is it effective for industries to influence consumers to avoid other food industries?

Source: CreditCards

The economic principle I'm exploring is whether or not it is effective

My research question to help me study the economic principle is "is it effective for industries to influence consumers to avoid other food industries?"

The article published in NPR, titled "50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat" demonstrates this economic principle by showing how the sugar industry paid scientists to point blame on fat, had coronary heart disease falsely linked with fats, and how sugar consumption skyrocketed. 

First, in the 1960's the sugar industry funded research that showed how bad fats were for the body and downplayed the effects of sugars on the body. I think this is unethical because the sugar industry gave consumers and the public false and fabricated information to help "improve" their lifestyle choices, when in reality the industry just needed put themselves into a better light.

Second, there were concerns about sugars link to heart diseases. However, group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to deny or contradict these concerns.  The group suggested there were major problems with every study that linked heart disease and sugar, so they concluded a study saying the best way to address coronary heart disease was to leave fats out of your diet. I think it is morally wrong to falsely link something to a disease in the hopes of convincing consumers to buy their product.

Third, with new studies out about how fats link to heart disease and saying sugars are not the culprit like people may think, the consumption of fats decreased.  With the consumption of fat decreasing, people need to replace this part of their diet, which happened to be sugar. A study directly shows that after this study, Americas per capita sugar consumption would go up by a third.

In my next blog I will research the question: What does "Fat Free" really mean?