Currently browsing posts about: Unsavory Truth

Here’s how I learned about this one: Unilever, Nestlé and Coca-Cola villainised for government scientist ties.  Mondelēz International, Tate & Lyle, Pepsico and a host of other global food and drink manufacturing majors face fresh scrutiny over their links to government-advising scientists…. Read more

Villainized?  Isn’t this just business as usual?

Not exactly.  An analysis in the BMJ (formerly British Medical Journal) says UK government’s nutrition advisers are paid by world’s largest food companies(see BMJ 2024;386:q1909).

The authors examined declared links between members of SACN (The UK Government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition) and the food and drinks industry.

:

The study found

More than half of the experts on the UK government’s advisory panel on nutrition have links to the food industry…Campaigners say that these conflicts of interests at the heart of policy making are detrimental to public health. Others say that they reflect the lack of funding for nutrition research and that removing experts with industry links from SACN would “diminish” its expertise..

Six members of SACN are members of the American Society for Nutrition, which is funded by Mars, Mondelez, Nestlé, PepsiCo, and the Sugar Association, among others…SACN’s current work includes reviewing the evidence over ultraprocessed foods, artificial sweeteners, and plant based food and drink…Experts including van Tulleken and Percival say that SACN did not do enough to present the case for tougher regulation on ultraprocessed foods.

I have long argued that industry funded studies are about marketing, not science.

Here is a prime example (it caught my eye in Food News from the Institute of Food Technologists).

PR Newswire Cornell University partners with Danone and Symbrosia for new study: The study will aim to prove oil-based seaweed product has the potential to be more effective than existing solutions.  Read More

I went right to the source: a press release from Danone, North America: Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Study, in partnership with Symbrosia and Danone North America, Aims to Prove Effectiveness of Seaweed Oil Extract for Livestock Methane Reduction.

Symbrosia, a Hawaii-based cleantech startup that uses seaweed to drastically reduce livestock methane emissions, is excited to announce a study with Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (Cornell CALS), supported by Danone North America, a leading food and beverage company. Designed by Associate Professor Joe McFadden, the study aims to prove the effectiveness of an Asparagopsis-based seaweed oil extract for reducing livestock methane emissions compared to Symbrosia’s existing freeze-dried seaweed products…

As the press release explains, “The team’s plan [is] to ensure the study’s impact on the environment and sustainable agriculture is maximized.”

Thus, the purpose of this study—and the teams’ design plan—is explicit: to prove the superiority of this product.  That’s marketing, not science.

If it were about science, the investigators would design their study to find out which product does a better job of reducing methane emissions, if any.  This may sound like a subtle difference, but it is anything but.

Research on the effects of industry funding—“the funding effect”—shows how easy it is to design studies to give desired answers.  These researchers should be doing everything possible to make sure their study design is as objective as possible.

For a review of this and other research on food industry funding, see my Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

I posted several examples of industry-funded studies this week in part to reduce my backlog but also because of charges that (1) doing so constitites ad hominem (personal) attacks on authors, (2) I should be focusing on the science, not who paid for it, and (3) I have my own ideological biases.

To the first point:

I do not see industry funding of research as a personal matter.  I see it as a systematic problem.

If I see a study titled “Effect of food product X on disease Y,” I can often guess that

• The food’s manufacturer or trade association paid for it
• The study outcome will be favorable to the funder’s commercial interests

This phenomenon is so systematic that it has a name: The Funding Effect.

To the second point

Researchers who study funding effects, and there are many, note that the scientific conduct of the studies is not usually an issue.  Instead, the influence of the funders shows up in the way the research question is framed or the results are interpreted.

The easiest way to explain the research question bias is to cite the requests for research proposals I often receive from food trade associations.  These say: “we have (this much money) for research to demonstrate the benefits of our product on (one or more of these conditions).”

These groups will not fund research proposals unlikely to show benefits.

As for interpretation, industry-funded studies tend to report null results as positive; I posted several such examples this week.

To the third point

Yes, I have ideological or opinion biases and I try to be as clear as I can about them.  All investigators have such biases; otherwise they wouldn’t be doing science.  We all have something we believe in that we would like to prove.  Such biases are not discretionary; everyone has them.  In contrast, industry funding is about selling products, not science and is completely discretionary; investigators can do science without it.

The evidence?

I review the evidence for what I’ve just said here in my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

In it, I cite many other books and papers addressing these points.

We all come to the same conclusions:

• Industry funding biases research.  But funded investigators do not recognize the influence, and deny it.
• The statement that accompanies many disclosure statements—“The funder had no influence on the design, conduct, interpretation, or publication of the results,”—is often untrue and must be taken with some degree of skepticism.

I see industry funding of food and nutrition research as a serious problem for public perception.  Even when the research is not conflicted, it appears conflicted.  That alone is a systematic problem.

This photo was just sent to me by Murray Carpenter (@Murray_journo).  I don’t know him personally but he is the author of  Caffeinated, which I blurbed and wrote about in 2014.

He wrote that ILSI, a well known front group for the food industry, must have hired someone to track media reception to my 2018 book, Unsavory Truth: How the Food Industry Skews the Science of What We Eat.  ILSI is the International Life Sciences Institute, which has since changed its name to the Institute for the Advancemement of Food and Nutrition Sciences.

Murray said that on January 19, 2019, he was in the audience for the annual ILSI conference  in Clearwater, Florida.  He sent me this account of that occasion [my emphasis in red below]:

As the conference ground on, attendance fell off. So there were plenty of empty seats when Clare Thorp took the podium. Thorp had newly assumed the position of executive director of ILSI North America. She talked about scientific integrity ad nauseam. The emphasis seemed a corrective, an effort to reinforce the message among the membership. Because for an organization that prides itself on independence and integrity, ILSI kept getting caught doing the bidding of its members, over and over again. It just couldn’t seem to rein itself in.

It wasn’t just that ILSI’s Applebaum, Hill, and Sievenpiper had become the public faces of pseudoscience [Note: scientists caught up in conflicts of interest with Coca-Cola]. Thorp also referenced the Mars situation. The corporation had first criticized ILSI-funded science, then left the group entirely.

“Our membership comes with some major challenges and opportunities,” Thorp said. “We’ve lost a major member. It happens. We keep going.”

Unwittingly, Thorp worked doggedly to prove the aforementioned axiom—the degree to which you have scientific integrity is inversely related to the number of times you claim it.

“I have a passion for sound science…I come from a family of scientists, whether practitioners or academics,” she said. The science statements came out in torrents. “Unbiased and credible research…Scientific integrity is not something we made up overnight, it’s a journey.” She displayed a slide touting the Scientific Integrity Consortium, in partnership with the USDA, which she called “a coalition of the willing.”

“We are not an advocacy or a lobbying organization. But we are actually something entirely different,” she said.

“ILSI is an industry-funded organization where these companies support research that doesn’t directly serve their private interests. They agree to be hands-off…and they bravely commit to publishing the data, no matter what it says. This is very scary. And then, why would they do it?…It’s actually altruistic. They genuinely believe it’s important. They also believe that having a collaborative forum where everyone’s voice can be heard is really necessary.”

But it wasn’t enough to just focus on the science. Thorp also considered the public perception of ILSI. She said she wanted to communicate their work more broadly, to step outside this circle of friends and take a more proactive approach.

“We need to have a better understanding of who ILSI North America is, and what we do, and how we do it.” In response, ILSI was developing more communications materials, she said, and new website graphics.

Then she displayed a slide showing an elaborate, graphically elegant word cloud. Some of the big words in the center of the cloud: “science,” “truth,” “food,” “unsavory,” “industry,” “Nestle,” “Marion.”

It turned out that the nonprofit had chosen to spend some of its money to hire a media tracker to follow the press coverage of Marion Nestle’s recent book Unsavory Truth. The book focused on corporate influence in nutrition policy. The word cloud represented an analysis of the press coverage.

And here, Thorp was actually pleased. “The themes of manipulation, deception, and conspiracy that Nestle is promoting are not coming through as main themes in the media coverage.”

Thorp said that one of ILSI’s challenges was the public perception that it’s an industry front group, and that gets onto the web. “We are working very hard to get our Wikipedia page updated, and then it gets changed again, and then we have to update it again, but it’s important,” she said.

Leading ILSI had become a tough gig. Thorp would not last a year at the helm.

Comment

Of course the word cloud did not include maniputlation, deception, or conspiracy; those words do not appear in Unsavory Truth.  The whole point of conflicts of interest induced by food industry sponsorship—which is what the book is about—is that the conflicts are almost always unintentional, unrecognized, and denied.  Researchers who take industry funding do not believe it influences their science, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary reviewed in my book.

What’s especially interesting to me about this is that from my perspective, Unsavory Truth had little impact.  It generated much less media coverage than most of my books, and led to few speaking invitations.  I thought it had disappeared without a trace.

Apparently not.  I am pleased and honored to learn about this incident.

*******

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

I learned about this one from an article—no, it’s an ad really—in NutraIngredients.com.

Its headline: “Large new study validates krill oil’s heart health benefits.”

Heading the page is this note:

CONTENT PROVIDED BY AKER BIOMARINE SUPERBAKrill Learn More

I clicked on Learn More and got a disclaimer, the first time I have seen something like this:

The following content is provided by an advertiser or created on behalf of an advertiser. It is not written by the NutraIngredients.com editorial team, nor does it necessarily reflect the opinions of NutraIngredients.com.

OK.  Now we know that the entire article is an ad paid for by the maker of the product under discussion.

What about the research?

The study: Effectiveness of a Novel ω-3 Krill Oil Agent in Patients With Severe HypertriglyceridemiaA Randomized Clinical Trial.  Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH¹; Kevin C. Maki, PhD^2,3; Harold E. Bays, MD⁴; et alFernando Aguilera, MD⁵; Glenn Gould, MD⁶; Robert A. Hegele, MD⁷; Patrick M. Moriarty, MD⁸; Jennifer G. Robinson, MD, MPH⁹; Peilin Shi, PhD¹; Josefina F. Tur, MD¹⁰; Jean-François Lapointe, PhD¹¹; Sarya Aziz, PhD¹¹; Pierre Lemieux, PhD¹¹; for the TRILOGY (Study of CaPre in Lowering Very High Triglycerides) investigators.  JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(1):e2141898. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.41898

Method: The investigators pooled data from two previous trials of people given Krill oil or a cornstarch placebo for 26 weeks.

Results: “This study found that ω-3 –PL/FFA, a novel krill oil–derived ω-3 formulation, reduced TG levels and was safe and well tolerated in patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia.”

Funding/Support:The study was sponsored by Acasti Pharma Inc. [Acasti partners with Aker to make Krill oil]

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsor collaborated with the academic principal investigator (Dr Mozaffarian) in the design and conduct of the study, interpretation of the data, and review and suggestions for editing of the manuscript. The sponsor collaborated with the academic principal investigator and an independent contract research organization (IQVIA) in study implementation, data collection, and management. The sponsor had no role in the analysis of the data or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Mozaffarian reported serving as a consultant for Acasti Pharma Inc as principal investigator of this trial; receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Gates Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation; personal fees from Barilla, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Danone SA, and Motif FoodWorks; chapter royalties from UpToDate; serving on the scientific advisory board of Beren Therapeutics PBC, Brightseed, Calibrate, DayTwo (ended June 2020), Elysium Health, Filtricine Inc, Foodome Inc, HumanCo, January, Perfect Day Inc, Season, and Tiny Organics; and holding stock ownership in Calibrate and HumanCo outside the submitted work. Dr Maki reported receiving research grants from and consulting for Acasti Pharma Inc and Matinas BioPharma Holdings Inc, and receiving research funding from Indiana University Foundation, Pharmavite, Novo Nordisk A/S, General Mills Inc, The Kellogg Company, and PepsiCo Inc, and consulting for 89bio Inc, and NewAmsterdam Pharma outside the submitted work. Dr Bays reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Aguilera reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Gould reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Hegele reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc and personal fees from Akcea-Ionis, Amgen Inc, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics Inc, Novartis International AG, and Pfizer Inc outside the submitted work. Dr Moriarty reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Robinson reported receiving research grants to the institution from Acasti Pharma Inc, Amarin Corporation, Amgen Inc, Astra-Zeneca, Eli Lilly & Co, Esperion Therapeutics Inc, The Medicines Company, Merck & Co Inc, Novartis International AG, Novo Nordisk A/S, and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, and consulting fees from COR2ED, Getz Pharma Limited, The Medicines Company, and Novartis International AG. Dr Shi reported consulting for Acasti Pharma Inc for performing statistical analyses on this trial. Dr Tur reported receiving research grants from Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Lapointe reported owning stock or stock options in Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Aziz reported owning stock or stock options in Acasti Pharma Inc. Dr Lemieux reported serving chief operating officer/chief strategy officer of Acasti Pharma Inc during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work and holding a patent for CaPre. No other disclosures were reported. [My emphasis]

Comment: You can’t make this stuff up.

Reference: For research on why and how industry sponsorship can influence study outcome, see Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

A headline in FoodNavigator.com got my attention: “Heart-healthy walnuts could be the next big meat alternative as campaigns build on plant-based trend.”

Hoping to exponentially increase consumers’ already growing interest in walnuts, the California Walnut Board today is launching a two-prong marketing effort that will promote the nut’s health benefits and versatility.

The prongs are in-store promotions and a global marketing campaign—in nine countries no less—emphasizing how you only need to eat three handfuls a week to get their health benefits.

The article notes that the health benefits are based on published research.  Alas, it fails to mention that the cited study was ” funded by The California Walnut Commission.”

The study:  Walnuts and Vegetable Oils Containing Oleic Acid Differentially Affect the Gut Microbiota and Associations with Cardiovascular Risk Factors: Follow-up of a Randomized, Controlled, Feeding Trial in Adults at Risk for Cardiovascular Disease.  Alyssa M Tindall, Christopher J McLimans, Kristina S Petersen, Penny M Kris-Etherton, Regina Lamendella.  The Journal of Nutrition, nxz289, https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/nxz289.  

Its conclusion: “…gut microbiota may contribute to the health benefits of walnut consumption in adults at cardiovascular risk.”

The California Walnut Commission has been diligent in funding studies reporting benefits from walnut consumption.  Here’s another one:

The study: Effect of a 2-year diet intervention with walnuts on cognitive decline.  The Walnuts And Healthy Aging (WAHA) study: a randomized controlled trial.  Aleix Sala-Vila, Cinta Valls-Pedret, Sujatha Rajaram, Nina Coll-Padrós, Montserrat Cofán, Mercè Serra-Mir, Ana M Pérez-Heras, Irene Roth, Tania M Freitas-Simoes, Mónica Doménech, Carlos Calvo,1,2 Anna López-Illamola, Edward Bitok, Natalie K Buxton, Lynnley Huey, Adam Arechiga, Keiji Oda, Grace J Lee, Dolores Corella, Lídia Vaqué-Alcázar, Roser Sala-Llonch, David Bartrés-Faz, Joan Sabaté, and Emilio Ros.  Am J Clin Nutr 2020;00:1–11.

Conclusions: “Walnut supplementation for 2 y had no effect on cognition in healthy elders. However, brain fMRI and post hoc analyses by site suggest that walnuts might delay cognitive decline in subgroups at higher risk.”

Conflicts of interest: AS-V, SR, JS, and ER have received research funding through their institutions from the California Walnut Commission, Folsom, CA, USA. JS and ER were nonpaid members of the California Walnut Commission Scientific Advisory Council. ER was a paid member of the California Walnut Commission Health Research Advisory Group. JS has received honoraria from the CaliforniaWalnut Commission for presentations. AS-V has received support from the CaliforniaWalnut Commission to attend professional meetings. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Comment: Some of the authors of this study work at Loma Linda, a university run by vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists.  As is unusual for industry-sponsored studies, this one found no delay in cognitive decline among older people eating walnuts.  But the study’s conclusions spin the results to suggest that walnuts might, in fact, delay cognitive decline in higher risk subgroups—an interpretation bias.

Walnuts are good foods and eating them instead of candy or other high calorie junk-food snacks makes sense.  Are walnuts better for you than any other nut?  This study does not address that question.  Studies funded by walnut trade associations have one and only one purpose: marketing walnuts.

As a reminder, I discussed issues related to sponsored research—including why the conduct of the science is not the problem with these studies—in my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

My latest book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat, is about food industry funding of nutrition research and why it’s not good for science, public health, or trust.

The book is full of examples, easily recognized by their titles.

I can’t resist showing you the latest example:

The title: Vitamin-supplemented chewing gum can increase salivary and plasma levels of a panel of vitamins in healthy human participants.  Journal of Functional Foods Volume 50, November 2018, Pages 37-44.

The conclusion: “our study demonstrates the potential usefulness of chewing gum as a delivery vehicle for both water- and fat-soluble vitamins.”

Guess who funded this study?  “This work was supported by Vitaball, Inc. (FT. Thomas, KY, USA) and the United States Department of Agriculture.”

Vitaball, you can probably guess, makes vitamin-fortified chewing gum, and one of the study’s authors works for the company.

Want vitamins?  Try food.

Now published: my new book about how food company sponsorship of nutrition research affects public health.  For information about the book—blurbs, reviews, tweets, how to get—click here.

For my public speaking engagements about the book, click here.

If you are in New York, join the launch party at NYU today, 5:00 p.m., Bobst Library 3rd floor.  RSVP here.

And here are some early reviews:

Oct 29  Jane Brody.  Confused by nutrition research?  New York Times.

Oct 28  Hailey Eber. How the food industry fooled us into eating junk.  New York Post, 42-43.

Oct 23  Nestle M.  Superfoods are a marketing ploy (excerpt).  The Atlantic .

Oct 22  Àlex Pérez.  Una verdad desagradable no vende.  ElPiscolabis (Spain).

Oct 18 Nature Magazine (2018;562:334-335): Felicity Lawrence reviews Deborah Blum’s The Poison Squad and Unsavory Truth as “Poisoned Platefuls.”

Oct 2  Science Magazine.  Cyan James, “A nutrition expert aims a critical eye at the research and marketing practices of food companies.”