Currently browsing posts about: Conflicts-of-interest

The study: Effects of replacing solid fats and added sugars with avocado in adults with elevated cardiometabolic risk: a randomized, double-blind, controlled feeding, crossover trial.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Volume 123, Issue 2101137 February 2026.

Objective: to assess the effects of replacing energy from solid fats and added sugars with equivalent energy from 1 avocado daily on cardiometabolic risk factors.

Methods: Study subjects were given a diet with or without an avocado a day to replace energy from saturated fatty acids and added sugars.

Results: While on the avocado diet, subjects improved their lipoprotein profiles.

Conclusions: Replacing solid fats and added sugars with avocado in a typical American diet improves the lipoprotein lipid profile in adults with
elevated triglycerides.

Funding: “The Avocado Nutrition Center of the Hass Avocado Board funded this research. The sponsor was allowed to comment on the study design as part of the application process. The sponsor had no role or involvement in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or regarding the submission of the manuscript for publication, regardless of the results of the study.”

Conflict of interest:  The list of disclosed conflicts is much too long to bother to reproduce.  At least 3 of the 12 authors specifically disclose financial support from  from the Hass Avocado Board.

Comment: The disclosure statement is unusally forthcoming.  The funder had input into the study design, the part of the research process where industry influence is most likely to show up.  Funders are most likely to fund research that has the best chance of giving them the answers they want.  This was a cooperative effort to demonstrate the benefits of eating avocados.

I like avocados and appreciate that their fats are largely monounsaturated and benign or good for health.  But the purpose of this research is not about science; it is about avocado industry-sponsored research to market avocados.

I have no doubt the Hass Board would respond to this by saying, “if we don’t fund this kind of research, who will?”

That’s my point.

The new Dietary Guidelines have advised against consuming non-nutritive sweeteners despite research testifying to their harmlessness.  Much such research is funded by groups representing makers of artificial sweeteners, as these two examples show.

Study #1: A Systematic Review of Nonsugar Sweeteners and Cancer Epidemiology Studies Adv Nutr. 2025 Dec;16(12):100527. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100527.

Method: review of epidemiology studies of NSS intake and the risks of all types of cancer.

Results:  Overall, the epidemiology evidence does not support associations between any NSS and any cancer type.

Conflict of interest: All authors are employed by Gradient, Geosyntec, or the American Beverage Association (ABA). Gradient and Geosyntec are environmental and risk sciences consulting firms. ABA is the trade association that represents America’s non-alcoholic beverage industry.

Funding: ABA provided funding for this paper, which was written during the authors’ normal course of employment. This paper represents the professional opinions of the authors and not those of ABA.

Study #2:  Lack of Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Potential for Nonsugar Sweeteners: A Review of Animal and Mechanistic Evidence.  Adv Nutr. 2025 Dec;16(12):100552. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100552. Epub 2025 Nov 4.

Method: review of the available experimental evidence.

Results: high-quality studies have not shown evidence for carcinogenicity in animal models, except for saccharin, which causes bladder tumors in rats via a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Conclusions:  The results of this evaluation are consistent with the results of epidemiology studies, which have shown no consistent associations between NSS intake and cancer risk. Taken together, the body of available evidence supports previous conclusions by authoritative and regulatory bodies that Ace-K, advantame, aspartame, cyclamate, neotame, saccharin, steviol glycosides, and sucralose do not pose a genotoxic or carcinogenic risk to humans.

Conflict of interest: All authors are employed by Gradient or the American Beverage Association (ABA). Gradient is an environmental and risk sciences consulting firm. ABA is the trade association that represents America’s nonalcoholic beverage industry. This paper represents the professional opinions of the authors and not those of ABA.

Comment

These are two studies paid for by the American Beverage Association and conducted by paid consultants or employees to produce research favorable to the use of artificial sweeteners, which these studies did.

Research on artificial sweeteners is especially difficult to do because the amounts consumed are so small relative to other dietary components.  In general, independently funded research tends to find more problems associated with use of non-nutritive sweeteners than does industry-funded research.  This is an example of the “funding effect,” the by this time well documented influence of sponsorship on research outcome.

On Mondays, I typically post something about industry-funded research or investigator conflicts of interest.

In the light of Robert F. Kennedy’s complaints about conflicts of interest in previous dietary guidelines advisory committees, it is startling to observe the industry ties reported by members of this administration’s committee.

These conflicted interests are also surprising in light of the high prioritization of meat in these guidelines, which advise eating protein (a commonly understood euphemism for meat) in every meal, and high-fat dairy.

The committee’s membership and disclosures are given on pages ix-xviii of the Scientific Foundation report.

To focus just on ties to meat and dairy groups, members report financial ties to

• Global Dairy Platform
• Nutricia/Danone
• National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
• Texas Beef Council
• American Dairy Science Association
• National Dairy Council
• National Pork Board
• California Dairy Innovation Center
• Fonterra Limited
• California Dairy Research Foundation
• Dairy Management Inc

This was reported originally in Stat News (which quotes me elsewhere in the story).

It’s unclear how the Trump administration appointed its group of nutrition scientists and other researchers. A scientific report linked at the bottom of a new federal website, RealFood.gov, says only they were chosen through “a federal contracting process based on demonstrated expertise.”

The Times quotes Mark Kennedy, the senior vice president of legal affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which supports plant-based diets and has filed a complaint with the government saying it should withdraw the guidelines.

Disclosing conflicts of interest at the end of the process “isn’t really going to cut it..Because if nobody ever had a chance to weigh in, and nobody other than the government behind closed doors had a way to assess it, there’s no way to ensure there’s fair balance.” (Mr. Kennedy is not related to the health secretary.)

Comment

In reading through press accounts, I’m pretty sure I saw one where one of the committee members reporting financial ties tossed it off with some comment about how he was sticking to the science and that’s all that mattered (I’ve searched but can’t find it now).

I heard that a lot after publication of my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.  In that book, I review research on the “funding effect,” the strong correlations between who pays for food and nutrition research and its outcome.  Industry-funded research tends to produce results favorable to the funder’s interests (otherwise it wouldn’t be funded).  But recipients of funding typically did not intend to be influenced and do not recognize the influence.  It is not surprising that this committee—unlike many other scientific committees over the past decades—came to precisely the conclusions decided in advance by Secretaries Kennedy and Rollins.

Rumors are that the 2025=2030 dietary guidelines will be released this week and they will favor saturated fat and meat.  We will know whether this is true when they appear, and I will be sure to report on them when they do.

In the meantime, the meat industry is hard at work to try to convince you that meat is good for you and the more the better.  Here are two examples sent to me recently.

I.  From Serge Hercberg, developer of Nutri-Score.

• The study: Red meat intake and its influences on inflammation and immune function biomarkers in human adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2025.2584482
• Conclusion: “Limited evidence from both experimental and observational research suggests no influence of red meat intake on multiple pro-inflammatory, anti-inflammatory, and immune function biomarkers…These results are consistent with recommendations for people who choose to consume red meat to limit or avoid consuming processed red meat, especially among individuals with cardiometabolic diseases.”
• Disclosure statement: “During the time this research was conducted, W.W.C. received funding for research grants, travel or honoraria for scientific presentations, or consulting services from the following organizations: U.S. National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Hatch Funding), Pork Checkoff, National Pork Board, Beef Checkoff, North Dakota Beef Commission, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education, American Egg Board, Whey Protein Research Consortium, National Dairy Council, Barilla Group, Mushroom Council, and the National Chicken Council. J.B.R. received funding for research grants from the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, Whey Protein Research Consortium, and National Chicken Council. M.R.O. received funding for research grants from the National Cattleman’s Beef Association. Y.W., C.N.U., E.R.H., J.N.S., and N.L.A. declare no conflict of interest. The funders and these other organizations had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.” [my emphasis]
• Funding: “The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff.”

II.   From a reader, Cory Brooks

• Press release: “Eating meat may protect against cancer, landmark research shows:  A large study of nearly 16,000 adults found no link between eating animal protein and higher death risk. Surprisingly, higher animal protein intake was associated with lower cancer mortality, supporting its role in a balanced, health-promoting diet.”
• The study: Yanni Papanikolaou, Stuart M. Phillips, Victor L. Fulgoni. Animal and plant protein usual intakes are not adversely associated with all-cause, cardiovascular disease–, or cancer-related mortality risk: an NHANES III analysis. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 2025; 50: 1 DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2023-0594
• Conclusion: “Our data do not support the thesis that source-specific protein intake is associated with greater mortality risk; however, animal protein may be mildly protective for cancer mortality. “
• Funding: From the press release: “This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff. NCBA was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis or publication of the findings.”

Comment: We have here two studies funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the research and education arm of the USDA-sponsored Beef Checkoff.  Checkoff programs are designed to promote consumer demand for the sponsored food, in this case, beef.  Eating less beef has long been viewed as beneficial to human health, because of studies linking beef consumption to certain cancers.  Eating less beef is demonstrably beneficial to the environment since beef production results in so much waste pollution and greenhouse gas emission.  The NCBA would prefer that you not think about potential health risks.  Hence, this sponsored research.

As for the statements about the funder having no involvement: these are demonstrably misleading.  The NCBA does not fund research unlikely to produce results in its interests.  The influence is there from the get go.

Alert to readers: Amazon.com displays listings for several more workbooks, study guides, and cookbooks purportedly based on my book, What to Eat Now (see previous post on this).  I did not write any of them.  Caveat emptor!

___________________________

Thanks to Lais Miachon Silva of the Micronutrient Forum for sending this item.

The study: A Systematic Review of Nonsugar Sweeteners and Cancer Epidemiology Studies. Advances in Nutrition Volume 16, Issue 12, December 2025, 100527.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100527

Methods: systematic literature review

Results: “We found no consistent associations between any NSS or NSSs in aggregate and any cancer overall, and no evidence for dose–response.”

Conclusions: “Experimental animal and mechanistic evidence for NSSs does not support human-relevant carcinogenicity or any biologically plausible mechanisms by which NSSs could cause genotoxicity or cancer in humans. Overall, the epidemiology evidence does not support associations between any NSS and any cancer type.”

Funding: ABA [American Beverage Association] provided funding for this paper, which was written during the authors’ normal course of employment.

Conflict of interest: All authors are employed by Gradient, Geosyntec, or the American Beverage Association (ABA). Gradient and Geosyntec are environmental and risk sciences consulting firms. ABA is the trade association that represents America’s non-alcoholic beverage industry. ABA provided funding for this paper, which was written during the authors’ normal course of employment. This paper represents the professional opinions of the authors and not those of ABA.

Comment: This is a classic example of an industry-funded study conducted by industry employees producing results favorable to the sponsor’s commercial interests.  I am particularly amused by the last conflict of interest statement.  It too is a classic example, this time of Upton Sinclair’s famous quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” 

I’m always fascinated by egg-and-health studies because advice about eggs really has never changed: one egg a day was OK decades ago, and still is.

But the egg industry wants you to eat more eggs.  And encourages research to promote doing so.

Hence this study.

The study: Egg intake and cognitive function in healthy adults: A systematic review of the literature. J Nutr Health Aging. 2025 Dec;29(12):100696. doi: 10.1016/j.jnha.2025.100696. Epub 2025 Oct 7.

Background: “Eggs are a widely consumed, nutrient-dense food containing choline, phospholipids, tryptophan, and omega-3 fatty acids, which individually support cognitive processes such as memory, attention, and neurogenesis.”

Method: Systematic literature review.

Conclusions: “This systematic review identified preliminary observational evidence that moderate habitual egg consumption may be associated with better cognitive performance, particularly in memory and verbal fluency domains, and reduced risk of cognitive impairment in adults without chronic disease. However, findings were inconsistent, and the overall evidence base remains limited in both quantity and quality. Further rigorous studies, especially well-powered randomised controlled trials, are required to determine whether egg consumption contributes to cognitive resilience and to clarify dose–response relationships. [My emphasis]

Funding: [The first author] was supported by a PhD Scholarship partly funded by Australian Eggs Ltd (GROW005). The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.

Comment: “May” is equivalent to “may not,” making the positive spin on the conclusions an example of interpretation bias consistent with industry funding.  The analysis shows that nobody is finding evidence that eggs have any measurable effect on cognitive function, so why bother with further studies.  They are unlikely to find a stronger effect.  This study is especially unfortunate because the first author is a doctoral student, whose mentors ought to have kept free of industry influence.

There was much fuss last week about the retraction of this highly significant paper about the safety of glyphosate (Roundup), the Monsanto weed killer widely used with genetically modified crops.  As has been suspected for years, it was ghostwritten by Monsanto on cherry-picked data.

The original paper: Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;31(2 Pt 1):117-65.  doi: 10.1006/rtph.1999.1371.  

Its conclusion: “Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.”

The authors thanked Monsanto for generous provision of data.  The acknowledgments did not disclose funding or conflicts of interest.

The retraction notice includes several remarkable statements.

• The article’s conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate are solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto.
• The authors did not include multiple other long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies, that were already done at the time of writing their review in 1999.
• Litigation in the United States revealed correspondence from Monsanto suggesting that the authors of the article were not solely responsible for writing its content. It appears from that correspondence that employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors.
• The apparent contributions of Monsanto employees as co-writers to this article were not explicitly mentioned as such in the acknowledgments section.
• Further correspondence with Monsanto disclosed during litigation indicates that the authors may have received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article, which was not disclosed as such in this publication.

The retraction points out that the article “has been widely regarded as a hallmark paper in the discourse surrounding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and Roundup…[and] had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and
Roundup for decades.”

Yikes.

Much of this was discovered as a result of litigation.  Do not miss this analysis by Alexander Kaurov and Naomi Orestes: The afterlife of a ghost-written paper: How corporate authorship shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse.  Environmental Science & Policy Volume 171, September 2025, 104160

Litigation in 2017 revealed that Monsanto ghost-wrote an influential 2000 review defending the safety of glyphosate…In all domains, citations predominantly appear without caveats, even after the ghost-writing was exposed.

 I wrote an in-depth investigation of this study and the journal that published it, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, eight years ago, revealing that the society behind the journal, ISRTP, was run by a tobacco consultant and held their meetings in the offices of Keller and Heckman, the chief law firm in DC for the chemical industry.

In short, a National Academies staffer seeking a job in the biotech industry picked panelists with ties to biotech companies to write an influential report that alleged no harms in GE agriculture … and that report just happened to be littered with studies published in Reg Tox Pharm—industry’s favorite journal.

And here’s what Retraction Watch has to say: “Glyphosate safety article retracted eight years after Monsanto ghostwriting revealed in court”

The safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is hotly debated and currently under review at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, in 2015 declared glyphosate “possibly carcinogenic.”…Three papers about glyphosate on which Williams was an author received an expression of concern and lengthy corrections in 2018 because the authors didn’t fully disclose their ties to Monsanto or the company’s involvement in the articles.

• The New Lede: Citing “serious ethical concerns,” journal retracts key Monsanto Roundup safety study
• The New Lede: Trump administration sides with Bayer in seeking Supreme Court ruling on Roundup fight
• US Right to Know: Landmark glyphosate safety study retracted for Monsanto ghostwriting, other ethics problems
• U.S. Supreme Court:  Monsanto Company, Petitioner v John L. Durnell: Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae
• EPA Office of Pesticide Programs:  Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential (December 12, 2017)
• EPA: Glyphosate
•  The Guardian:  Science journal retracts study on safety of Monsanto’s Roundup: ‘Serious ethical concerns’
• Le Monde: Influential study on glyphosate safety retracted 25 years after publication
• AgFunder News: Landmark glyphosate paper retracted in random reckoning for a scientific relic
• The Canadian Press: Study that said glyphosate herbicide is safe retracted 25 years after publication
• No More Glyphosate NZ: Stop the Chemical Creep

When I see a study with a title like this, my first question is “Who paid for this study?”

The title:  Association of Egg Intake With Alzheimer’s Dementia Risk in Older Adults: The Rush Memory and Aging Project. The Journal of Nutrition Volume 154, Issue 7, July 2024, Pages 2236-2243.

The study: It collected dietary data by food frequency questionnaire from older adults (average age 81) and assessed Alzheimer’s dementia after nearly 7 years of follow up.

Results: Eating 1 or 2 eggs a week was associated with decreased risk.

Conclusions: “In conclusion, these findings suggest that more frequent egg consumption is associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer’s dementia, and this association is partially mediated through the effect of dietary choline on Alzheimer’s dementia…Once replicated in other prospective cohorts and confirmed by clinical trials, these findings may have important public health implications for reducing the population’s risk of AD.”

Funding: Funding for the Rush University qualifications of choline intake was provided through an unrestricted investigator-initiated grant from the Egg Nutrition Center to Think Healthy Group, LLC…The authors and sponsor strictly adhered to the American Society for Nutrition’s guiding principles for private funding for food science and nutrition research.

Conflicts of interest: One author is the Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Dietary Supplements and has received past research support from the Egg Nutrition Center.

Comment: At first glance, this is a standard egg industry funded study with an outcome favoring frequent egg consumption.  But egg consumption in this study—one or two a week—does not seem frequent to me.  What this study may really be about is choline, a conditionally essential nutrient (we make our own, but not always enough).  The “important public health implications?” Eat more eggs and take choline supplements, I guess.  If only.