Kevin Klatt, PhD, RD

In Ian Leslie's 'The Sugar Conspiracy ' , featured last week in the Guardian, we find a seductive narrative of the politics surrounding the process of setting the nation's dietary recommendations. Detailed within is the story of two researchers, Ancel Keys, a vocal advocate of lowering fat/saturated fat consumption, and John Yudkin, a humble researcher who warned of the dangers of sugar. We are told in 'The Sugar Conspiracy' that, instead of being a matter of scientific differences, Ancel Keys, as part of the 'nutrition elite', squashed the dissenting voice of John Yudkin, who made the case that sugar was the real enemy. This narrative is enticing; it, as the title notes, edges on conspiracy and addresses the deeply political perspectives on taking science and translating it into policy. The narrative crafted by Leslie, however, is dependent upon the idea that there weren't legitimate differences in the quality of evidence put forth by these rese...

Note: this post is not brief and ideally requires a bit of pre-reading:   The Sugar Conspiracy NutritionWonk's response discussing Ancel Keys' data If you're looking for a TL;DR version - see here . In Ian Leslie’s longform article, “ The Sugar Conspiracy ,” we get a look into the history of nutrition, and the suggestion that politics and  power dynamics play significant roles in the setting of dietary guidelines. Leslie starts with a historical perspective, focusing on John Yudkin and his early hypotheses regarding sugar’s role in the aetiology of CVD.  Yudkin’s studies, Leslie says,are cast down by the nutrition elite (i.e. Ancel Keys) at the time, in favor of recommendations that suggested limiting fat/saturated fat/cholesterol as the major drivers of CVD. At face value, the story is one of redemption: Yudkin’s cast aside theories are now being realized by modern crusaders like Robert Lustig. In the article, Leslie states: “These sharp fluctuations ...