Marion Nestle Examines History of Industry-Funded Nutrition Research

Yesterday, we shared news of the sugar industry funding research that exonerated sugar from heart disease risk and placed the blame squarely on saturated fat.

That revelation was published in JAMA Internal Medicine along with an excellent commentary piece by New York University’s Dr. Marion Nestle, titled “Food industry funding of nutrition research: The relevance of history for current debates.”

Highlights of Dr. Nestle’s commentary:

• “Industry-sponsored nutrition research, like that of research sponsored by the tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, almost invariably produces results that confirm the benefits or lack of harm of the sponsor’s products, even when independently sponsored research comes to opposite conclusions.”

• “Although studies [in the 1950s and 1960s] indicated a relationship between high-sugar diets and CHD risk, the sugar association preferred scientists and policymakers to focus on the role of dietary fat and cholesterol. The association paid the equivalent of more than $48 000 in today’s dollars to 3 nutrition professors—at Harvard no less—to publish a research review that would refute evidence linking sugars to coronary heart disease (CHD).”

• “To minimize the association with sugar, the authors seem to have cherry-picked existing data. Despite their having previously published studies linking both fats and sugars to CHD risk, their review gave far more credence to studies implicating saturated fat than it did to those implicating sugars.”

• “Science is not supposed to work this way. The documents make this review seem more about public relations than science.”

• “This 50-year-old incident may seem like ancient history, but it is quite relevant, not least because it answers some questions germane to our current era. Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor? Yes, it is, and the practice continues.”

• “In 2015, the New York Times obtained emails revealing Coca-Cola’s cozy relationships with sponsored researchers who were conducting studies aimed at minimizing the effects of sugary drinks on obesity. Even more recently, the Associated Press obtained emails showing how a candy trade association funded and influenced studies to show that children who eat sweets have healthier body weights than those who do not. The results of such studies have obvious implications for public health.”

• “Food company sponsorship, whether or not intentionally manipulative, undermines public trust in nutrition science, contributes to public confusion about what to eat, and compromises Dietary Guidelines in ways that are not in the best interest of public health.”

• “[The review authors] urge policymakers to view industry-funded studies with some skepticism. This is excellent advice. Disclosure of funding sources helps but is not sufficient to address the potential conflicts that can occur with such funding. These authors have done the nutrition science community a great public service by bringing this historical example to light. May it serve as a warning not only to policymakers, but also to researchers, clinicians, peer reviewers, journal editors, and journalists of the need to consider the harm to scientific credibility and public health when dealing with studies funded by food companies with vested interests in the results—and to find better ways to fund such studies and to prevent, disclose, and manage potentially conflicted interests.”