

I did. He left his professorship in '71, but did not leave the university until '74. I'm even conceding one point - the offended industries may well have put pressure on his university to encourage him to leave. He definitely had pointed arguments with other professors supporting the "prevailing view".

But, beyond that, the rest of the conspiracy theory is documentable BS. His reputation was not ruined, his views were accepted to a significant degree by the US government, he made a very good living, and by all appearances lived a long and happy life.

[chancellor]

All that being said, I expect most or all of us could benefit from less sugar in our diets.

[Lucky]

I'm confused now. Is sugar the Stairway to Heaven or the Highway to Hell?

I would go so far as to say I'm Dazed and Confused.

[chancellor]

A little too much sugar is just Physical Graffiti; way too much sugar will result in a bad Coda and bring you to the Houses of the Holy, but it will always have a Presence.

[Lucky]

A little too much sugar is just Physical Graffiti; way too much sugar will result in a bad Coda and bring you to the Houses of the Holy, but it will always have a Presence.

Now I'm Sick Again.

(No Custard Pie for me.)

[madducks]