Currently browsing posts about: Conflicts-of-interest

I was interested to see this article in Hoard’s Dairyman: Bringing dairy research to thought leaders.

It explains how food trade associations build relationships with nutrition scientists.

The article discusses the role of the  National Dairy Council (NDC) , in getting research on the benefits of dairy products “into the hands of our science-based colleagues around the country and even globally.”

This is why NDC circles various conferences and meetings on our calendar where we present dairy research and continue establishing relationships with credible third-party organizations.

One of the most important groups is the American Society for Nutrition (ASN)…ASN is the world’s largest nutrition science organization with about 7,000 members from more than 100 countries representing the academic, government, and private business sectors. Many ASN members embody the next generation of scientists and it’s critical we get to know each other.

The article goes on to explain how the NDC:

• Worked to ensure that the latest dairy science was part of this year’s ASN agenda.
• Led a symposium on dairy’s components and cardiovascular health and diabetes.
• Presented on dairy’s unique nutrient package
• Holds leadership positions within ASN.

But:

ASN is just one stop for NDC. We’ll also be involved with conferences hosted by other key organizations, such as the Mayo Clinic, Institute of Food Technologists, International Dairy Federation’s World Dairy Summit, Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences, and others.

I am a member of ASN and have long been concerned about its too cozy relationships with food companies and their trade associations.  I eat dairy foods and think they have a reasonable place in healthy diets, but they are not essential to human health.  Research debates on dairy products continue, and the close involvement of the NDC in a nutrition professional association compromises the independence of that association.

When I complained about the inherent conflicts of interest in such relationships, ASN officials explained that they want the association to be inclusive, a “big tent.”

Inclusivity is nice, but in this case the benefit goes more to the NDC than to the ASN.

Hoard’s Dairyman is not something I usually see, so I thank Lynn Ripley for sending.

************

Coming soon!  My memoir, October 4.

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

I very much appreciate the weekly newsletter, ObesityandEnergetics.org (If you want to subscribe, do so here).

I particularly enjoy its section, Headline vs Study.  Here’s the most recent, with my additions.

Headline: “Astonishing” Effects of Grape Consumption and “Remarkable” Impacts on Health and Lifespans.

Study: Grape Powder (Not Grapes) Modulates Gene Expression, Reduces Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, and Extends Longevity… In Female Mice.

I took a look at the study.

• Conclusion: “These results suggest the potential of dietary grapes to modulate hepatic gene expression, prevent oxidative damage, induce fatty acid metabolism, ameliorate NAFLD (non-alcohol fatty liver disease), and increase longevity when co-administered with a high-fat diet.”
• Funding: This work was supported in part by the California Table Grape Commission. The sponsor was not involved: in the preparation of the article; in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Here is another study:

Study: Behavioral and Genetic Changes of Grape Powder (Not Grapes)… In Female Mice.

Its funding?  “This research was supported in part by the California Table Grape Commission.”

And one more:

Study: Grape Powder (Not Grapes) Modifies Hepatic and Urinary Metabolite Profiles… In Female Mice.

This study is also enlightening.

• Conflicts of interest: [onE of the authors] “serves on the scientific advisory board of the California Table Grape Commission. There are no other conflicts to declare.”
• Acknowledgements:  [two of the authors] “acknowledge grant support from the California Table Grape Commission and seed grant funding from Long Island University. The California Table Grape Commission was not involved: in the preparation of the article; in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.”

Comment:  As usual, these authors deny the problems inherent in industry funded studies that have marketing of health benefits as their primary purpose.  Grapes are fruits.  Fruits are healthy.  Do grapes perform health miracles?  Only if you believe in miracles.  Should you eat grapes?  Sure, if you like them.

You don’t believe this is about marketing?  Here’s one more headline (thanks to Karen Zornow Leiding for sending).  And you know who funded this.

Eating grapes can counteract harmful effects from processed foods, while boosting metabolism too

************

Coming soon!  My memoir coming out in October.

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

Today’s Dietitian  sent this e-mail blast to members of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics on behalf of the National Pork Board, one of its sponsors.

The National Pork Board is seeking to build strong and meaningful partnerships with the Registered Dietitian profession. When it comes to up-to-date nutrition information, cooking techniques, continuing education and future collaborations, Pork is getting ready to give you the resources you value most. But first, we want to hear from you!

We invite you to take this survey for a chance to win one of fifteen $100 Amazon gift cards!*

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. Your responses are voluntary and confidential. Responses will not be identified by individual but will be compiled and analyzed in aggregate.

Fifteen winners will be chosen at random to receive a $100 Amazon gift card. To be eligible, respondents must share their email address at the end of the survey.

Please click here to take the survey by August 22, 2022* Giveaway is subject to Official Rules.

If you want to know how meat trade associations encourage dietitians to promote their products, here’s an example.

Thanks to Dr. Lisa Young for alerting me to this one.

One of the points of my Monday “industry-funded study of the week” posts is that companies usually get the results they want.  Exceptions do exist.  Here’s one of those rare ones.

The study: Changes in Biomarkers of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) upon Access to Avocados in Hispanic/Latino Adults: Secondary Data Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.  Lorena S. Pacheco, Ryan D. Bradley, Cheryl A. M. Anderson and Matthew A. Allison.  Nutrients 2022, 14(13), 2744; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14132744

Rationale: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common cause of abnormal liver functions tests and of increased increased risk for morbidity and mortality.  Monounsaturated fatty acids such as those in avocados havew been associated with improved NAFLD-related markers.

Hypothesis: “We hypothesized compared to low avocado intake, high avocado intake would have a beneficial effect on oxidative stress and hepatic health indicated by greater reductions in liver function tests and NAFLD fibrosis score.”

Results: “No statistically significant differences were observed between low and high avocado allotment groups” in anything measured.

Conclusion: “Varied intake of avocados resulted in no effects on biomarkers of NAFLD in healthy adults, free of severe chronic disease.”

Funding: “The parent research was funded by The Hass Avocado Board.”

Conflicts of interest: “The authors declare no potential conflict of interest. All authors report the grant from the Hass Avocado Board….The Hass Avocado Board funded the parent trial and provided all the trial’s avocados at no cost to study participants. The parent trial funder 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.”

Comment: The authors say they have no conflicts of interest but I think they do; the Hass Avocado Board paid for a study of the effects of avocados on NAFLD markers.  Such payments are well established to predict results that favor the sponsor’s interests.

Nevertheless, the results came out contrary to those interests, and the authors were unambiguous in saying so.  In this case, the assertion that the sponsor had no role seems credible, even though it often is not.

High marks to the authors. 

Thanks to Lisa Young and three other readers for sending along this one.

The press release: New Research Finds Consumption of Peanuts Supports Weight Loss, Lowers Blood Pressure and Improves Glucose Levels

The Study: Petersen, K.S.; Murphy, J.; Whitbread, J.; Clifton, P.M.; Keogh, J.B. The Effect of a Peanut-Enriched Weight Loss Diet Compared to a Low-Fat Weight Loss Diet on Body Weight, Blood Pressure, and Glycemic Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2986. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14142986.

Conclusion: Intake of 35 g of peanuts prior to two main meals per day, in the context of an energy-restricted diet, resulted in weight loss comparable to a traditional low-fat weight loss diet without preloads. Greater systolic blood pressure reductions were observed with peanut intake, which may lower cardiovascular disease risk.

Funding: This research was funded by The Peanut Institute…The funder 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.

Conflicts of Interest: J.B.K., P.M.C. and K.S.P. received a grant from The Peanut Institute to conduct this study. The funder 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.

Comment: The funder had no role?  That’s what they all say.  That may be true in this instance, but but much research demonstrates otherwise, and funders are unlikely to pay for studies that might give them unfavorable results.

The underlying purpose of this study was to demonstrate that if you are on a weight-loss diet, you can eat lots of peanuts and still lose weight: “70 g/d of peanuts may be included in an energy-restricted weight loss diet without attenuating weight loss over a 6-month period.”  Of course you can, if you stick to a low-calorie diet.

I’m all for eating nuts.  Substituting them for ultra-processed snack foods is a reasonable approach to dieting, but don’t expect to lose any more weight eating nuts than from any other source of calories.  This is a marketing study, aimed at encouraging you to eat more peanuts.

It’s been more than a year since I last wrote about avocado industry funding of research but the Avocado Nutrition Center has been sending out press releases so it’s time for another look.

Given the Superbowl—105 million pounds of avocados consumed that day by one estimate—you might not think that the avocado industry would have to work as hard as it does to convince you that avocados are a superfood.

But maybe what it is trying to do is to get us to ignore the effects of our demand for avocados on deforestation and social unrest in Mexico.

The avocado industry is a good example of how to fund research for marketing purposes.  It funds the Avocado Nutrition Center’s research program.

The program’s website covers dozens of industry-funded studies that demonstrate benefits of avocados for cardiovascular health, weight management, type 2 diabetes, and healthy living at every age.

Here’s how the Center uses them.

Another recent study of 2,886 older adults, published in Frontiers in Nutrition, examined cognitive function among older American avocado consumers compared to nonconsumers.

On that basis, the Center produced a fact sheet: Proactive thinking on cognition.  

The Center also lists a few independently funded studies that produced equally beneficial results.

I picked one at random and looked it up: Avocado Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in US Adults.

• Conclusion: Higher avocado intake was associated with lower risk of CVD and coronary heart disease in 2 large prospective cohorts of US men and women. The replacement of certain fat-containing foods with avocado could lead to lower risk of CVD.
• Funding: mostly by NIH
• Conflicts of interest: the lead author reports having “collaborated in the Hass Avocado Board–funded trial Effects of Avocado Intake on the Nutritional Status of Families during 2016 to 2019 as a graduate student researcher, but the present study was not supported or endorsed by the Hass Avocado Board. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.”

And here’s the most recent study: Effect of Incorporating 1 Avocado Per Day Versus Habitual Diet on Visceral Adiposity: A Randomized Trial

• Conclusion: Addition of 1 avocado per day to the habitual diet for 6 months in free‐living individuals with elevated waist circumference did not reduce visceral adipose tissue volume and had minimal effect on risk factors associated with cardiometabolic disorders.
• Funding: This work was supported by the Avocado Nutrition Center.

Why be concerned?  Aren’t avocados good for you?

Sure, and I love them.  But superfoods?  All fruits and vegetables have useful nutrients, but some have fewer calories (a serving size is one-third of an avocado) and most are less caught up in ecological damage.

I discuss the scientific reasons for concern in my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.  In it, I review the literature on the “funding effect”—the observation that research sponsored by food companies almost invariably produces results favorable to the sponsor’s interests.  Research on conflicts of interest also demonstrates that recipients of industry funding do not recognize its influence, did not intend to be influenced, and deny the influence, despite vast amounts of research to the contrary.

Cranberry marketing gets wilder and wilder.  Last week I posted a study of endothelial function paid for by the cranberry industry.

But here’s a study that tops it.  I learned about it from a headline in NutraIngredients.com: Cranberry consumption may boost memory and ward off dementia in elderly, study finds.

Oh come on.  Really?

I went right to it.

The study: Chronic Consumption of Cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon) for 12 Weeks Improves Episodic Memory and Regional Brain Perfusion in Healthy Older Adults: A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Groups Feasibility Study.  Emma Flanagan, Donnie Cameron, Rashed Sobhan, Chloe Wong, Matthew G. Pontifex, Nicole Tosi, Pedro Mena, Daniele Del Rio³, Saber Sami, Arjan Narbad, Michael Müller, Michael Hornberger and David Vauzour.  Front. Nutr., 19 May 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.849902

Design: This was a 12-week randomised placebo-controlled trial of freeze-dried cranberry powder in 60 older adults aged between 50 and 80 years. Investigators measured memory and executive function, did neuroimaging, and took blood samples before and after .

Results: “Cranberry supplementation for 12 weeks was associated with improvements in visual episodic memory in aged participants when compared to placebo.”

Conclusions: “The results of this study indicate that daily cranberry supplementation (equivalent to 1 small cup of cranberries) over a 12-week period improves episodic memory performance and neural functioning.”

Funding: “This research was supported by a Cranberry Institute grant…The Cranberry Institute was not involved in the design, implementation, analysis, and interpretation of the data.”

Conflict of Interest: “DV, MH, MM, and AN received funding from the Cranberry Institute.  The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”

Publisher’s Note:  “All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.”

Comment: This is the first time I have ever seen a Publisher’s Note like this.  Even the publisher is troubled by the fact that this study is funded by a cranberry industry trade group and the four most senior authors report funding from the group.  Without even getting into whether cranberry powder is equivalent to cranberries, whether anyone can eat cranberries without adding their weight in sugar, or whether any other fruit might have similar effects, we should ask whether it makes any sense at all to think that any one single food could boost memory and prevent dementia in the elderly.

For detailed discussion of how industry funding influences research, and the consequences of such practices, see my book Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

The commentary: Perspective: Soy-Based Meat and Dairy Alternatives, Despite Classification as Ultra-Processed Foods, Deliver High-Quality Nutrition on Par With Unprocessed or Minimally Processed Animal-Based Counterparts.  By Mark Messina, John L Sievenpiper, Patricia Williamson, Jessica Kiel, John W Erdman, Jr.  Advances in Nutrition, nmac026, https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmac026

Purpose: “This perspective argues that none of the criticisms of UPFs [ultra-processed foods] apply to soy-based meat and dairy alternatives when compared with their animal-based counterparts, beef and cow milk, which are classified as unprocessed or minimally processed foods (group 1). Classifying soy-based meat and dairy alternatives as UPFs may hinder their public acceptance, which could detrimentally affect personal and planetary health. In conclusion, the NOVA classification system is simplistic and does not adequately evaluate the nutritional attributes of meat and dairy alternatives based on soy.

Conflicts of interest: the statement is so long that I will save it for the end.

Comment: This commentary is a critique of the NOVA classification system, which puts foods in four categories by level of processing:

• Group 1: Unprocessed/minimally processed (fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, meat, milk with no complicated additives)
• Group 2: Processed culinary ingredients (oils, fats, butter, vinegars, sugar, and salt eaten with added to Group 1)
• Group 3: Processed (mix of groups 1 and 2, chiefly for preservation)
• Group 4: Ultra-processed (industrially produced, cannot be made in home kitchens, chemical additives)

By this time, literally hundreds of studies have linked frequent consumption of ultra-processed (“junk”) foods to weight gain and its associated chronic diseases—type 2 diabetes, heart disease, etc—as well as high risk for poor outcome from COVID-19.  One carefully controlled clinical trial has shown that ultra-processed diets induce people to unwittingly take in more calories (“you can’t eat just one.”).

Artificial meats and dairy products made with plant proteins clearly meet the definition of ultra-processed.   Are soy products in a different category from those made with pea protein, for example?  Should plant-based meats in general be exempt from being considered ultra-processed?

I don’t think we know yet whether these products are better for health and the environment.  The issues are complicated and we don’t yet have the research or experience.

These authors report conflicted ties—many such ties—to companies making soy products and other products that might be considered ultra-processed:

Author disclosures: MM is employed by the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, an organization that receives funding from the United Soybean Board and industry members who are involved in the manufacture and/or sale of soyfoods and/or soybean components. JLS has received research support from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Ontario Research Fund, Province of Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation and Science, Canadian Institutes of health Research (CIHR), Diabetes Canada, PSI Foundation, Banting and Best Diabetes Centre (BBDC), American Society for Nutrition (ASN), INC International Nut and Dried Fruit Council Foundation, National Dried Fruit Trade Association, National Honey Board (the USDA honey “Checkoff” program), International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), Pulse Canada, Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, The United Soybean Board (the USDA soy “Checkoff” program), The Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, The Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Alberta Pulse Growers), and The Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by an inaugural donation from the Calorie Control Council). He has received food donations to support randomized controlled trials from the Almond Board of California, California Walnut Commission, Peanut Institute, Barilla, Unilever/Upfield, Unico/Primo, Loblaw Companies, Quaker, Kellogg Canada, WhiteWave Foods/Danone, Nutrartis, and Dairy Farmers of Canada. He has received travel support, speaker fees, and/or honoraria from Diabetes Canada, Dairy Farmers of Canada, FoodMinds LLC, International Sweeteners Association, Nestlé, Pulse Canada, Canadian Society for Endocrinology and Metabolism (CSEM), GI Foundation, Abbott, General Mills, Biofortis, ASN, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, INC Nutrition Research and Education Foundation, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Comité Européen des Fabricants de Sucre (CEFS), Nutrition Communications, International Food Information Council (IFIC), Calorie Control Council, International Glutamate Technical Committee, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He has or has had ad hoc consulting arrangements with Perkins Coie LLP, Tate & Lyle, Wirtschaftliche Vereinigung Zucker eV, Danone, and Inquis Clinical Research. He is a member of the European Fruit Juice Association Scientific Expert Panel and former member of the Soy Nutrition Institute (SNI) Scientific Advisory Committee. He is on the Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committees of Diabetes Canada, European Association for the study of Diabetes (EASD), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and Obesity Canada/Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons. He serves or has served as an unpaid scientific advisor for the Food, Nutrition, and Safety Program (FNSP) and the Technical Committee on Carbohydrates of ILSI North America. He is a member of the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC), Executive Board Member of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the EASD, and Director of the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials foundation. His wife is an employee of AB InBev. PW is employed by Cargill, Inc, a global food company headquartered in Wayzata, MN. Cargill produces soy-based food and industrial products. JK is employed by Medifast Inc., a nutrition and weight-management company based in Baltimore, Maryland, that uses soy protein in many of its products. JWE is a scientific advisory to the Soy Nutrition Institute Global.