Tag: Diet

Most company-sponsored studies have an unspoken objective of boosting the bottom line, as stated in Marion Nestle’s latest book, “Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.”

It’s understandable to feel confused about what to eat and drink in order to protect your health. For example, despite decades of research-backed dietary advice to reduce saturated fats to minimize the risk of heart disease and stroke, a new observational study of 136,384 people in 21 countries has linked the consumption of full-fat (read: saturated) dairy foods to a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease.

However, without analyzing each study included in this meta-analysis, it’s not possible to determine what might be behind this surprising result, and whether it’s safe to resume consuming cream in coffee and whole milk in cereal. The study could simply imply that consuming the equivalent of three servings of dairy products a day is healthful, rather than saturated fat per se.

It’s crucial to exercise caution, particularly since another new study, which was a randomly assigned clinical trial, discovered that three weeks on a diet high in saturated fat caused liver fat and insulin resistance to increase much more than diets high in sugar or unsaturated fat.

Alternatively, you may have fallen for the hype surrounding pomegranate juice as an antioxidant superfood, only to discover from an enlightening new book that most of the health-promoting evidence for this costly fruit drink derives from $20 million of company-sponsored research.

In the book, Marion Nestle, emerita professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, points out that “pomegranates might have high antioxidant activity,” then asks “compared to what?” Are they more healthful than (much cheaper) grapes?

Here’s how the company POM Wonderful responded to Dr. Nestle’s challenge: “Comparing the health benefits of our product to other juices is not a key objective of our extensive research program.” To which I would ask, “If you’re selling ‘health,’ why wouldn’t it be?”

The answer, as Dr. Nestle’s extensive research shows, is that the unstated goal of most company-sponsored studies is to increase the bottom line,” she stated in an interview. “It’s marketing research, not science.” The nutritional value of a food, whether it is deemed healthy, like wild blueberries and avocados, or laden with health-depleting calories from fats, sugars, and refined starches, is irrelevant.

She suggests an approach that all consumers would be wise to follow when it comes to interpreting nutrition research, especially industry-funded research: “Whenever I see studies claiming benefits for a single food, I want to know three things: whether the results are biologically plausible; whether the study controlled for other dietary, behavioral, or lifestyle factors that could have influenced its result; and who sponsored it.”

Regarding studies sponsored by the soft-drink industry, she highlights Coca-Cola’s leading role in undermining the contribution of sugar-laden carbonated water to the nation’s obesity epidemic. For example, the company funded a study on childhood obesity that did not consider a possible link between sugary soft drinks and obesity, instead concluding that low physical activity, inadequate sleep, and excessive television watching were the most significant factors.

To make such conclusions appear valid, Coca-Cola enlisted the participation of university-based scientists all of whom stood, directly or indirectly, to profit financially from their association with the research,” as Dr. Nestle notes in her book.

The issue of sponsorship is a central concern in Dr. Nestle’s work. It is a vital question to ask not only with regard to food, but also for drugs, supplements, exercise regimens, skin creams, mattresses, and any other product or service that may affect the health of consumers.

In recent years, conflicts of interest, whether actual or potential, have received increasing attention. In September, the director of clinical research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center resigned after failing to disclose millions of dollars he had received from pharmaceutical companies whose drugs he studied. An investigation uncovered that he had presented the results in a positive light that other researchers found wanting.

The reporting of drug trials has also faced criticism for the type of conflicts it presents. As The New York Times reported in September, what studies get published and how their findings are reported and spun often presents negative or nonsignificant findings in a positive light. This problem is compounded when these erroneous results are cited repeatedly by other researchers.

“Pharmaceutical companies have been shown to influence physicians’ behavior for 50 years,” Dr. Nestle said. “Even something as simple as doctors receiving pads or pens printed with the brand name of a drug can prompt them to ignore a generic or competing brand.”

However, Dr. Nestle noted that while there have been numerous studies on conflicts of interest among physicians who publish drug studies and those who prescribe industry-promoted medications, only 11 studies have been identified that address the impact of industry funding on food and beverage research related to health outcomes.

Consumers who lack scientific knowledge can be misled by study findings, especially when they come from reputable institutions or professional associations. Dr. Nestle argues that such organizations need to pay closer attention to conflicts of interest, whether obvious or potential, to avoid promoting weak or misleading science.

For example, a 2015 company-funded study at the University of Maryland of Fifth Quarter Fresh, a nonfat chocolate milk laced with vitamins and 42 grams of sugar,” writes Jane Brody in The New York Times. “Although the study had not been peer-reviewed or published in a professional journal, a university news release claimed the drink could counter the brain effects of concussions in high school football players. Chastised for its ethical failings, the university returned nearly $230,000 to commercial sponsors.”

In her book, Dr. Nestle uncovers how commercial sources have infiltrated many of the organizations that members of the public, including science writers like Brody, depend on for impartial evaluations of research findings. She discovered that even experts in organizations and on panels that formulate health recommendations for the public can be tainted by commercial influences.

There is, for instance, an inherent conflict of interest within the United States Department of Agriculture, which has two possibly competing mandates. The agency is tasked with promoting the production of all kinds of agricultural products, such as meat, poultry, and dairy, as well as fruits and vegetables. Simultaneously, it collaborates with the Department of Health and Human Services in creating national dietary guidelines and nutrient requirements for school lunches and other public nutrition programs.