Skip Navigation
Menu
Editorials |21 February 2017

Guidelines to Limit Added Sugar Intake: Junk Science or Junk Food?

Dean Schillinger, MD; Cristin Kearns, DDS, MBA

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
This article was published at Annals.org on 20 December 2016.
  • From UCSF Division of General Internal Medicine at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations, San Francisco, and UCSF Institute for Health Policy Studies and UCSF School of Dentistry, San Francisco, California.

    Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M16-2754.

    Requests for Single Reprints: Dean Schillinger, MD, UCSF Division of General Internal Medicine at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, 1001 Potrero Avenue, UCSF Box 1364, San Francisco, CA 94143; e-mail, dean.schillinger@ucsf.edu.

    Current Author Addresses: Dr. Schillinger: UCSF Division of General Internal Medicine at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, 1001 Potrero Avenue, UCSF Box 1364, San Francisco, CA 94143.

    Dr. Kearns: University of California, San Francisco, 530 Parnassus Avenue, Suite 366, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390.

×
FULL TEXT
When it comes to added sugars, there are clear conflicts between public health interests and the interests of the food and beverage (F&B) industry. Studies are more likely to conclude there is no relationship between sugar consumption and health outcomes when investigators receive financial support from F&B companies (1). Industry documents show that the F&B industry has manipulated research on sugars for public relations purposes (2). Erickson and colleagues report a systematic review of the scientific basis of guidelines on sugar intake, providing another occasion for concern about these conflicts (3). The review examined 9 guidelines that offered 12 recommendations on sugar consumption. It concluded that the guidelines do not meet criteria for trustworthy recommendations, judging the evidence supporting each recommendation to be of low quality.
It is important to note that the North American branch of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI North America) funded the review. ILSI North America is a trade group representing The Coca-Cola Company; Dr Pepper Snapple Group; The Hershey Company; Mars, Inc.; Nestlé USA; and PepsiCo, among others (4). In essence, this study suggests that placing limits on “junk food” is based on “junk science,” a conclusion favorable to the F&B industry. The implication is that the organizations producing the guidelines may have overstated the strength of the evidence on added sugars due to their belief that overconsumption has negative health effects. Although this study involves the F&B industry, similar claims were made by the tobacco...
FULL TEXT
PDF
Not Available
Citations
Citation

Schillinger D, Kearns C. Guidelines to Limit Added Sugar Intake: Junk Science or Junk Food?. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:305–306. [Epub ahead of print 20 December 2016]. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2754

Download citation file:

© 2019

×
Permissions

Published: Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(4):305-306.

DOI: 10.7326/M16-2754

Published at www.annals.org on 20 December 2016

©
2016 American College of Physicians
5 Citations

Related Articles
The Scientific Basis of Guideline Recommendations on Sugar Intake: A Systematic Review
Annals of Internal Medicine; 166 (4): 257-267
A Cautionary Tale of Warning Messages on Food Products: The Case of Sugar-Sweetened Beverages
Annals of Internal Medicine; 168 (9): 668-669
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Dilemma: How Tightly to Regulate Electronic Cigarettes?
Annals of Internal Medicine; 169 (10): 710-711
World Health Organization Guidelines on Medicines for Diabetes Treatment Intensification: Commentary From the American College of Physicians High Value Care Committee
Annals of Internal Medicine; 169 (6): 398-400
View MoreView Less

Journal Club
ACC/AHA guidelines determining statin eligibility better predicted CVD than ATP-III guidelines
Annals of Internal Medicine; 163 (10): JC11
View MoreView Less

Related Topics
Cardiology
Coronary Risk Factors
Pulmonary/Critical Care
Smoking

Cardiology, Coronary Risk Factors, Pulmonary/Critical Care, Smoking.

CONTINUE WITH LIMITED ACCESS
Annals of Internal Medicine
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
acp link acp
silverchair link silverchair

Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704

Privacy Policy

|

Conditions of Use

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. | Accept
×

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

×
PDF Downloads Require Access to the Full Article.
Annals of Internal Medicine
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
Access to this Free Content Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In. Please Choose One of the Following Options
Annals of Internal Medicine
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×