Sugar, Fluoride, & Lowered I.Q.
A new article published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS Medicine reveals that recently uncovered internal documents from 1959 to 1971 show that the sugar industry successfully manipulated the research on dental decay conducted by the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The industry documents show that the NIH was directly influenced to focus on approaches to prevent tooth decay in American children without reducing sugar intake. This is probably a major reason why fluoridation propaganda replaced honest information on dental decay in US regulatory agencies. According to the study, the 319 documents included internal memos, correspondence, reports, and meeting minutes, and were from a time period when the NIDR was the primary source of federal funding for dental research and initiatives, including the promotion of fluoride and fluoridation.
Authors found that “Seventy-eight percent of the sugar industry submissions were incorporated into the NIDR’s call for research applications. Research that could have been harmful to sugar industry interests was omitted.”
The article, entitled “Sugar Industry Influence on the Scientific Agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: A Historical Analysis of Internal Documents,” was authored by a team of researchers from the University of California San Francisco. One of the authors, Stanton Glantz, PhD, is famous for his work revealing the lies of the tobacco industry regarding health effects, and said of this study:
“These tactics are strikingly similar
to what we saw in the tobacco industry in the same era. Our findings
are a wake-up call for government officials charged with protecting the
public health, as well as public health advocates, to understand that
the sugar industry, like the tobacco industry, seeks to protect profits
over public health. The sugar companies, in criticizing what we did,
haven’t said we’ve said anything wrong or that we’ve misunderstood and
misrepresented anything. They’re saying ‘Oh, this is a long time ago,
what difference does it make,’ — and that’s exactly what the tobacco
industry said.”
“This historical example illustrates
how industry protects itself from potentially damaging research, which
can inform policy makers today. While it may be valuable in theory for
the industry to contribute data about their products to the research
community, industry should not have the opportunity to influence public
health research priorities [94]. Regulatory science to support sensible
and defensible policies to limit added sugar consumption was not pursued
in the 1970s because of the alignment of the NIDR’s research priorities
with those of the sugar
industry. Actions taken by the sugar industry
to impact the NIDR’s NCP research priorities, which echo those of the
tobacco industry, should be a warning to the public health community.
The sugar industry’s current position—that public health recommendations
to reduce dental caries risk should focus on sugar harm reduction as
opposed to sugar restrictions—is grounded in more than 60 years of
protecting industry interests. Industry opposition to current policy
proposals—including a WHO guideline on sugars proposed in 2014 and
changes to the nutrition facts panel proposed in 2014 by the FDA—should
be carefully scrutinized to ensure that industry interests do not
supersede public health goals.” —See full study- View the University of California San Francisco’s press release on the article.
- View additional commentary on the article in the PLOS Medicine Blog.
“In 1949, one year before the U.S.
Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation, the director of the Sugar
Research Foundation, a lobby representing about 130 sugar interests,
said that its research mission was ‘to find out how tooth decay could be
controlled effectively without restriction of sugar intake.’ For the
sugar lobby, fluoride—delivered through the water supply—quickly became
the magic bullet to achieve that goal. From the earliest days of
fluoridation, considerable sums of money were paid to prominent fluoride
researchers at leading American universities.”
–Dr. Mercola
–Huffington Post
–NPR
–USA Today
–AAAS Science Magazine
–Medscape
Fluoride is a poison. Fluoride was poison yesterday. Fluoride is poison today. Fluoride will be poison tomorrow. The United States of America Inc. is big business. Corporate America Inc. is not a revolving door between big business and government it is the same house. Here is more on that subject. FluoridationCorporation
ReplyDelete