“Low-income countries usually have traditional diets, more plant- and meat-based foods, less sugar and processed foods,” Benzian says. “But as a country’s socioeconomic conditions evolve … there’s a transition in terms of what people eat.”
Benzian explains, “It’s a part of convenience. If you work all day and come home, you want quick food. Fast foods that are fried, high in fat, sweet — and very cheap.”
The sugar industry has been quick to jump on the trend. Weyant says, “I do see effort [by the sugar industry] to break into new areas and foster an interest in high sugar foods in particularly vulnerable populations.”
According to Marion Nestle, author of the book Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning), by 2020, Coca-Cola will spend $12 billion in marketing in Africa alone. PepsiCo will spend $5.5 billion in India by 2020 to expand operations and develop products “geared toward Indian tastes.”
Big Sugar’s marketing campaigns aren’t the only problem, the study says. According to the researchers, the industry currently influences oral research organizations worldwide.
For example, the European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA) is supported by corporate members such as Mars Wrigley Confectionery, a manufacturer of chocolate, mints, chewing gum and other sugary treats. Unilever, whose products include ice cream and sweetened beverages, is a corporate member of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR).
These conflicts of interest can potentially sway the direction and results of diet and nutrition research, says sugar politics expert Cristin Kearns, who wrote a commentary about the new Lancet series and is based at the University of California, San Francisco.
Kearns has seen this happen before.
In a 2015 PLOS Medicine study, Kearns revealed how the sugar industry influenced the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research in the 1960s, diverting attention from the real problem at hand — that sugar is unhealthy.
“I uncovered documents showing how the industry cultivated partnerships with leaders and influenced the research priorities of the NIDR,” Kearns says. “The NIDR’s research priorities ended up focusing on nondietary programs, like trying to develop a vaccine to end tooth decay … or any method but addressing sugar consumption levels.”
In response to Kearns’ 2015 study, the Sugar Association said to Buzzfeed News, “We acknowledge that Dr. Kearns has devoted significant time to the task of reviewing thousands of documents from over 50 years ago; however, we question her motives and certainly the accuracy of her conclusions. The Sugar Association … believe[s] that sugar is best enjoyed in moderation, a fact that is supported by decades of scientific research.”
Up against Big Sugar, what can dentists around the world do?
“The real recommendation is to take a hard look at relationships in these [oral health research] organizations and how the sugar industry might be influencing these relationships,” Kearns says. “These organizations need to be sure that policies are in place to stop undue influence.”
Weyant believes that it’s time for state and national governments to step in.
He points to the tobacco industry and how there is now a global tobacco control agenda through the World Health Organization. The treaty was established in 2003 in response to a global surge in tobacco usage. The WHO treaty demanded reduction strategies, like tobacco tax increases, to dissuade people from using the addictive substance.
“However, there is no united global movement against sugar,” Weyant says. “I think that model needs to be adapted for sugar.”
Benzian points to the need for more focused oral hygiene efforts. For example, to combat cavity rates in the Philippines, in 2009 the country established the Fit for School program.
“They are bringing education directly to the schools,” Benzian says. “It’s a mandatory program where every day, all the children go out into the courtyards to brush their teeth and wash their hands.”