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.”
Meat industry: the funding effect
Navid Teimouri, who is at the School of Public Health, University of Queensland, sent me his team’s recently published analysis of meat industry sponsored nutrition studies and their outcomes: Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review.
This is a classic study of what the late Sheldon Krimsky called the “funding effect,” the bias toward favorable results caused by industry sponsorship of research.
The authors examined 500 research studies of meat and health outcome.
The results:
Of 500 included studies, 78 (15.6%) reported industry involvement. Studies with industry ties were 16 times more likely to report favorable conclusions regarding meat consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 16.4, 95% CI: 7.5–35.8), and there was a significant association (p < 0.001) between industry involvement and study conclusion.
The conclusion:
Meat industry involvement significantly increases the likelihood of favorable study conclusions in nutrition research. These findings underscore the need for caution when interpreting research funded or associated with the meat industry and emphasize the importance of minimizing conflicts of interest in nutrition research.
Comment
When I wrote my book, Unsavory Truth, I could only find a few funding-effect studies dealing with food or nutrition. This one adds to the collection. It confirms previous findings. Only a small percent of nutrition research is industry funded, but those studies are more likely to find results favoring the sponsor’s commercial interests than those that are not industry funded. Why? Food companies are unlikely to sponsor research that might find their products harmful. Sheldon Krimsky mostly looked at studies funded by the pharmaceutical drug industry. Studies funded by food or nutrition companies share similar biases.
