by Marion Nestle

Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

Sep 9 2024

Industry-funded studies of the week: Walnuts again and again

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.

Aug 19 2024

Industry-funded study of the week: supplemented infant formula

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.

Aug 12 2024

Industry-funded studies of the week: Eggs

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.

Jul 29 2024

Industry-funded study of the week: meat protein is better than plant protein

This one was sent to me by a reader: Animal vs. Plant Protein: New Research Suggests That These Protein Sources Are Not Nutritionally Equivalent: Scientists found that two-ounce-equivalents (oz-eq) of animal-based protein foods provide greater essential amino acids (EAA) bioavailability than the same quantity of plant-based protein foods. The study challenges the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) which suggest these protein sources are nutritionally equivalent.

I went right to the study: “Effects of Consuming Ounce-Equivalent Portions of Animal- vs. Plant-Based Protein Foods, as Defined by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on Essential Amino Acids Bioavailability in Young and Older Adults: Two Cross-Over Randomized Controlled Trials” by Gavin Connolly, Joshua L. Hudson, Robert E. Bergia, Eric M. Davis, Austin S. Hartman, Wenbin Zhu, Chad C. Carroll and Wayne W. Campbell, 25 June 2023, Nutrients. DOI: 10.3390/nu15132870

Oh.  It’s in Nutrients, a journal that might as well be called “The Journal of Industry-Funded Research” (authors have to pay for publication of their articles in this journal–2900 Swiss Francs).

The study was designed to demonstrate that protein from animal sources is better than protein from plant sources, immediately raising the question: Who sponsored this study?

Funding: This research was funded by the Pork Checkoff and the American Egg Board—Egg Nutrition Center. The supporting sources had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or submission of the report for publication.

Do the authors report conflicts of interest?  Yes, they do:

Conflicts of Interets: When this research was conducted, W.W.C. received research funding from the following organizations: American Egg Board’s Egg Nutrition Center, Beef Checkoff, Pork Checkoff, North Dakota Beef Commission, Barilla Group, Mushroom Council, and the National Chicken Council. C.C.C. received funding from the Beef Checkoff. R.E.B. is currently employed by Archer-Daniels-Midland (ADM); the research presented in this article was conducted in a former role and has no connection with ADM. G.C., J.L.H., E.M.D., A.S.H. and W.Z. declare no conflict of interest. The funders 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.

I’m not going to bother going through the methods, results, or other details.  The point here is that industry-funded research has a high probability of producing results favorable to the sponsors’ interests, as happened in this instance.  The statement that the sponsors had no role may or may not be true; it’s hard to know without further investigation, but research on this question demonstrates that the statement is not always accurate.  Funding exerts influence, whether recognized by researchers or not.

Jul 22 2024

Industry funded education of the week: Pork

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous forwarded this email she received from Kristen Hicks-Roof PhD, RDN, LDN, FAND , Director of Human Nutrition·National Pork Board.

Growing Strong: Animal-Source Foods’ Role in Childhood Development and Sustainable Food Systems

Childhood and adolescence are critically important periods for growth and development. These periods are also key for establishing healthy dietary patterns that can influence eating behaviors and health into adulthood.

During these stages, animal-source foods provide critical nutrients — such as high-quality protein, iron, zinc, choline, and B vitamins — that are not easily replaced from other sources.

In this webinar, Dr. Adegbola Adesogan will:

– Present evidence on the role of animal-source foods in childhood development and impact on future health outcomes

– Review how animal-source foods are a source of key nutrients that support health in children and adolescents

The CPE activity application for this webinar is pending review by the Commission on Dietetic Registration (CDR) and approval for 1.0 CPEU.

Comment

Presumably, the CDR will approve this for continuing education credits required for dietetic licensing.  Also presumably, participants will not learn about the polluting effects of Pork CAFOs or the community lawsuits against them for obnoxious odors and other offenses.  Or the way the pork industry fights back against such complaints.  Or the welfare issues about farrowing crates.  Or complaints about Pork Checkoff programs.

As I’ve noted previously, dietitians are able to fulfill all requirements for continuing education credits from industry-funded courses like this one.

Conflict of interest, anyone?

Jul 15 2024

Industry-funded study of the week: nutrients and cognitive performance

The title of this article triggered my usual question: Who paid for this?  I cannot think of any reason other than marketing this supplement for doing a study like this.

Multi-nutrient supplementation of astaxanthin, vitamin E and grape juice improves episodic memory, cognitive performance – RCT:  A study has found that 12 weeks of multi-nutrient supplementation, comprising astaxanthin, vitamin E and grape juice extract, resulted in improved episodic memory and several biomarkers associated with cognitive health…. Read more

The study: Lopresti AL, Smith SJ, Riggs ML, Major RA, Gibb TG, Wood SM, Hester SN, Knaggs HE. An Examination into the Effects of a Nutraceutical Supplement on Cognition, Stress, Eye Health, and Skin Satisfaction in Adults with Self-Reported Cognitive Complaints: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled TrialNutrients. 2024; 16(11):1770. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16111770

Method: adults aged 40 to 70 years with subjective memory complaints were randomized to take a supplement containing vitamin E, astaxanthin, and grape juice extract daily for 12 weeks or a matching placebo.

Outcomes:  Changes in cognitive tasks assessing episodic memory, working memory, and verbal memory., speed of information processing, attention, and self-report measures of memory, stress, and eye and skin health.

Results: “Compared to the placebo, nutritional supplementation was associated with larger improvements in one primary outcome measure comprising episodic memory (p = 0.037), but not for working memory (p = 0.418) or verbal learning (p = 0.841). Findings from secondary and exploratory outcomes demonstrated that the nutraceutical intake was associated with larger improvements in the Everyday Memory Questionnaire (p = 0.022), increased plasma brain-derived neurotrophic factor (p = 0.030), decreased plasma malondialdehyde (p = 0.040), and increased skin carotenoid concentrations (p = 0.006). However, there were no group differences in changes in the remaining outcome measures.”

Conclusions: “The results from this 12-week study provide some support for the cognitive-enhancing effects of a nutraceutical containing astaxanthin, vitamin E, and grape juice extract in adults with self-reported memory complaints. This was demonstrated by improvements in one primary outcome measure (episodic memory) but not working memory or verbal learning.”

Conflicts of Interest: A.L.L. is the managing director of Clinical Research Australia, a contract research organization that has received research funding from nutraceutical companies. A.L.L. has also received presentation honoraria from nutraceutical companies. S.J.S. is an employee of Clinical Research Australia and declares no other conflicts of interest. R.A.M., T.G.G., and S.N.H. are employed at NSE Products, Inc. The funder was not involved in data collection, interpretation of data, or the decision to submit it for publication.

Comment: This is an industry funded study conducted by industry or industry-contracted employees finding marginal benefits, but interpreting the study as demonstrating significant benefits.  Whatever.  I’d classify this study as a typical example of an industry-funded study interpreted as giving the desired result.  What a coincidence!

Jul 8 2024

Industry-funded study of the week: prunes and osteoporosis

I just ran across this one.  The Prune Study?  To prove that prunes prevent osteoporosis?  Who could possibly be paying for this?

The study: Koltun, K.J., Strock, N.C.A., Weaver, C. et al. Prunes preserve cortical density and estimated strength of the tibia in a 12-month randomized controlled trial in postmenopausal women: The Prune Study. Osteoporos Int 35, 863–875 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-024-07031-6

Method: “evaluate the effects of 50 g and 100 g of prunes vs. a Control group on vBMD, bone geometry, and estimated strength of the radius and tibia via peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT) in postmenopausal women. Women (age 62.1 ± 5.0yrs) were randomized into Control (n = 78), 50 g Prune (n = 79), or 100 g Prune (n = 78) groups.”

Results: “The most notable effects were observed at the 14% diaphyseal tibia in the Pooled (50 g + 100 g) Prune group, in which group × time interactions were observed for cortical vBMD (p = 0.012) and estimated bone strength (SSI; p = 0.024); all of which decreased in the Control vs. no change in the Pooled Prune group from baseline to 12 months/post.”

Conclusion: “Prune consumption for 12 months preserved cortical bone structure and estimated bone strength at the weight-bearing tibia in postmenopausal women.”

Funding: “We thank the California Prune Board (Award Number: 180215) for the funding and prunes.”

Comment: The California Prune Board is working hard on this.  I’ve posted at least one previous study on the same theme.  I’ve read the Results several times and still am not getting what’s claimed versus ‘no change in the Pooled Prune group from baseline to 12 months/post.'”  But even if there is an effect, the question is: compared to what?  Do other dried fruits provide similar effects?  What about whole fruits?  This is a one-food study designed to produce results that can be used in marketing.  What’s going on here?

We Work Hand-in-Hand with California’s Prune Growers and Handlers

The California Prune Board (CPB) works to unite California’s diverse prune growers and handlers around activities that benefit the industry today and pave the way for its bright future. As we all know, California Prunes are the best in the world – and CPB serves the industry by helping to drive demand and premium value.

Doing a good job?  You decide.

Jun 24 2024

Industry-funded studies of the week: Grapes

The California Table Grape Commission funds lots of research for an explicit purpose: “to help discover how and why grapes are beneficial to health.”

It lengthy list of funded projects is here.  Published studies are here.

You want to do one of these studies?  Let them know here.

Grape research is conducted using a freeze-dried table grape powder, designed to facilitate reproducible data and to provide researchers with a grape sample that is available year-round. Additionally, a grape powder placebo is made available.

Comment: If you want funding, you need to design your study to show benefits.  The Commission is unlikely to risk funding proposals unlikely to show benefits.  [Thanks to David Michaels for sending this one].

And Charles Platkin sent me the press release for one of the Commission’s funded studies: Hu, W., Zheng, R., Feng, Y., Tan, D., Chung-Tsing, G.C., Su, X., and Kim, J.E. (2023). Impacts of regular consumption of grapes on macular pigment accumulation in Singapore older adults: a randomized, controlled trial. Food Funct. 14, 8321-8330. Doi: 10.1039/d3fo02105j.  The abstract is here.

Conclusions: Regular intake of grapes may improve eye health in Singapore older adults, specifically in augmenting MPOD, which can be explained by an increase in plasma total antioxidant capacity and phenolic content, and the downregulation of AGEs.

I’m all for eating grapes and every other fruit.  Does one kind of fruit have more substantial effects on health than any other?  The study did not compare grapes to any other fruit; it just looked at the benefits of grapes.

I’m guessing lots of other fruits will do the same.

The moral: eat a variety of fruits and vegetables.  And be skeptical about the importance of studies like this.