by Marion Nestle

Search results: research bias

May 27 2025

The MAHA Commission report: some thoughts

The MAHA Commission released its report last week: The MAHA Report: Make Our Children Healthy Again.  Assessment.

This is one impressive report, forcefully written and tightly documented (it cites my work, among that of many others).

Overall, it paints a devastating portrait of how our society has failed our children.

It begins by stating that “The health of American children is in crisis” due to:

  • Poor diet
  • Aggregation of environmental chemicals
  • Lack of physical activity and chronic stress
  • Overmedicalization

The result: high rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, neurodevelopmental disorders, cancer, allergies  and mental health problems among kids.

Here are some selected items I particularly appreciated in the report.  The bullet points are direct quotes.

On poor diet

  • Most American children’s diets are dominated by ultra – processed foods (UPFs ) high in added sugars , chemical additives , and saturated fats, while lacking sufficient intakes of fruits and vegetables.
  • Pesticides , microplastics , and dioxins are commonly found in the blood and urine of American children and pregnant women— some at alarming levels.
  • Children are exposed to numerous chemicals , such as heavy metals , PFAS , pesticides , and phthalates, via their diet, textiles, indoor air pollutants, and consumer products.
  • To get into schools , many food companies have reformulated their products with minor ingredient adjustments to qualify for the federal Smart Snack program by meeting the school nutrition standards, which children can purchase separate from school meals.

The driving factors for poor diets

  • Consolidation of the food system
  • Distorted nutrition research and marketing
  • Compromised dietary guidelines

On the dietary guidelines  

They maintain problematic reductionist recommendations, such as:

  • Advising people to “reduce saturated fat” or “limit sodium” instead of focusing on minimizing ultra-processed foods.
  • Treating all calories similarly, rather than distinguishing between nutrient-dense foods and ultra-processed products.
  • Remain largely agnostic to how foods are produced or processed: There is little distinction between industrially processed foods and home-cooked or whole foods if their nutrient profiles look similar.
  • Added sugars, saturated fats and sodium are treated as proxies for ultra-processed foods. For instance, a cup of whole-grain ready to eat fortified breakfast cereal and a cup of oatmeal with fruit might both count as “whole grain servings,” and the guidelines do not weigh in on differences in processing.

They also,

  • Do not explicitly address UPFs.
  • Have a history of being unduly influenced by corporate interests .

On food systems

  • The greatest step the United States can take to reverse childhood chronic disease is to put whole foods produced by American farmers and ranchers at the center of healthcare.
  • Traditional Field Crops vs. Specialty Crops : Historically, federal crop insurance programs have primarily covered traditional field crops like wheat , corn , and soybeans, while providing much less support for specialty crops such as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery plants.

On Corporate Capture 

  • Although the U.S. health system has produced remarkable breakthroughs, we must face the troubling reality that the threats to American childhood have been exacerbated by perverse incentives that have captured the regulatory bodies and federal agencies tasked with overseeing them .
  • Limited comparisons between industry-funded research versus non- industry studies have raised concerns over potential biases in industry-funded research…Additionally, some industry leaders have engaged in promoting ghostwriting and sponsored reviews to influence the scientific literature.
  • Notably, this ghostwriting strategy mirrors tactics used by the tobacco industry to distort scientific consensus is largely propelled by “corporate capture,” in which industry interests dominate and distort scientific literature, legislative actions, academic institutions, regulatory agencies, medical journals, physician organizations, clinical guidelines, and the news media.
  • The pharmaceutical industry, with its vast resources and influence, is a primary driver of this capture, though similar dynamics pervade the food and chemical industries.

Research recommendations

  • GRAS Oversight Reform: Fund independent studies evaluating the health impact of self-affirmed GRAS food ingredients, prioritizing risks to children and informing transparent FDA rulemaking.
  • Nutrition Trials: NIH should fund long-term trials comparing whole-food, reduced-carb, and low-UPF diets in children to assess effects on obesity and insulin resistance.
  • Large-scale Lifestyle Interventions: Launch a coordinated national lifestyle-medicine initiative that embeds real-world randomized trials-covering integrated interventions in movement, diet, light exposure, and sleep timing-within existing cohorts and EHR networks.

Comment

The report has been criticized for not getting some of the science right.  The agriculture industry is particularly concerned about the attack on the chemicals it uses.  It is said to be outraged by the report.  The report did throw Big Ag this bone: “Today, American farmers feed the world, American companies lead the world, and American energy powers the world.”

But the report raises one Big Question:  What policies will this administration come up with to deal with these problems?  These, presumably, will be in the next report, due in about 80 days.

This is an extraordinary report, a breath of fresh air in many ways, and I would love to know who wrote it.

But to fix the problems it raises will require taking on not only Big Ag, but also Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Chemical, and other industries affected by these and its other recommendations (the report also says a lot about drugs and mental health).  Big Ag has already weighed in.  Others are sure to follow.

Oh.  And it’s hard to know how policies can be implemented, given the destructive cuts to FDA, CDC, and NIH personnel and budget.

I will be watching this one.  Stay tuned.

Resources

Additional resource

 

May 26 2025

Industry-funding analysis of the week: the meat funding effect

This is an example of what the late and much missed Sheldon Krimsky called “the funding effect,” the strong tendency for industry-funded studies to produce results favorable to the commercial interests of the sponsor.

The study: Industry study sponsorship and conflicts of interest on the effect of unprocessed red meat on cardiovascular disease risk: a systematic review of clinical trials. Miguel López-Moreno, Ujué Fresán, Carlos Marchena-Giráldez, Gabriele Bertotti, Alberto Roldán-Ruiz.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.02.030.

The findings:  

  • Of 44 studies of meat and cardiovascular risks, 66% had links to the meat industry.
  • All independently funded studies reported unfavorable (73.3%) or neutral (26.7%) results.
  • All studies with funding ties to the meat industry reported favorable (20.7%) or neutral (79.3 %) results.
  • Studies with conflicts of interest were nearly 4 times more likely to report favorable/neutral outcomes.

Conclusion: 

  • Studies funded by the meat industry “may underestimate the cardiovascular benefits of reducing red meat intake.”

Comment

This study confirms an enormous body of research on this topic: industry funding influences research outcome.  How?  Usually by influencing how the research question is framed or in how the results are interpreted (unfavorable results reported as neutral, for example).  I’ve seen criticisms of this study arguing that ideology (favoring plant-based diets, for example) also influences research outcome.  It does, but all investigators have belief systems that influence their work.  These can go in any direction.  That’s why research needs repeating by other investigators with other biases.  Financial ties are different; they invariably skew results in the same direction—toward the commercial interests of the sponsor.

Apr 17 2025

Kevin Hall resigns from NIH: A national tragedy

This announcement on X of his resignation from NIH comes from Kevin Hall, who did the study I admire so much on how ultra-processed foods induce people to eat more calories (500 more a day!).

Unfortunately, recent events have made me question whether NIH continues to be a place where I can freely conduct unbiased science. Specifically, I experienced censorship in the reporting of our research because of agency concerns that it did not appear to fully support preconceived narratives of my agency’s leadership about ultra-processed food addiction.

I was hoping this was an aberration. So, weeks ago I wrote to my agency’s leadership expressing my concerns and requested time to discuss these issues, but I never received a response.

Without any reassurance there wouldn’t be continued censorship or meddling in our research, I felt compelled to accept early retirement to preserve health insurance for my family. (Resigning later in protest of any future meddling or censorship would result in losing that benefit.)

Due to very tight deadlines to make this decision, I don’t yet have plans for my future career.

Comment

I consider Hall’s departure from NIH a national tragedy.

It is utterly shameful that NIH was not allowing him to talk about his science openly because its results don’t fit with aspects of the MAHA (Make America Health Again) narrative.  It is shocking that NIH refused to allow him to sign papers he co-authored because they mentioned equity—one of the hundreds of words forbidden by this administration.

His work was essential to the MAHA agenda—exactly the science needed to promote public health.  NIH is part of HHS, which is headed by RFK Jr, who leads MAHA.

Hall’s treatment does not bode well for the MAHA movement.  Instead, it casts doubt on this movement’s credibility.

Hall’s group is the only one I know of that was able to conduct carefully controlled clinical trials of calorie intake and weight gain.  His study subjects are monitored; they cannot “forget” what they ate, or lie about it, or eat what they are not supposed to.  No other nutrition studies have this level of control.

His ultra-processed study had an enormously important result, not least because it was so unexpected.  Hall went into the study thinking that ultra-processing would not make any difference.  The 500 calorie difference was a big surprise.  That’s the way science is supposed to work; this was real science in action.

Hall was engaged in further studies to determine the mechanism underlying the calorie finding.  Let’s hope someone continues them.

I view his resignation under these circumstances as an act of extraordinary courage and scientific integrity.

He deserves our deepest respect and appreciation.

For more on this

  • Kevin Hall’s complete statement on Twitter (X)
  • CNN Health’s account: Top NIH nutrition researcher studying ultraprocessed foods departs, citing censorship under Kennedy (I’m quoted)
  • The New York Times account: Leading Nutrition Scientist Departs N.I.H., Citing Censorship.  This quotes Hall:“We experienced what amounts to censorship and controlling of the reporting of our science,” Dr. Hall said, adding that he was worried that if he stayed, officials might also interfere with the design and execution of his studies. “That would make me hate my job every day”…In February, Dr. Hall said that N.I.H. officials told him he couldn’t be listed as an author on a yet-to-be-published scientific review on ultraprocessed foods that he co-wrote with a group of university scientists. This was because the review included language about “health equity” (it acknowledged that some people in the United States don’t have access to healthy food)…If Dr. Hall wanted to stay on the paper, they said, that section would need to be modified. Dr. Hall removed his name — a first in his career as a government scientist.
  • Jane Black on Consumed:  MAHA just cost the NIH its star nutrition researcher. Nutrition research has always been a red-headed stepchild at NIH, underfunded and undervalued. In 2023, the NIH allocated $2.2 billion to nutrition research, just over 4 percent of its total research budget. This, despite the fact that nearly 40 percent of Americans are obese, and the cost of obesity-related medical care is estimated to be nearly $173 billion annually…And this is why Kevin Hall matters so much. Against the odds, Hall was performing randomized controlled trials. He was conducting them on ultra-processed foods, the hottest issue in nutrition policy. He has persisted in the face of deep cuts: In 2017, the NIH clinical trial unit went from 10 beds to seven, reducing the speed at which Hall could conduct his research.
  • Ted Kyle on ConscienHealth: In March, Hall and colleagues published a study in Cell Metabolism and concluded: “The etiology of common obesity is more complex than dopamine-mediated ultra-processed food addiction, and the neurochemistry associated with excess adiposity, such as increased dopamine tone, is not analogous to a state of drug tolerance.”  This apparently did not fit well enough with Kennedy’s narrative that ultra-processed foods are “poisoning” Americans because they are addictive and full of chemicals that harm us.
  • MSNBC interview with Chris Hayes.
Mar 14 2025

Weekend thinking: more on the Trump administration’s forbidden words

I’ve written previously about the list of words that automatically disqualify applicants for federal grants, but the New York Times has now published a more complete list of about 200 forbidden terms, along with examples of editing of federal websites.

These are perceived as “woke,” which the Trump administration especially opposes.

But many of these terms describe reality.

As a long time public health advocate, I take this quite personally.

Now, you can’t research or write about anything having to do with underrepresented minorities or inequality, but you also can’t do anything related to terms like these.

  • activists
  • advocates
  • at risk
  • barrier
  • climate science
  • confirmation bias
  • female
  • health disparity
  • institutional
  • mental health
  • political
  • privilege
  • sociocultural
  • systemic
  • undervalued
  • women

This is right out of George Orwell’s 1984.  It would be funny, if it weren’t having an effect.  I know of at least one instance of a federal scientist had to remove his name from a paper because it dealt with inequity—a topic very much on this list.

This kind of group-think deserves ridicule and firm pushback.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I intend to keep writing about these issues and flaunt the scarlet A—for Activist and Advocate. (along with a W for woman).

Feb 17 2025

Industry influence: PepsiCo counters nutrition misinformation

A member of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics forwarded this email sent to academy members.

From: PepsiCo Health & Nutrition Sciences <pepsiconutritionscience@pepsico.com>
Subject: Help combat nutrition misinformation 📢

We’re sure you’ve seen this firsthand with your patients and clients: Nutrition research has become increasingly complex for the general public to understand – and the volume of contradictory headlines and misinformation in the media doesn’t help. As a healthcare professional, you have the power to inspire trust and deepen the general public’s understanding through credible communication of balanced, high-quality, evidence-based nutrition science.

That’s why we hosted our most recent Lab & Learn webinar, Communicating Evidence-Based Nutrition Science Effectively, on the topic. Whether you attended live or viewing on demand, we wanted to share an additional resource with you on this topic to enrich your practice even further.

Didn’t get a chance to tune in to the webinar live last week?
Watch on demand here and earn 1.25 free CPEUs!
Communicating Evidence-Based Nutrition Science Effectively awards 1.25 CPEUs in accordance with the Commission on Dietetic Registration’s CPEU Prior Approval Program.

Download the handout here.

Comment

Who better than PepsiCo to counter nutrition misinformation?  The handout gives standard information about how to interpret scientific studies, and useful for that purpose.  Perhaps it is an oversight but it omits any mention of biases introduced by funding by food companies.

More important, it implies that science alone will be enough to counter misinformation.  It would be nice if erroneous beliefs about nutrition could be corrected by presenting facts, but beliefs, especially those that are deeply held, are not necessarily fact-dependent.  They often have more to do with faith in what trusted people say.

PepsiCo wants dietitians to trust PepsiCo and avoid advising clients to cut back on sugary beverages or salty snacks.

The dietitian who sent this to me was skeptical, as dietitians should be in situations like these.

Feb 11 2025

Brave New World: Trigger Words for Scientists

An anonymous reader sent me this list, purportedly from the National Science Foundation, of words that disqualify scientists from submitting papers for publication, and applicants from getting grants.  The reader also sent the NSF decision tree for use of these words.  I cannot trace the original source of this material.  If you have any information about whether this is for real, please let me know.  My favorite words on this list?  Advocate and women.

The disqualifying words:

  • activism
  • activists
  • advocacy
  • advocate
  • advocates
  • antiracist
  • barrier
  • barriers
  • biased
  • biased toward
  • biases
  • biases towards
  • bipoc
  • black and latinx
  • community diversity
  • community equity
  • cultural differences
  • cultural heritage
  • culturally responsive
  • disabilities
  • disability
  • discriminated
  • discrimination
  • discriminatory
  • diverse backgrounds
  • diverse communities
  • diverse community
  • diverse group
  • diverse groups
  • diversified
  • diversify
  • diversifying
  • diversity and inclusion
  • diversity equity
  • enhance the diversity
  • enhancing diversity
  • equal opportunity
  • equality
  • equitable
  • equity
  • ethnicity
  • excluded
  • female
  • females
  • fostering inclusivity
  • gender
  • gender diversity
  • genders
  • hate speech
  • hispanic minority
  • historically
  • implicit bias
  • implicit biases
  • inclusion
  • inclusive
  • inclusiveness
  • inclusivity
  • increase diversity
  • increase the diversity
  • indigenous community
  • inequalities
  • inequality
  • inequitable
  • inequities
  • institutional
  • lgbt
  • marginalize
  • marginalized
  • minorities
  • minority
  • multicultural
  • polarization
  • political
  • prejudice
  • privileges
  • promoting diversity
  • race and ethnicity
  • racial
  • racial diversity
  • racial inequality
  • racial justice
  • racially
  • racism
  • sense of belonging
  • sexual preferences
  • social justice
  • socio cultural
  • socio economic
  • sociocultural
  • socioeconomic status
  • stereotypes
  • systemic
  • trauma
  • under appreciated
  • under represented
  • under served
  • underrepresentation
  • underrepresented
  • underserved
  • undervalued
  • victim
  • women
  • women and underrepresented

The NSF decision tree for disqualifying papers or grant applications using those words:

Tomorrow: How to comment on all of this.

Resources sent by readers

Nov 25 2024

Industry-funded study of the week: plant-based meat alternatives

Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Their Effects on Cardiometabolic Health: An 8-Week Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Plant-Based Meat Analogs With Their Corresponding Animal-Based Foods. Toh DWK, Fu AS, Mehta KA, Lam NYL, Haldar S, Henry CJ. Am J Clin Nutr. 2024 Jun;119(6):1405-1416. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.04.006. Epub 2024 Apr 8.

Erratum in: Am J Clin Nutr. 2024 Aug;120(2):459. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.06.012.

This study compared effects on cardiometabolic health among people eating meat or plan-based alternatives for 8 weeks.

Conclusion: An 8-wk PBMA (plant-based) diet did not show widespread cardiometabolic health benefits compared with a corresponding meat based diet.

Funding: This study was supported by Pinduoduo Incorporated (HongKong Walnut Street Limited). Pinduoduo Incorporated had no role in study design, study conduct, laboratory analyses, data collection, management and interpretation or the writing, reviewing and approval of the manuscript.

Comment

This study was sent to me by a reader, who viewed it as a rare example of an industry-funded study with results unfavorable to the sponsor’s interests.  He thought the “Walnut” in the company’s name indicated a plant-based bias.

I wasn’t so sure and wondered what Pinduoduo did, exactly.

According to Wikipedia, “Pinduoduo Inc. (Chinese拼多多Pinyin: Pīn duōduō) is a Chinese online retailer with a focus on the traditional agriculture industry. The business is the largest product of PDD Holdings, which also owns the online marketplace Temu.”

But it gets even better.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a correction to the paper:

The original funding statement was insufficiently elaborated and has been revised for greater clarity: Christiani Jeyakumar Henry [the senior investigator on this study] reports partial financial support provided by Pinduoduo Incorporated (HongKong Walnut Street Limited) which is an agricultural research firm.

This, then, is a standard example of an industry-funded—and conducted—study producing just the results wanted.  Another example of marketing research, alas.

Sep 27 2024

Weekend reading: Industrial farm animal production

James Merchant and Robert Martin, eds. Public Health Impacts of Industrial Farm Animal Production.  Johns Hopkins University Press, 2024.

I served on the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production with both authors about 15 years ago and was happy to do a blurb for their book.

This hard-hitting book defies meat industry pressure and obfuscation to document the devastating effects of its current production methods on the quality of air and water and on human health.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  Here’s a roadmap for a healthier and environmentally sustainable meat production system.

The book begins with an account of meat industry interference with the work of the Pew Commission and researchers investigating the health and polluting effects of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).

Our experience, and that of several of the authors of the 12 chapters in this book, have encountered considerable interference with their academic freedom as exerted directly by industrial agriculture or its pressure on academic administrators. Ensuring academic freedom, unbiased funding and unbiased research is critical to a sustainable environment and to protect the public’s health…. The pressure included industry harassment and intimidation of community residents, industry intrusion seeking to identify study subjects and research records, pressure applied to University administrators, and intimidation and litigation threats.

The multi-authored chapters document the extensive damage to health, the environment, and social justice caused by CAFOs, and recommend ways to deal with it.

Enforcing existing laws about air, water, soil, odor pollution, and animal welfare would be a good starting point.