The Food Industry's Influence In Nutrition Research
NPR's Scott Simon talks to Dr. Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest about the state of industry-sponsored research and how it might influence medical and policy advice.
SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
This week, the Journal of the American Medical Association's Internal Medicine reported that the sugar industry paid for scientists in the 1960s to produce research that would downplay the link between sugar and heart disease. The group's payment was not disclosed when the study was published.
And over the next decade, the sugar industry continued to fund similar research surreptitiously. Today, the food industry continues to spend millions of dollars on nutrition research. One study suggests as much as 90 percent of the studies that are funded by the food industry come up with outcomes that favor the sponsor's interest.
Dr. Michael Jacobson is president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit group that advocates for safer and healthier foods. Thanks for being with us.
MICHAEL JACOBSON: Thanks for having me, Scott.
SIMON: Looking back on these studies, were they just wrong?
JACOBSON: The studies really skewed the evidence at the time. And I think it was unfortunate that these papers were published because they influenced the public discussion about the health impact of sugar.
SIMON: The question that news of a study like this, I think, raises for everybody is, how do you know what information to trust?
JACOBSON: Well, it's increasingly hard. You know, I think, in terms of the media, journalists need to do a much better job of asking people they interview about conflicts of interest and then reporting them. But you asked, what should people believe?
And when there's so much controversy, I think the bottom line is pronouncements, major reports by agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, the American Heart Association that have a very cautious philosophy of not going off deep ends without strong evidence.
SIMON: Don't a lot of Americans think that scientists can't be bought?
JACOBSON: I think that is probably the general belief. But that reputation is eroding in light of one expose after another. And we see every industry - they're all polluting the scientific literature with mediocre studies that never should've been published. And then there are newspaper stories.
So beef contains this molecule, which might be healthful, notwithstanding all the other molecules in beef that are probably not so healthful. So scientists should be doing a better job of guarding their own reputations and of the general scientific community.
SIMON: I'm trying to put myself back in the framework of these times. Shouldn't the sugar industry be paying scientists to find out about what's in it?
JACOBSON: They certainly could be doing that. But their financial interests intervene. Do they want to fund studies that might indict their products? No. And it's much broader than the funding of science here. Industries do everything they can to enhance the reputations of the industry and their products.
And they will use lobbyists here in Washington, massive advertising campaigns, funding of nonprofit organizations or creating non-profit organizations to carry their water. This is a whole huge political issue.
But there are certainly things that could be done, like mandatory disclosure in medical journals and including conflicts of interest statements in the abstracts that are used by millions of scientists, journalists and the public. So that's a way to kind of integrate information about financial interests into the system.
SIMON: Dr. Michael Jacobson, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, thanks for being with us.
JACOBSON: Thanks very much for having me.
Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
Sugar Shocked? The Rest Of Food Industry Pays For Lots Of Research, Too
A recent study revealed the sugar industry's efforts 50 years ago to shape medical opinion on how sugar affects health. But today, scores of companies continue to fund food and nutrition studies. Caspar Benson/fStop/Getty Images hide caption
A recent study revealed the sugar industry's efforts 50 years ago to shape medical opinion on how sugar affects health. But today, scores of companies continue to fund food and nutrition studies.
Caspar Benson/fStop/Getty ImagesSugar shocked.
That describes the reaction of many Americans this week following revelations that, 50 years ago, the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists for research that downplayed sugar's role in heart disease — and put the spotlight squarely on dietary fat.
What might surprise consumers is just how many present-day nutrition studies are still funded by the food industry.
Nutrition scholar Marion Nestle of New York University spent a year informally tracking industry-funded studies on food. "Roughly 90% of nearly 170 studies favored the sponsor's interest," Nestle tells us via email. Other, systematic reviews support her conclusions.
For instance, studies funded by Welch Foods — the brand behind Welch's 100% Grape Juice — found that drinking Concord grape juice daily may boost brain function. Another, funded by Quaker Oats, concluded, as a Daily Mail story put it, that "hot oatmeal breakfast keeps you full for longer."
While these examples might induce chuckles, the past year has seen several exposes that have raised serious concerns about the extent of industry's influence on food and nutrition research outcomes.
Last year, The New York Times revealed how Coca-Cola was funding high-profile scientists and organizations promoting a message that, in the battle against weight gain, people should pay more attention to exercise and less to what they eat and drink. In the aftermath of that investigation, Coca-Cola released data detailing its funding of several medical institutions and associations between 2010 and 2015, from the Academy of Family Physicians to the American Academy of Pediatrics. All told, Coca-Cola says it gave $132.8 million toward scientific research and partnerships.
And earlier this summer, the Associated Press released an investigation that looked at research funded by the National Confectioners Association, a trade group whose members include the makers of Tootsie Rolls, Hershey's kisses and Snickers bars. One study the group funded concluded that kids who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who don't. In an email to her co-author, the AP reported, one of the scientists behind that study wrote that the finding was "thin and clearly padded." Nonetheless, the paper was published in a journal called Food & Nutrition Research.
"It's definitely a problem that so much research in nutrition and health is funded by industry," says Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit advocacy group. "When the food industry pays for research, it often gets what it pays for." And what it pays for is often a pro-industry finding.
Michael Moss is an investigative journalist who focuses on the food industry and author of the expose Salt, Sugar, Fat: How The Food Giants Hooked Us. He says a lot of times, food firms are funding research that they know is going to go their way — a finding they can tout on their packaging to sway consumers to buy their products. The problem is, the findings that get published may be incomplete, highlighting positive outcomes while leaving out negative ones. And then, there are studies that are simply poorly designed.
As a researcher, notes Moss, one can tweak the experimental design "in subtle ways that can lead to a desired conclusion — whether you're taking money from industry or you yourself have a passion or conclusion you want" to see, he says. "There's just a lot of bad research out there."
And yet, as we've reported before, this junk nutrition science frequently gets touted in press releases written to drum up interest, then picked up and disseminated by journalists who lack the wherewithal to spot the bad research methodology. In May 2015, science journalist John Bohannon highlighted exactly how this process plays out: He conducted a real — but really poorly designed — study that concluded eating chocolate can help you lose weight, then watched as media outlets ran with the study.
While Bohannon's study was a deliberate hoax designed to expose the flaws in nutrition science journalism, similarly bad studies get reported on all the time. As Gary Schwitzer of Health News Review, a watchdog group for the media's coverage of health, told us last year, the problem is extensive. "We have examples of journalists reporting on a study that was never done," he told us in 2015. "We have news releases from medical journals, academic institutions and industry that mislead journalists, who then mislead the public."
Given this environment, where bad science on what to eat or drink is pervasive, what's a consumer to do?
Be skeptical when reading about the latest finding in nutrition science, says Moss.
Ignore the latest study that pops up on your news feed, adds Liebman. "Rely on health experts who've reviewed all the evidence," she says. She points to the official government Dietary Guidelines, which are based on reviews of dozens or hundreds of studies. "Experts are able to sift through the evidence and separate the good from bad," she says.
And that expert advice remains pretty simple, says Nestle. "We know what healthy diets are — lots of vegetables, not too much junk food, balanced calories. Everything else is really difficult to do experimentally."