Currently browsing posts about: Conflicts-of-interest

Here’s how I learned about this one:

KSM-66 ashwagandha may support cognition and sleep in children: Supplementation with KSM-66 ashwagandha root extract in gummy form for eight weeks is well tolerated and may enhance cognitive performance and sleep quality in children between the ages of 6 and 12, according to new research…. Read more

One look and I immediately wanted to know: Who paid for this?

To its credit, NutraIngredients said so right away:

Shri Kartikeya Pharma, India, which manufactures and supplies KSM-66 ashwagandha extract, provided financial support, the test product and a matching placebo for the study.

I dug up the original paper:

• The study: Saxena A, Lopresti A, Sharif M, Elon N, Suri R and Langade DK (2026) A clinical assessment of the therapeutic effects of Ashwagandha root extract on cognitive performance, sleep, and fatigue in children aged 6–12 years. Front. Nutr. 13:1742138. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1742138
• Rationale: “Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera L.Dunal) is an adaptogenic herb known to reduce stress and enhance well-being in adults.”
• Methods: randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, parallel-group trial in children with parent-reported concerns related to attention, concentration, or memory.
• Results:supplementation significantly improved speed of information processing, and non-significantly improved delayed word recall, Stroop task accuracy, Corsi block span, choice reaction time accuracy, and parent-reported sleep quality.
• Conclusion: “These findings suggest that an eight-week supplementation with ARE is well tolerated and may enhance cognitive performance and sleep quality in children.”
• Funding: “The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication.This study was sponsored by Shri Kartikeya Pharma, India, which provided financial support, study intervention (Ashwagandha root extract), and a matching placebo for both study sites. The Sponsor had no role in data analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.”
• Conflict of interest: “The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”

Comment

Most of the study results were non-significant; “may enhance” equally means “may not enhance.”  As always, I’m amused by the denial of conflicted interests, as if funding by the maker of the supplement was not sufficient as a conflict.  I think it is.

____________________

Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

I learned about this one from a National Pork Board story in SciTechDaily: Animal vs. Plant Protein: Scientists Found a Surprising Nutritional Difference.

A 2023 Purdue University study found that two ounce equivalents (oz-eq) of animal-based protein foods supplied more bioavailable essential amino acids (EAA) than the same two oz-eq amount of plant-based protein foods. Essential amino acids are especially important because the body cannot make them on its own. They must come from food, and they help support muscle and whole-body protein building.

It wasn’t much work to figure out who paid for the study.

Advice to get most of your protein from plant sources does not go over well with animal food trade associations like the National Pork Board (which is sponsored by USDA, by the way).

The study: Connolly G, Hudson JL, Bergia RE, Davis EM, Hartman AS, Zhu W, Carroll CC, Campbell WW. Effects of Consuming Ounce-Equivalent Portions of Animal- vs. Plant-Based Protein Foods, as Defined by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on Essential Amino Acids Bioavailability in Young and Older Adults: Two Cross-Over Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2023; 15(13):2870. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132870

Conclusions: The same “oz-eq” portions of animal- and plant-based protein foods do not provide equivalent EAA content and postprandial bioavailability for protein anabolism in young and older adults.

Funding: This research was funded by the Pork Checkoff and the American Egg Board—Egg Nutrition Center. The supporting sources had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or submission of the report for publication.

_____________________

Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

I learned about this one from a British public relations firm.

Hey Marion,

Eating an egg a day could cut Alzheimer’s risk by 27%, major new study reveals as UK searches for dementia prevention hit a five-year high.

The press release linked to the study

Egg Intake and the Incidence of Alzheimer’s Disease in the Adventist Health Study-2 Cohort Linked with Medicare Data, followed nearly 40,000 American adults aged 65 and over for an average of 15.3 years — making it one of the largest investigations to date into how diet affects dementia risk.  Compared with people who never ate eggs, the researchers found:

– 5+ eggs per week — 27% lower Alzheimer’s risk

– 2-4 eggs per week — 20% lower risk

– 1-3 eggs per month — 17% lower risk

Why eggs?

Researchers say the protective effect comes from the unique cocktail of brain-essential nutrients found in eggs. The standout is choline — used by the body to produce acetylcholine, a brain chemical critical for memory and learning. Eggs are also rich in lutein, tryptophan, and the omega-3 fat DHA.

Lest I forget that this is about public relations, the message ends with this:

If you use the story, could you please link back to our client’s website.

Comment

Guess who paid for this study:

Funding: Initial support for the cohort was provided by the National Cancer Institute (grant 1U01CA152939). The analyses in this study were supported by an investigator-initiated grant from the American Egg Board. The funding sources had no role in the study design, execution, data analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication.

Conflict of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Adventists are generally healthier than the general population, so it’s hard to know what to make of this.  Dietary advice in the U.S. even at the height of concerns about cholesterol always said one egg a day is OK.  This study does not change that.

Will eating eggs help you prevent Alzheimer’s?  If only it were that easy.

And again: the authors do not believe that requesting a grant from the American Egg Board constitutes a conflict of interest.  I do.  The egg industry has a vested interest in the outcome of this study, and got the result it wanted.

Who knew raspberries were an industry.  As it happens, every food has its own industry, each more desperate than the next to prove it is a superfood so you will buy it and not its competing foods.

Here’s how I heard about this one:

Red raspberries linked to better blood sugar control and memory in older adults:  Adding a cup of red raspberries to a carbohydrate‑rich meal may help curb post‑meal glucose and insulin spikes while supporting short-term cognitive performance in older obese or overweight adults…. Read more

As always, I went right to it:

• The study: Xiao D, Shukitt-Hale B, Rutledge GA, Fisher DR, Edirisinghe I, Burton-Freeman B. Red raspberry improves postprandial metabolic indices and cognitive function in older adults who are overweight or have obesity. British Journal of Nutrition. Published online 2026:1-13. doi:10.1017/S0007114525105497
• Method:“This randomised, single-blinded, controlled crossover study evaluated the acute metabolic and cognitive effects of RRB intake in older adults (55–70 years) with overweight/obesity.
• Conclusion: “These findings suggest that acute RRB supplementation attenuated postprandial metabolic stress, reduced markers of neuroinflammation and improved cognitive performance, supporting RRB’s potential role in a dietary strategy for ageing populations.”
• Acknowledgments: “This work was supported by the National Processed Raspberry Council and the Washington Red Raspberry Commission (WA, USA). The authors thank Van Drunen Farms (Momence, IL, USA) for providing the freeze-dried red raspberry powder used in this project…The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Comment: Et tu, raspberries?  They are coming into season on my Manhattan terrace and I do love to go out in the morning and pick them for breakfast in the week or so that they produce fruit.  I’ll take whatever short-term cognitive benefit they convey.  But c’mon.  Can one fruit, no matter how delicious, organically grown, local, and seasonal deliver on such promises?  Seems like a lot to ask.  And I continue to be amazed that the researchers see no conflict of interest in having their study funded by raspberry trade groups, when so much evidence demonstrates commercial funding to influence research outcome.  This is one of those studies where I could predict the funder from the title, and predict the outcome from knowing the funder.

I learned about this one first from a reader, Kevin Mitchell, and later from Leslie Raabe of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Beef vs. Chicken: Surprising Results From New Prediabetes Study

A new randomized controlled trial (RCT) offers insight into one often-debated question: does eating red meat worsen metabolic health in people already at risk?  According to the findings, consuming 6 to 7 ounces (170 to 198 grams) of beef per day did not negatively affect markers linked to T2D or cardiovascular health in adults with prediabetes. The study appears in Current Developments in Nutrition.

To its credit, the source of this account, SciTechDaily, gives the complete reference.

“Effects of Diets Containing Beef Compared with Poultry on Pancreatic β-Cell Function and Other Cardiometabolic Health Indicators in Males and Females with Prediabetes: A Randomized, Crossover Trial” by Elizabeth Guzman, Indika Edirisinghe, Meredith L Wilcox, Carol F Kirkpatrick, Caryn G Adams, Britt M Burton-Freeman and Kevin C Maki, 30 October 2025, Current Developments in Nutrition.
DOI: 10.1016/j.cdnut.2025.107589

It also discloses the funding and conflicts of interest:

This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff, which was not involved in the data collection or analysis, nor publication of the findings, except for reviewing a draft of the manuscript prior to submission.

Disclosures: MLW is an employee of Midwest Biomedical Research, which has received research funding and consulting fees from food and pharmaceutical companies. CFK is an employee of Midwest Biomedical Research, which has received research funding and consulting fees from food and pharmaceutical companies. CGA is an employee of Midwest Biomedical Research, which has received research funding and consulting fees from food and pharmaceutical companies. BMBF has received research grant support from the California Strawberry Commission, Gallo Inc., Hass Avocado Board, National Institutes of Health/Nutrition for Precision Health Common Fund, National Mango Board, USDA/National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and the Watermelon Promotion Board; received honoraria for lectures from the National Mango Board, Today’s Dietitian, and the University of Missouri; and served on advisory boards for the McCormick Science Institute, the Nutrient Institute, and NutriSciences Innovation, LLC. KCM has received research grant support from Cargill, General Mills, Global Organization for EPA and DHA, Greenyn Biotechnology, Hass Avocado Board, Helaina, Inc., Indiana University Foundation, Matinas BioPharma, MDLifespan, Medifast, Inc., National Cattlemen’s Beef Association/Beef Checkoff, National Dairy Council, Naturmega, NewAmsterdam Pharma, Novo Nordisk, PepsiCo, Pharmavite, and Ro; and received consulting fees from and/or served on advisory boards of 89bio, Acasti Pharma, Beren Therapeutics, Bragg Live Food Products, Campbell’s Company, Eli Lilly and Company, Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Helaina, Inc., Lonza Group, Matinas BioPharma, MDLifespan, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Dairy Council, NewAmsterdam Pharma, NorthSea Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, and Seed Inc.

Leslie Raabe sent another account of this study from The Independent.  it points out that the study

was released shortly after the Trump administration’s dietary guidelines, that puts animal protein at the top of the food pyramid.  Three of the guideline’s authors had financial relationships with the [Cattlemen’s] association, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine reported.

Comment

It is much to the beef industry’s advantage to find evidence that beef has no ill effects on health.  The Beef Board funds studies for that precise purpose; the results of the studies it funds find benefits or no ill effects more often than not.  Coincidence?  Hardly.  It’s not going to fund studies that might risk producing results that do not show benefits.  That’s why I consider industry-funded studies to be about marketing, not science.

If food companies were really interested in independent science, they could pool their funds and turn them over to a third party for soliciting research proposals and awarding grants.  That they are not interested in doing this tells you all you need to know.

I usually do posts about conflicts of interest on Mondays, but wanted to acknowledge the death of Carlo Petrini right away this week.  So here’s the Monday post.

David A Cleveland, Research Professor in the Department of Geography, and Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara, sent this one:

Skimming through this I found an emphasis on ‘nuance’, obscuring key distinctions, and calls for more research, while giving little attention to the fundamental basics that could be the basis for nutrition + env dietary guidelines, e.g. that same nutrients from animal-source foods have much higher climate and environmental impact than those nutrients from plant foods, or imported and off-season produce has higher impact than local in season.

The study: Conrad, Z. 2026. Should the Dietary Guidelines for Americans include sustainability? A critical perspective. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:101309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2026.101309.

Its conclusion: “The federal government, which has responsibility for translating the scientific evidence into publicly accessible dietary guidance, is not currently well-positioned to communicate the nuances of nutrition-sustainability science to the general public.”

Conflict of interest: “ZC has received research awards for diet sustainability projects from the United States Department of Agriculture (Pulse Crop Health Initiative), the Jeffress Trust Awards Program for Research Advancing Health Equity, American Pistachio Growers, the National Dairy Council, and the National Pork Board.”

Comment: The beef industry did not pay for this commentary and neither did the dairy industry, both big contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.  The author reports working on sustainability projects for the dairy and pork industries, and understands the financial connections as posing conflicted interests, which they most certainly do.

The study begins with a useful review of attempts to get sustainability into the dietary guidelines, starting with the groundbreaking 1980 paper by Joan Gussow and Kate Clancy, “Dietary Guidelines for Sustainability” [16].  It covers the valiant attempt by the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee to recommend consideration of sustainability when making recommendations about intake of red meat. (here’s my version of that bizarre saga).  But the author concludes that we just don’t know enough about sustainability to make such recommendations.  I think we do.

As I endlessly repeat, industry-funded studies tend to favor the sponsor’s commercial interests.  The correlation between industry funding and study outcome is not 100% however.  Exceptions do occur.

Here’s one sent to me by a reader, Matthew Kadey: “Marion, a rare industry funded study with results that likely did not please the sponsors.”

The study: Effects of one avocado a day for six months on cognitive performance in overweight adults: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of nutrition, health and aging. Volume 30, Issue 6, June 2026, 100847.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnha.2026.100847.

Objective: “To determine if consuming one avocado per day for 6 months has cognitive benefits in adults with central obesity, addressing cognitive health early in the aging trajectory.”

Conclusions: “The consumption of one avocado per day without any additional lifestyle modifications for six months did not significantly alter cognitive function in adults with central obesity across all age groups. Additional work is needed to determine whether avocados, as part of dietary strategies initiated in midlife, contribute to healthy cognitive aging, particularly in normal weight and metabolically vulnerable populations.”

Funding disclosure: “This study was funded by the Hass Avocado Board in Mission Viejo, California”

Competing interests: Nine of the eleven authors report financial support from the Hass Avocado Board Avocado Nutrition Center.

Comment: I could not imagine why anyone would do this study in the first place.  It is a rare example of one that produced negative result from an industry-funded study, but note the positive spin in the conclusions: “Additional work is needed to determine whether avocados, as part of dietary strategies initiated in midlife, contribute to healthy cognitive aging, particularly in normal weight and metabolically vulnerable populations.”

Really?  Why?  I can’t think of any reason why more studies like this would be needed, except to get more funding from the Hass Avocado Board, which seems willing to spend lots on research aimed at positioning avocados as superfoods.

Note:  All fruits and vegetables have nutritional benefits.  By these criteria, all are superfoods.

I spotted this one in the Journal of Nutrition, and took a guess at who must have paid for it.

The study:  The Effect of Three Daily Servings of Full-Fat Dairy for 12 Weeks on Body Weight, Body Composition, Energy Metabolism, Blood Lipids, and Dietary Intake of Adults with Overweight and Obesity.  J Nutr 2026 Apr;156(4):101373. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2026.101373. Epub 2026 Jan 22.

Objectives: This study aims to describe the effect of adding 3 daily servings of full-fat dairy to the diet of adults with overweight and obesity, counseled to follow Canada’s Food Guide (CFG).

Methods: participants were assigned to groups varying in energy restriction and amount of dairy.

Results: participants assigned to eating more dairy reduced weight and BMI and consumed more protein and calcium.

Conclusion: Frequent and daily consumption of full-fat dairy as part of a healthy diet is consistent with CFG [Canada’s Food Guide].

Funding: “This research was supported by Dairy Research Cluster 3 (Dairy Farmers of Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership AgriScience Program, and the Mitacs Accelerate program. The supporting sources were not involved and presented no restrictions in the publication of this research.”

Conflict of interest: “The authors report no conflicts of interest.”

Comment: I’m always fascinated that authors do not think industry funding poses a conflict of interest.  I think it does.  Much research demonstrates that industry-funding studies tend to produce results favoring the sponsor’s commercial interests.  This phenomenon has its own name: “the funding effect.”  Food companies are rarely interested in funding research that might risk yielding unfavorable results.