Information about the Aspen Ideas Festival is here. I am scheduled for a session, The American Wellness Paradox, currently scheduled from 11:00-11:50 a.m., at the East Lawn Tent. This will be a discussion with senior HHS policy advisor, Calley Means. Here’s the blurb on it: “Americans are spending more than ever on healthcare, supplements, wellness trends, and “clean eating,” yet rates of chronic disease and metabolic illness continue to climb. As skepticism fuels the rise of movements like MAHA, debates over what Americans should eat have become deeply cultural, political, and economic. Two influential voices with sharply different perspectives on nutrition and food science explore how food systems, farming practices, consumer culture, and the wellness industry collided to create one of the defining public health debates of our time.”
How industry funding of research introduces biases from the get-go
I get letters like this from food trade associations all the time. Here is the latest:.
The U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council has issued a request for research proposals (RFP) for which it offers grants ranging from $75,000 to $300,000 (or larger).
Here’s the get-go bias point (my emphasis):
The goal of our research funding is to provide initial funds, or additional funds, to explore blueberry health benefits.
The Council wants research to demonstrate benefits. Of course it does. These will be useful for marketing.
A priority for funding will be given to human clinical studies however the committee is also interested in further investigation of possible health benefits for pet or performance animals including dogs, cats and horses.
If the proposal is unlikely to demonstrate benefit, it won’t be funded.
That’s why I consider industry-funded research to be about marketing, not science.
