The revised version of the SCOGS review, released a year later, concluded that reasonable evidence existed to conclude that sugar caused tooth decay, but not that it was a “hazard to the public” in any other way, at least not at the levels then being consumed. It described the evidence linking sugar to diabetes as “circumstantial,” and said there was “no plausible evidence” that it was related to the disease, other than as a source of excess calories.
How were these studies structured to be conclusive about the link between tooth decay and sugar but not diabetes and sugar? Is this because tooth decay happens on a more rapid time scale than diabetes? The author has been diligent in pointing out all the cases where research has massive conflicts of interest but I wish there were footnotes here pointing me to the original studies so that I can evaluate them myself.
