Dec 31, 2017 by Comfort Keepers Newark, DE
The Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), now called the International Sugar Research Foundation (ISRF), secretly funded a report to be released that actually downplayed the evidence that was linking eating sugar to heart disease. They instead blamed gut bacteria for the spike in cholesterol levels.
Within the next year, they launched a study called Project 259 to try and prove their hypothesis. The experiment observed the gut health of rats fed sugar versus rats fed starch.
By 1969, they had discovered that the rats fed sugar had an increased risk for bladder cancer, as sucrose (a form of sugar) may stimulate a compound that plays a role in the actual pathogenesis of the disease.
However, shortly after this finding was made, the ISRF decided to cancel the study, hiding any and all information they had obtained.
Just like the tobacco industry has lied to consumers for years about the negative effects of their products, larger corporations hide this kind of information more often than we think. It’s very unfortunate and unfair, I know, but they can get away with a lot – the more money, the more power.
Animal testing is one of the most common ways in which we test many things, from cosmetic products to new medicines.
Though this topic is controversial in many ways, there is no denying that animal testing has helped bring effective and life-saving medications onto the market. This study tries to dismiss concrete evidence gathered by this form of testing, which is very unethical.
Some examples of important drugs discovered through animal testing are:
Even the first blood pressure measurement was taken using an animal (a horse, to be exact). As can be seen, illnesses like smallpox and polio, which used to be terrifying, deadly diseases are now entirely preventable, thanks to animal testing.
For starters, scientists have been arguing (especially in the 1960’s) about the effects of sugar versus starch and human disease, and this study would have provided concrete evidence to settle that debate much earlier on. Who knows what medical advances could’ve been made by now had this information been known, especially since this information is regarding a form of cancer.
Overall, this means that we must be wary of our sources of information. The ISRF cancelling this study is obviously an indication that they are trying to hide something, especially if they are paying to promote reports that actually downplay the negative effects of sugar on our bodies. Any further research published by the ISRF, for example, should raise some red flags for you. Keep this in mind with other large corporations, too.