han, as of 1966:
There have been a great many observations, discussions, and controversies published in the literature concerning the role of different foods and particularly sweets in the etiology [of dental caries]. However…there seems to be little controlled experimental proof to show which foods are cariogenic and which noncariogenic in humans. 
Stephan had initiated work to develop an animal model that could “evaluate cariogenicity and anticariogenicity of different foods and beverages that people like and commonly consume” . Based on existing research at the time, foods containing sucrose were in danger of being placed at the top of the list of harmful cariogenic products .
Industry Deflection of Attention Away from Limiting Sugar Intake
Industry position on caries control.
At least as early as 1950, SRF knew its product damaged teeth and appreciated that both the scientific evidence and the dental community favored restricting sugar intake as a key way to control caries . The 1950 SRF annual report stated:
The ultimate aim of the Foundation in dental research has been to discover effective means of controlling tooth decay by methods other than restricting carbohydrate intake. This program has both laboratory and clinical aspects.
There is evidence tending to show that carbohydrates, including sugar, and perhaps other food types, are implicated in tooth decay. There is also evidence, though less convincing, that soluble sugars may play a bigger role than starches. Besides the relatively clear evidence there are many conjectures, traditions and myths that confuse the picture.
Until recently the great majority of the dental profession had adopted the view that practical control of tooth decay could be achieved only by restriction of carbohydrates, particularly sugar in the diet. Scientific logic, nevertheless, points to many other promising possibilities and many of these are supported by preliminary laboratory observations.  (emphasis added)
The 1950 SRF annual report also shows that industry research was selected as part of a strategy to deflect attention away from sugar restriction as a means to control caries .
Funding research to divert attention from limiting sugar intake.
Consistent with a deflection strategy, between 1967 and 1970, SRF funded Project 269 to bolster research on interventions not requiring sugar restriction to control dental caries . Project 269, led by Professor Bertram Cohen at the Royal College of Surgeons of England, sought to render S. mutans less destructive to teeth after sugar was consumed using enzymes called dextranases to break the sticky dextrans in dental plaque formed after sugar was consumed . Project 269 also attempted to develop a vaccine against tooth decay that would allow people to continue to consume sugar . The NIDR had investigated both methods in the 1960s  and found that although dextranases added to the food and water of rodents had shown some promise of being effective, more research was necessary before human applications could be developed , and a vaccine against S. mutans tested in hamsters failed to prevent tooth decay . By 1962, NIDR scientists were suggesting that measures other than a vaccine would be needed to control dental caries .
SRF allocated US$12,000 (US$85,455 in 2014 dollars) to Project 269 between 1967 and 1970 . Project 269 was primarily funded by the chocolate and confectionary industries and had an annual budget of US$120,000 (US$854,558 in 2014 dollars) . A confidential report mailed to Roger Adams summarizing Project 269 indicated that SRF considered dental caries “one of the major troublesome factors in the nonacceptance of sucrose” . SRF leaders hoped that their support for this new project would prove a “significant way of solving the problem” .
Funding from SRF and the chocolate and confectionary industry allowed Cohen to create a new laboratory to use monkeys for the development of dextranases and a tooth decay vaccine for human application . SRF hoped that the work on dextranases and a vaccine could be handed over to drug companies to deve