The study was indirectly funded by sugar industry giants such as Coca Cola, Hershey's and Kellogg's.
Dramatically decreasing the amount of sugar we consume has been the hot topic in the last couple of years and health officials have been creating guidelines to help reduce sugar intake. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines have advised not to get more than 10 percent of your daily calorie intake from added sugar.
However, a new study has hit back and questioned the reliability of the evidence used to create the current recommendations and debates whether the limit is too low.
“Overall, I would say the guidelines are not trustworthy,” explained lead study author Bradley Johnston, a clinical epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. “
“Sugar should certainly be limited in the diets of children and adults, no question,” he says. But he argues there’s not convincing evidence to support cutting consumption to 10 percent, or 5 percent — or any specific threshold. There’s a lot of uncertainty about the thresholds that appear in guidelines. What’s happening is that guideline panelists are making strong recommendations based on low-quality evidence.”
A backlash from public health experts has erupted due to the links that the authors of the new study have with the sugar industry (the International Life Sciences Institute who funded the study is funded itself by top multinational food companies such as Coca Cola, Kellogg’s, Kraft Foods and Hershey’s) calling criticism for their message.
“This comes right out of the tobacco industry’s playbook: cast doubt on the science,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University who studies conflicts of interest in nutrition research. “This is a classic example of how industry funding biases opinion. It’s shameful.”
Despite recognizing his links to the industry may hamper his opinions, Dr Johnston says he’s not advocating high-sugar consumption but merely suggesting sugar is not the only factor related to obesity and Type 2 diabetes and shouldn’t be used as a scapegoat for these conditions.
Details of the review were published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.