Archival sugar-industry documents show the Sugar Research Foundation paid Harvard researchers for a 1967 review that downplayed sugar and blamed fat, without disclosure (Kearns 2016); ended an animal study that pointed to harm (Kearns 2017); and shaped a federal tooth-decay research agenda (Kearns 2015). Coca-Cola later funded hundreds of papers focused on exercise rather than diet. Recovered data from two vegetable-oil trials found no mortality benefit. The documents prove influence on specific science; the effect on guidelines is argued.
Summary drafted from this entry’s sources; editorial review pending.
01Key questions
Did the sugar industry pay Harvard scientists?
Yes. Internal documents show the Sugar Research Foundation paid Hegsted and McGandy $6,500 for a review published in 1967 that singled out fat and cholesterol and downplayed sucrose. The foundation set the review's objective and saw drafts, and its role was not disclosed.1
What was Project 259?
A sugar-industry-funded rat study at the University of Birmingham, 1967 to 1971. It linked sucrose to higher triglycerides through gut bacteria and to higher levels of an enzyme then tied to bladder cancer. The funder ended it and the results were never published.2
Is this still happening?
Similar patterns are documented. From 2008 to 2016, 389 articles acknowledged Coca-Cola funding, mostly on physical activity and energy balance, and reviews with food-industry ties were five times more likely to find no link between sugary drinks and weight gain.46
Does this prove fat is harmless?
No. It shows one industry shaped specific research. Separately, recovered data from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Diet Heart Study found no mortality benefit, and in Sydney more deaths, when vegetable oil replaced saturated fat. That questions one replacement, not every claim about fat.78
Internal sugar-industry documents, recovered from university archives and analysed by researchers at UCSF, show the industry paying Harvard scientists for a 1960s review that played down sugar and blamed dietary fat, without disclosure; ending an animal study when it pointed to harm; and shaping the agenda of a federal tooth-decay research programme. Fifty years later, Coca-Cola funded hundreds of papers that steered attention from diet to exercise. On the fat side of the same debate, two large diet-heart trials went unreported for decades, and their recovered data did not show the benefit the official advice assumed. The documents prove influence on specific pieces of science. How far that shaped dietary guidelines is still argued.
02Project 226: the Harvard review
In 1965, with evidence linking sucrose to heart disease appearing in the press, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) approved "Project 226", a literature review on carbohydrates and cholesterol by Harvard's D. Mark Hegsted and Robert McGandy, overseen by department chair Fredrick Stare. The SRF eventually paid $6,500 (about $48,900 in 2016 dollars). According to the internal documents, the SRF set the review's objective, supplied articles for inclusion and received drafts. The review appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967. It singled out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of coronary heart disease, downplayed the evidence on sucrose, and did not disclose the SRF's funding or role (Kearns 2016, PMID 27617709).
The authors of the analysis concluded that the industry ran a research programme in the 1960s and 1970s that "successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit", and recommended that policy committees give less weight to food-industry-funded studies.
03Project 259: the rat study that was stopped
The SRF then paid for animal research at the University of Birmingham from 1967 to 1971, led by W.F.R. Pover. Comparing germ-free and conventional rats, the work suggested that gut bacteria play a part in how sugar raises blood triglycerides. A second comparison found that rats fed sucrose, rather than starch, had higher levels of beta-glucuronidase, an enzyme then associated with bladder cancer. The SRF ended the project and the results were never published. The analysts argue that publication would have strengthened the case that sucrose carries more heart risk than starch and invited scrutiny of sucrose as a possible carcinogen (Kearns 2017, PMID 29161267).
04Tooth decay: steering the research agenda
The industry could not deny that sugar causes tooth decay, so it worked on what would be studied. Documents from 1959 to 1971 show sugar groups cultivating the leadership of the National Institute of Dental Research, consulting members of its expert panel and funding work on plaque enzymes and a tooth-decay vaccine. When the institute launched its National Caries Program in 1971, 78% of a sugar-industry report was incorporated into its first call for research proposals, and research that could have threatened sugar sales, such as cutting intake, was left out of its priorities (Kearns 2015, PMID 25756179).
05The modern version: energy balance
A network analysis found 389 articles in 169 journals, published from 2008 to 2016 by 907 researchers, that acknowledged funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Coca-Cola's own published "transparency list" of funded researchers matched only 42 of those authors. The funded work focused mainly on physical activity and "energy balance" rather than diet (Serôdio 2018, PMID 29560842). About 18,000 pages of emails obtained under freedom-of-information requests show the company working to play down its role as funder of the Global Energy Balance Network and supporting a network of academics who promoted messages in line with its public-relations strategy (Serodio 2020, PMID 32744984).
The pattern shows up in conclusions too. Of 17 systematic reviews on sugary drinks and weight gain, those disclosing a financial tie to the food industry were five times more likely to conclude there was no positive association (Bes-Rastrollo 2013, PMID 24391479). The same mechanics for drug trials are on industry funding and trial results.
06The fat side: trials that went missing
The diet-heart advice that replaced saturated fat with vegetable oils rested partly on trials whose full results were not published at the time. This was not shown to be industry suppression, but it skewed the record in the same direction.
- Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73). A double-blind trial in 9,423 residents of a nursing home and six state mental hospitals replaced saturated fat with corn oil and corn-oil margarine. Recovered data analysed in 2016 showed cholesterol fell 13.8% in the intervention group against 1.0% in controls, but there was no mortality benefit in the full cohort or any prespecified subgroup. Each 30 mg/dL fall in cholesterol was associated with a 22% higher risk of death. The authors concluded that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimating the benefit of replacing saturated fat with linoleic-acid-rich oils (Ramsden 2016, PMID 27071971).
- Sydney Diet Heart Study (1966-73). In 458 men after a coronary event, replacing saturated fat with safflower oil and safflower margarine increased death rates from all causes, cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. Cardiovascular deaths were 17.2% against 11.0% in controls (Ramsden 2013, PMID 23386268).
For what this means for cooking oils today, see seed oils and inflammation; for the broader diet picture, see optimal human nutrition.
07What the documents do and don't show
- They show that a sugar trade group paid for, shaped and concealed its role in specific research, and stopped a study when the results turned against it.
- They come from a narrow window. The authors of the 2016 analysis note that the archives cover one trade association and may not represent all of its activity.
- They do not by themselves prove that dietary guidelines would have been different. That causal step is argued, not documented.
- They are not evidence that fat is harmless or that sugar explains all heart disease. The recovered trial data question one specific replacement (vegetable oil for saturated fat), not every dietary-fat claim.
This page describes the history of nutrition research; it is not medical advice.
08Who paid, and how it got here
Who funded the key studies on this page, the favourable and the unfavourable alike, and how its legal status came about. From each paper’s funding and conflict-of-interest statements, trial registries and official documents; checked 1 Nov 2026. Why we show this
Who paid for the key studies
- Kearns 2016, archival document analysisSugar group funded and shaped the 1967 review without disclosure.Funding and interests: NCI and NIDCR grants (public funding). PubMed funding record
- Serodio 2020, analysis of 18,036 pages of Coca-Cola emailsCompany worked to obscure its funding role.Funding and interests: Wellcome Trust (charitable funding). PubMed funding record
- Ramsden 2016, recovered Minnesota Coronary Experiment data, n=9,423Cholesterol fell but there was no mortality benefit.Funding and interests: NIAAA intramural program (public funding). Conflict-of-interest statement
09Connections
10Sources
- Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1680-1685. PMID 27617709PubMed 27617709
- Kearns CE, Apollonio D, Glantz SA. Sugar industry sponsorship of germ-free rodent studies linking sucrose to hyperlipidemia and cancer. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(11):e2003460. PMID 29161267PubMed 29161267
- Kearns CE, Glantz SA, Schmidt LA. Sugar industry influence on the scientific agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research's 1971 National Caries Program. PLoS Med. 2015;12(3):e1001798. PMID 25756179PubMed 25756179
- Serôdio PM, McKee M, Stuckler D. Coca-Cola: a model of transparency in research partnerships? A network analysis of Coca-Cola's research funding (2008-2016). Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(9):1594-1607. PMID 29560842PubMed 29560842
- Serodio P, Ruskin G, McKee M, Stuckler D. Evaluating Coca-Cola's attempts to influence public health 'in their own words'. Public Health Nutr. 2020;23(14):2647-2653. PMID 32744984PubMed 32744984
- Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA. Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain. PLoS Med. 2013;10(12):e1001578. PMID 24391479PubMed 24391479
- Ramsden CE, Zamora D, Majchrzak-Hong S et al. Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73). BMJ. 2016;353:i1246. PMID 27071971PubMed 27071971
- Ramsden CE, Zamora D, Leelarthaepin B et al. Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study. BMJ. 2013;346:e8707. PMID 23386268PubMed 23386268
11Entry history
Latest content update.
Heretic informs and never prescribes. Where amounts appear, they describe what published studies used. Talk to a qualified clinician before acting on anything here.