The Food Industry’s Academic Conflicts of Interest Can Distort Science

In her latest Vox piece, journalist Julia Belluz explores conflicts of interest in academic research and how food companies often distort nutrition science to fit their particular needs.

Highlights:

• “On her blog, Food Politics, Marion Nestle began tracking all the industry-funded food and nutrition research she came across, paying particular attention to the number of studies that had positive results (i.e., favoring the funder). Her findings so far are remarkable. Of the 152 industry-funded studies she has examined, 140 boast results that favor the funder. That’s more than 90 percent.”

• “Nestle cautions that her tally is by no means exhaustive. It’s entirely possible that there are many industry-funded food studies that don’t favor their funders and she’s just somehow missed them. It’s also possible that a more careful peer review of her survey could identify errors.”

• “But Nestle is not the first to notice this problem. Many nutrition researchers have been complaining about conflict-of-interest problems in their field for some time now. Whereas other fields, like medicine, have been putting in place safeguards to protect against undue industry influence, the field of nutrition has lagged behind in this regard.”

• “I asked several researchers who work in food and nutrition what they thought about Nestle’s tally. They all acknowledged that she was tapping into a real problem, one that’s been difficult for their community to address.”

• “”If you look at the amount of funding available from the [National Institutes for Health], there’s been a contraction of inflation-adjusted dollars available for research over the last decade,” says Jason Block, a physician and researcher at Harvard Medical School. (Block has never taken industry money for research, mostly because of worries about conflicts of interest but also because he looks at nutrition policy issues that food companies tend to be less interested in sponsoring.)”

• “Many people might imagine that conflict of interest in science works as a form of corruption. A food company pays a researcher for a favorable conclusion, and the researcher twists his or her results accordingly. But it’s often way more subtle than that. Often the researchers working with industry are good researchers who honestly believe their views. They may even have good reasons to work with food companies. The problem is that industry funding can elevate minority views and give them more prominence than they otherwise would have.”

• “I asked one of industry-linked researcher, New Orleans cardiologist Carl Lavie, to comment on this issue. He conceded: “Industry will most likely want to fund researchers who are not biased against their products.” In other words, the views that are most favorable to foodmakers are the ones that will attract the most research funding and the ones we’re most likely to hear about.”

• “None of the researchers I spoke to suggested we should abolish industry funding of food and nutrition studies. Instead, they wanted to see more awareness about the problem, more scrutiny of industry-funded research, and organized efforts to control conflicts of interest.”

• “”It’s not the quality of the science that’s at issue,” Nestle explains. “The studies are carried out according to strong scientific principles. But the bias seems to come in around the research question that’s asked, the interpretation of the results, putting a positive spin on findings even when the results are neutral.” That’s not good for science or for public health.”