More on the industry-funded sugar guideline paper
The Associated Press reporter Candice Choi has a special interest in industry-funded research (as I do) and has been using emails obtained through FOIA requests to document connections between funders and researchers that otherwise would not come to light.
Ms. Choi came up with these delicious tidbits:
- Mars Inc., which is one of the companies that funds ILSI (the International Life Sciences Institute, which funded the study in the Annals charging that dietary guidelines for sugar are based on weak evidence), is now denouncing the study on the grounds that “the paper undermines the work of public health officials and makes all industry-funded research look bad…[and] creates more doubt for consumers rather than helping them make better choices.”
- Mars is saying this even though emails show that two Mars executives knew about the study last year.
- Mars now said it will make clear to ILSI hat it does not support such work.
- ILSI’s executive director says ILSI devised the concept for the study, but the paper originally said that the authors wrote the protocol and conducted the study independently from the funder. Oops. When confronted with the Associated Press emails “showing the group sent the authors ‘requested revisions’ on the proposal last year,” the journal corrected that statement to make clear that ILSI “reviewed and approved” the protocol.
- One of the authors did not fully disclose her consulting and research agreements with companies that make high-sugar foods. The AP had emails demonstrating this author’s financial ties to Coca-Cola and to ILSI for a previous grant on the same topic. The Annals now show a more complete disclosure statement.
The point of all this is that when food companies sponsor research, they sometimes are much more involved in it than they would like to let on.
Mars is right. These kinds of incidents make all industry-funded research look bad. Mars should know. It funds research to make chocolate look like a health food.