I’m speaking at the Aspen Ideas Festival: Health. I’ll be interviewed by Helena Bottemiller Evich of FoodFix from 9:00 to 9:50 a.m.. Topic: “Making sense of nutrition science.”
At least five readers recently sent me items about research funding by pecan trade associations and I especially thank Lisa Young and Matthew Rees.
But I will begin with Headline vs. Study from the weekly newsletter (invaluable) Obesity & Energetics Offerings (8-18-23).
Guess who funded this:
Comment: Acknowledged or not, the funding establishes a conflicted interest. Industry funding influences the outcome of research, whether the researchers recognize it or not. I will say more about that this week in response to a comment from a reader.
In the meantime, here is another one.
Comment: The role of the National Pecan Sheller sAssociation is not clear (to me) from these acknowledgments. Did the trade association initiate or fund the study, or was its involvement strictly in providing pecans? Is there a difference? Perhaps. It is possible for studies involving vested financial interests to be done objectively, but studies of the “funding effect”—a higher probability of favorable outcomes—to be the norm. Again, I will speak to this point later this week.
In the meantime, for detailed discussion and references of this issue, see my book, Unsavory Truth: How the Food Industry Skews the Science of What We Eat.