How Big Sugar Rigged the Science and Fooled the World

In the world of nutrition science, few scandals are as damning—or as buried—as Project 226. This covert operation, orchestrated by the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), now known as the Sugar Association, deliberately manipulated public health policy for decades by shifting the blame for heart disease from sugar to dietary fat.

Through behind-the-scenes funding, editorial control, and undisclosed payments to Harvard researchers, Project 226 rewrote nutritional history. The fallout has shaped dietary guidelines and public health policy for over 50 years—fueling the obesity and metabolic disease epidemics still raging today.

---

What Was Project 226?

Project 226 was a covert initiative launched in 1965 by the Sugar Research Foundation to suppress research linking sugar consumption to coronary heart disease (CHD). Instead of addressing the concerns raised by emerging studies, the SRF funded a literature review designed to exonerate sugar and vilify saturated fat and cholesterol.

At the heart of the project were three Harvard scientists:

• Dr. D. Mark Hegsted

• Dr. Robert B. McGandy

• Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, chair of the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Department

Together, under the guidance of SRF executive John Hickson, they produced a biased two-part review published in 1967 in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors downplayed sugar’s role in heart disease and blamed fat instead. No conflict of interest was disclosed.

---

The Full Timeline of Project 226

---

Who Was Involved?

John Hickson – The Architect

As vice president of the SRF, Hickson wasn’t just involved—he orchestrated the entire plan. He selected the scientists, influenced the material they reviewed, and ensured the findings favored the sugar industry’s bottom line.

Dr. Fredrick J. Stare – Department Head

Chair of Harvard’s nutrition department, Dr. Stare provided institutional legitimacy and helped recruit other researchers.

Dr. Mark Hegsted – Primary Author

Later became a key USDA figure responsible for drafting the 1977 Dietary Guidelines—using the same anti-fat bias embedded in Project 226.

Dr. Robert McGandy – Co-Author

Worked closely with Hegsted to craft the NEJM literature review, minimizing sugar’s dangers.

---

The NEJM Review: How Science Was Distorted

The two-part review published in 1967 presented a distorted view of the literature:

• Studies implicating sugar were downplayed or discredited.

• Studies blaming fat were highlighted and presented as more rigorous.

• Alternative hypotheses about carbohydrates and insulin were omitted.

NEJM had no conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements at the time, and readers were unaware that the sugar industry had paid for—and influenced—the research.

---

How Much Was Paid?

The Sugar Research Foundation paid:

• $6,500 total (roughly $48,900 in 2016 dollars)

• Structured in installments tied to progress and publication

• Payments were hidden as “research support,” not industry sponsorship

---

Impact on Public Health

The damage from Project 226 was massive and far-reaching:

• 1977 USDA Guidelines focused on low-fat diets, not low-sugar.

• Public health campaigns demonized saturated fat.

• Low-fat processed foods surged—often higher in sugar.

• Obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome rates skyrocketed.

For decades, sugar escaped scrutiny while saturated fat took the fall.

---

Modern-Day Revelation

In 2016, Dr. Cristin Kearns and colleagues at UCSF uncovered internal SRF documents archived at Harvard. These exposed:

• Hickson’s direct influence on the review

• Payments to Harvard researchers

• Explicit intent to shift public perception and policymaking

The findings were published in JAMA Internal Medicine, igniting a firestorm of criticism.

“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades.”
— Dr. Stanton Glantz, co-author of the study

---

Why Project 226 Still Matters

Despite mounting evidence against sugar, the false narrative established by Project 226 continues to shape:

• Government dietary guidelines

• Food labeling standards

• Public health messaging

Millions of people adopted low-fat, high-carb diets that worsened their metabolic health—because science was rigged.

---

References

1. Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1680-1685.

2. Taubes G. Big Sugar’s Secret Ally? Harvard. NY Times, 2016.

3. NPR. 50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat.

4. UCSF Food Industry Documents Archive. Sugar Research Foundation Papers.

---

Undoing the Damage: Why Project 226 Still Matters Today

Project 226 was not just a one-time cover-up—it was a full-scale assault on nutritional science. Its legacy lives on in our policies, perceptions, and health crises. Unmasking this deception is crucial not just for historical accountability—but for charting a new, evidence-based path forward.