Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

No food industry is too small or too obscure to fund research in its own interest.  Try this one, for example.

Effects of Supplementation with a Microalgae Extract from Phaeodactylum tricornutum Containing Fucoxanthin on Cognition and Markers of Health in Older Individuals with Perceptions of Cognitive Decline. Yoo C, Maury J, Gonzalez DE, Ko J, Xing D, Jenkins V, Dickerson B, Leonard M, Estes L, Johnson S, et al.  Nutrients. 2024; 16(17):2999. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16172999

Background: Phaeodactylum tricornutum (PT) is a microalgae extract that contains fucoxanthin and has been shown to enhance cognitive function in younger populations.

Purpose: The present study assessed if PT supplementation affects cognition in healthy, young-old, physically active adults with self-perceptions of cognitive and memory decline.

Methods: Forty-three males and females…with perceptions of cognitive and memory decline completed the double-blind, randomized, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled intervention clinical trial. Participants were…randomly allocated to their respective 12-week supplementation interventions, which were either the placebo (PL) or 1100 mg/day of PT containing 8.8 mg of fucoxanthin (FX).

Results: FX supplementation significantly affected (p < 0.05) or exhibited tendencies toward significance (p > 0.05 to p < 0.10 with effect sizes ranging from medium to large) for word recall, picture recognition reaction time, Stroop color–word test, choice reaction time, and digit vigilance test variables.

Conclusions: The results demonstrate some evidence that FX supplementation can improve working and secondary memory, vigilance, attention, accuracy, and executive function.

Funding: Microphyt (Baillargues, FRA) funded this study through a grant (Microphyt #410991) to Texas A&M University.

Conflicts of interest: J.M. and R.P. are sponsor-affiliated researchers who therefore have conflicts of interest in study results. They provided input on study design but were not involved in data collection or analysis. R.B.K. has conducted grant and contract-funded research on nutritional supplements awarded to the universities he has been affiliated with, received an honorarium for making scientific presentations, and served as a paid scientific expert. He has no financial conflicts of interest with the study sponsor or product evaluated in this study. The remaining coauthors report no financial conflicts of interest.

Comment: I like “some evidence.”  That suggests the evidence is not particularly impressive.  The study found positive conclusions, not surprising since two of the authors work for the sponsoring company.  Industry-funded studies almost invariably find conclusions that favor the sponsor’s interests.  Otherwise, why bother to sponsor research.  That’s its point: marketing.

Thanks to Stephen Zwick of Regenetarianism for sending this one.

Charoenwoodhipong, P., Zuelch, M. L., Keen, C. L., Hackman, R. M., & Holt, R. R. (2024). Strawberry (Fragaria x Ananassa) intake on human health and disease outcomes: a comprehensive literature review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2024.2398634

From the Abstract

Of the 60 articles included in this review, 47 were clinical trials, while 13 were observational studies. A majority of these studies reported on the influence of strawberry intake on cardiometabolic outcomes. Study designs included those examining the influence of strawberry intake during the postprandial period, short-term trials randomized with a control, or a single arm intake period controlling with a low polyphenolic diet or no strawberry intake. A smaller proportion of studies included in this review examined the influence of strawberry intake on additional outcomes of aging including bone and brain health, and cancer risk. Data support that the inclusion of strawberries into the diet can have positive impacts during the postprandial period, with daily intake improving outcomes of lipid metabolism and inflammation in those at increased cardiovascular risk.

Funding: This work was supported by the California Strawberry Commission (CSC). PC, MLZ, and RRH received financial support from the CSC for this work.

Disclosure statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Comment: I can never get over how industry-funded authors do not view industry funding as a conflict of interest when so much evidence confirms that such funding strongly influences research design and interpretation.  For the record, I review that evidence in my book Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

This sure looks like a standard industry-funded study with a predictable outcome favorable to the strawberry industry in this case.

Strawberries are a fine food, delicious, nutritious, and obviously healthful.  But a superfood responsible on their own for disease prevention?

How I wish.

This is marketing research.

A reader sent me this e-mailed announcement from the Kentucky Public Health Association. 

The announcement features “hot off the press” research.

• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Contribution of beef to key nutrient intakes and nutrient adequacy in pregnant and lactating women: NHANES 2011-2018 Analysis. Pregnant & lactating women who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, iron, zinc.  [Funding: This research was funded by the Beef Checkoff].
• Christifano DN, et al. The role of fresh beef intake and Mediterranean Diet adherence during pregnancy in maternal and infant health outcomes. Pregnant women who eat about 1.5 oz. of beef/day as part of a Mediterranean-style dietary pattern are less likely to develop maternal anemia, compared to those who have lower intake of beef. Additionally, pregnant women who eat more beef have higher intakes of nutrients critical for maternal & child health, including protein, iron, zinc, choline, B vitamins. [Funding: This research was partly funded by Beef Checkoff]
• Agarwal S and Fulgoni VL III. Beef consumption is associated with higher intakes and adequacy of key nutrients in older adults age 60+ year: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2000-2018 Analysis. Older adults who eat beef in their diets have improved nutrient intake & adequacy for essential nutrients such as protein, calcium, vitamin B12, iron. [Funding: This work was supported by The Beef Checkoff].

More Information

For more information, visit The Kentucky Beef Council and Beef It’s What’s For Dinner.
For infographics and nutrition handouts, click here.
To join our monthly health professional newsletter, register here.

COMMENT

This advertisement from the Kentucky Beef Council was sent to members of the Kentucky Public Health Association.  It does not say who sponsored the hot new research [I had to look it up].

The partnership raises several questions:

• Is the Kentucky Beef Council a sponsor of the Association?  If so, at what level? (Its annual report does not list sponsors.  Neither does its website, although it does list sponsorship categories for its annual meetings).
• Do members of the Kentucky Public Health Association believe that their association’s apparent endorsement of beef is a good idea?
• Are Kentucky public health nutritionists talking to their clients about the role of beef in health and environmental sustainability?
• If so, what are they saying?

The benefit of this kind of sponsorship/partnership to the Kentucky Beef Council is obvious.

But it raises serious questions about the integrity of the Kentucky Public Health Association.

I hope KPHA members are discussing this issue with the Association’s leadership.

Potatoes, a source of rapidly absorbable starch, have such a bad reputation that some nutritionists advise against eating them.  I am not one of them.  I enjoy eating potatoes and think their blood sugar-raising effects depend on how they are prepared and how muh of them you eat.

The potato industry, alarmed about advice not to eat potatoes, funds research to prove they are healthy, or at least do no harm.  Hence:

Djousse L, Zhou X, Lim J, Kim E, Sesso HD, Lee IM, Buring JE, McClelland RL, Gaziano JM, Steffen LM, Manson JE. Potato Consumption and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Harmonized Analysis of 7 Prospective Cohorts. J Nutr. 2024 Oct;154(10):3079-3087. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2024.07.020.

• Results: In the primary analysis, total potato intake was not associated with T2D risk:…In secondary analyses, consumption of combined baked, boiled, and mashed potatoes was not associated with T2D risk, whereas fried potato consumption was positively associated with T2D risk:.
• Conclusions: Although consumption of total potato is not associated with T2D risk, a modest elevated risk of T2D is observed with fried potato consumption.
• Conflict of interest: LD received investigator-initiated grant from the Alliance for Potato Research and Education (as principal investigator).
• Funding: This project was supported by a grant from the Alliance Potato Research and Education (principal investigator: LD).  A lengthy list of other funders, including NIH and Mars Edge, follows.

Comment: This potato industry-funded study did not find potatoes to be associated with type 2 diabetes, which must be a huge relief to this industry. But the study did find a weak association (barely statistically significant) beween fried potatoes and type 2 diabetes.  The Potato Alliance ought to be delighted with this result.   I’m guessing the result is real (it’s what I would have predicted), but I’d be happier with it if it had been conducted by investigators independent of industry funding.  As it is, it looks like the potato industry got what it paid for.

A reader, Bart Peuchot, writes:

I would be very interested to have your view on this new publication for Nature.

As you taught me, I checked the competing interests and it seems to be a perfect industry-funded publication.

And then ,I ran across this Tweet (X) from @Stuart Gillespie:

New paper concluding “more research needed”
…brought to you by Nutrition Foundation of Italy…
…which in turn is brought to you by
…..@Nestle @McDonalds @CocaCola Ferrero, Barilla, Danone et al…

Well.  What  is this about?

I went right to the paper: Visioli, F., Del Rio, D., Fogliano, V. et al. Ultra-processed foods and health: are we correctly interpreting the available evidence?. Eur J Clin Nutr (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-024-01515-8

Aha! Another attack on the concept of ultra-processed foods.  The article concludes

the available evidence on how different UPFs have been associated with health, as well as the results of studies examining specific food additives, call into question the possibility that ultra-processing per se is the real culprit. It is possible that other unaccounted for confounding factors play an important role. Future, urgently needed studies will clarify this issue.

The Italian food industry has been especially active in opposing NutriScore labels and anything else that might discourage sales of foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fat.

But it is not alone in pushing back against the concept of  ultra-processed foods—an existential threat to junk food manufacturers.

Here, for example, is Hank Cardello,  the Executive Director of Leadership Solutions for Health + Prosperity at Georgetown’s Business School writing in Forbes:: New Report Highlights The Sweet Side Of Ultra-Processed Foods.

With ultra-processed foods (UPFs) replacing “junk food” as the new bogeyman for public health advocates, a new study published by  the Georgetown University Business for Impact Center (full disclosure: I am one of the authors) reveals that all UPFs are not created equal. The report spotlighted that candy in particular was the exception, since that category contributes only 6.4% of added sugars and less than 2% of our calories. The most surprising discovery is that the “healthiest of the healthiest” consumer cohort in the study purchased candy 26% more frequently than the general population.

The report: New Consumer Insights on Ultra-Processed Indulgent Foods: How Confectionery Products Are Different.

Candy behaves differently from other ultraprocessed indulgent products. New NMI and NHANES data re-confirm that candy is different and should not be lumped together with other indulgent products. Consumers do not overconsume  chocolate and candy, so targeting these foods will not impact obesity. An approach that focuses on product categories that consumers with the highest BMIs eat and drink the most will be more effective.

OK, readers: Take a guess at who paid for this.

Funding for this paper was provided by the National Confectioners Association.

As I keep saying, you can’t make this stuff up.

The walnut industry must be desperate for greater market share.  Walnuts are great and make a terrific snack if you don’t eat too many of them (calories!).  But this is one-food research.  Can one food really make an important difference to health (yes, if you are seriously deficient in essential nutrients but most Americans are not).

One-food research has to be about marketing more than science.

To wit:

A Cross-Sectional Study on the Association of Walnut Consumption with Obesity and Relative Fat Mass among United States Adolescents and Young Adults in NHANES (2003–2020).  2024 Current Developments in Nutrition.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.104407

Conclusions: For adolescents girls and young women, dietary intake of walnuts combined with other nuts has the strongest inverse association with measures of obesity.

Funding: This study was funded by the California Walnut Commission.

Comment

The study does not find an association between eating walnuts and obesity in adolescents.  I would not expect it to.  People do not eat that many walnuts.  They get most of their calories from fast and ultraprocessed foods.

The California Walnut Commission would like you to think the calories in walnuts do not count.  In a press release, it points out

Nuts, including walnuts, are nutrient dense and considered a key component of many recommended dietary patterns, including the Mediterranean and vegetarian diets. They are also recommended for daily consumption in the latest U.S. Dietary Guidelines.³ Despite the recommendations, nuts remain under-consumed by the U.S. population,³ perhaps due to nuts being calorie dense, leading to potential concerns that including nuts in the diet could promote weight gain. But new research suggests people, especially Gen Z and millennials, should reconsider nuts, like walnuts.

All true, but nuts in general, not specifically walnuts.  This is about increasing the market share for walnuts as opposed to other nuts.

I saw this announcement in Food Navigator: Study: Nutrient dense formula could improve cognition and behaviour in infants.

My immediate question: Who paid for this?

I went right to it.

The study: Schneider N, Hartweg M, O’Regan J, Beauchemin J, Redman L, Hsia DS, Steiner P, Carmichael O, D’Sa V, Deoni S. Impact of a Nutrient Formulation on Longitudinal Myelination, Cognition, and Behavior from Birth to 2 Years: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Nutrients. 2023; 15(20):4439. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15204439

Conclusions: The results suggest that brain development may be modifiable with brain- and age-relevant nutritional approaches in healthy infants and young children, which may be foundational for later learning outcomes.

Funding: This study received funding from the Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.

Conflicts of Interest: This study received funding from the Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. The funder had the following involvement with the study: study design, study monitoring and oversight, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript.

Comment: Some of the authors of this study are employed by Nestlé (no relation).  Their disclosure statement is unusually candid: the funder was totally involved in every aspect of the research.  It’s refreshing to see that dislosed.  But the underlying issue still holds: industry-funded reseach all too often produces results favorable to the commercial interests of the funder.

The concern here is that promoting infant formula as better than breast milk is a marketing strategy, as described in reports from the World Health Organization.  And see my previous post on this.

Last year, the Egg Nutrition Center offered free continuing education credits for dietitians.

This year, I received an e-mailed press release: EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE: 8:00 a.m. ET, Thursday, March 28, 2024

Fortified Eggs Did Not Raise Cholesterol in Modest-Sized Cardiology Study

Further study needed to investigate secondary findings.

…A study presented at the American College of Cardiology’s Annual Scientific Session and led by researchers at Duke, offers new evidence on fortified eggs, which are eggs enriched with various vitamins or nutrients. In a modest-sized randomized trial, researchers found that fortified eggs did not have a negative impact on bad cholesterol (LDL cholesterol) or good cholesterol (HDL cholesterol) over the course of the four-month study.

The study was sponsored by Eggland’s Best, a company that makes and sells fortified eggs. It also provided the eggs used in the research.

The egg industry funds research in collaboraion with the USDA.

Example: Mott MM, Zhou X, Bradlee ML, Singer MR, Yiannakou I, Moore LL. Egg Intake Is Associated with Lower Risks of Impaired Fasting Glucose and High Blood Pressure in Framingham Offspring Study Adults. Nutrients. 2023 Jan 18;15(3):507. doi: 10.3390/nu15030507.

Conclusion: This study found that regular egg consumption as part of a healthy diet had long-term beneficial effects on blood pressure and glucose metabolism and lowered the long-term risks of high blood pressure and diabetes.

Funding: These data were originally collected with funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (Framingham Study contract N01-HC-25195 and HHSN268201500001I). These analyses were also supported by a small grant from the American Egg Board’s Egg Nutrition Center of the U.S.Department of Agriculture.

Comment: Regardless of recommedations about dietary cholesterol, the advice has always been that one egg a day is OK.  That’s 365 a year.  According to the USDA’s per capata availability data, the average is only 275 (in 2021).  The egg industry wants you to eat more eggs and is working hard to get you to do that.