This Post Might Help Save Your Life Today-- Sugar Really Does Kill

When I was diagnosed with cancer, the very first thing my doctor told me was that he could save my life but that I had to stop eating sugar. He asked me if I was willing. I agreed. There was a lot more after that, but stopping sugar consumption was the first step. Good news: there are healthy sweeteners-- replacements-- that are just as good, if not better: stevia, honey, fruit, agave... Bad news: like the tobacco industry, the sugar industry isn't giving up without a fight. Yesterday Business Insider covered a new report you might want to read before sitting down to dinner tonight.

For decades, sugar lobbyists have been taking aim at studies linking sugar and cancer.

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

But 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The report details the results of two unpublished studies, known as Project 259, which were funded by the sugar lobby in the late 1960s.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 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 organizations 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.

Not cocaine, not heroin-- more dangerous

But this is not the first time we’ve learned that ‘big sugar’ has gotten in the way of science. L ast year, some of the same researchers  found that the Sugar Research Foundation-- the former name of the Sugar Association-- paid off three Harvard scientists 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 suggests that sugar may play a role in tumor 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 fueling up on high-sugar, low fat foods, consumers are finally becoming wise to the problems with sugar that were hidden for so many years. And t he US Food and Drug Administration is, too-- by  2021 , all nutrition labels will have to include the percent daily value of added sugars for the first time, while the "calories from fat" column will get scrubbed.

Healthy eating, especially in schools, shouldn't be a political hot potato. But it is... very much so. Anyplace where vested interests and big money collide with progress you can count on an explosion. And few groups short of Wall Street, the Medical Industrial Complex, and the Military Industrial Complex have been as adapt as AgriBusiness in molding public policy to its own special interests. Since 1990 Big Sugar-- one component of AgriBusiness-- has poured $44,757,434 into congressional races. In addition, Big Sugar has spent an astronomical $8,895,736 on lobbying this year alone! And they're very strategic with their investments. Although they're on both sides of the aisle, most of their money goes to Republicans, Blue Dogs and other corrupt conservative Democrats. Big Sugar's contributions, thinly veiled bribes, have amounted to $25,136,746 for Democrats and $19,370,071 for Republicans. The bribes taken since 1990 by the ten biggest sugar whores currently serving in the House:

• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)- $476,877
• Alcee Hastings (D-FL)- $291,500
• Frank Lucas (R-OK)- $261,000
• Mike Simpson (R-ID)- $233,750
• Mike Conaway (R-TX)- $222,050
• Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)- $197,299
• Sandy Levin (D-MI)- $174,521
• Tim Walz (D-MN)- $161,500
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)- $157,400
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (New Dem-FL)- $148,450

So far this cycle, Big Sugar has added 9 members to their list of the biggest congressional bribe takers: Donald Bacon (R-NE), Neal Dunn (R-FL), Steve Scalise (R-LA), Jodey Arrington (R-TX), Jason Lewis (R-MN), Clay Higgins (R-LA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) and Rodney Davis (R-IL).