Currently browsing posts about: Conflicts-of-interest

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.

A reader, Betsy Keller, sent me this one.  Her question: Who funded this?  Take a guess!

The study: The Sweet Tooth Trial: A Parallel Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating the Effects of A 6-Month Low, Regular, or High Dietary Sweet Taste Exposure on Sweet Taste Liking, and Various Outcomes Related to Food Intake and Weight Status. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2026; 123 (1): 101073 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.09.041

Objectives: to assess the effects of a 6-mo low, regular, and high dietary sweet taste exposure on liking for sweet taste.

The study: Efficacy of 42-month oral administration of glucoraphanin in preventing cognitive decline in individuals at elevated risk of dementia, including those with mild cognitive impairment: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. Frontiers in Nutrition.  DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1740494

To many people, full-fat milk tastes better and is more satisfying, which is reason enough to prefer it.  But the “drink full-fat milk” advice in the new dietary guidelines doesn’t make much sense to me.  Most of the nutrients in milk are in the whey portion and vitamins A and D are added to low fat milk.  This makes low- and full-fat milk pretty much equally nutritious.   Also, full-fat milk is just as processed as skim milk; the dairy industry removes the fat and adds it back to the desired percentage.

But the dairy industry wants to sell more full-fat milk and sponsors research demonstrating its superiority.  This recent example replaced their typical dairy consumption with whole milk.  If they had the right kind of intestinal bacteria, they lost weight.

The study: Qin P, Berzina L, Geiker NRW, Sandby K, Krarup T, Kristiansen K, Magkos F. Associations Between Gut Microbiome Enterotypes and Body Weight Change During Whole Milk Consumption. Nutrients. 2026; 18(4):563. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu18040563

Background: Evidence is accumulating that gut bacterial communities modulate the outcome of dietary interventions.

Objective: To assess how gut microbial enterotypes correlate with obesity-related outcomes during one month of whole milk consumption.

Methods: This post hoc analysis used data from a previously published trial, which included a lead-in phase during which men with abdominal adiposity replaced habitual dairy product consumption with 400 g/day of whole milk for one month. We compared body weight, urinary metabolites, fecal metabolites, and gut microbiome composition and function based on shotgun metagenomic sequencing at the beginning and at the end of the lead-in phase between individuals with the two most prevalent enterotypes, the Bacteroides1 (B1) enterotype (n = 24) and the Ruminococcaceae (R) enterotype (n = 38).

Results: Individuals with the B1 enterotype, but not those with the R enterotype, exhibited decreases in body weight and the relative abundance of Streptococcus thermophilus. Multiple linear regression analysis identified enterotype as a strong predictor of body weight change (p = 0.0034). In addition, urinary taurine level change was positively associated with body weight change in B1 individuals, not in R individuals.

Conclusions: Our findings reveal an enterotype-specific response to an identical dietary modification, underscoring the value of integrating enterotype information into nutrition-intervention design and personalized nutrition strategies.

Funding: The FerMetS study and analyses were funded by research grants from Arla Food for Health and the Danish Milk Levy Fund. Dairy products were provided by Arla Foods amba.

Conflicts of Interest: NRWG has received grants from the Danish Agricultural and Food Council. FM has received grants from Arla Foods A/S. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or the decision to publish the results. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Comment

I checked the Arla Foods website.  It says: “Arla Foods is the 4th largest dairy company in the world and a cooperative owned by more than 12,700 dairy farmers.”  The relationship between the microbiome and body weight is truly fascinating and this study suggests that some kinds of bacteria are better than others for maintaining a healthy weight.  The authors make the point of this study clear in their conclusion: “In summary, our findings suggest that individuals with the B1 enterotype may be more prone to weight loss in response to whole milk consumption…..”  They view whole milk as a diet aid.

The study: Effects of replacing solid fats and added sugars with avocado in adults with elevated cardiometabolic risk: a randomized, double-blind, controlled feeding, crossover trial.  American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Volume 123, Issue 2101137 February 2026.

Objective: to assess the effects of replacing energy from solid fats and added sugars with equivalent energy from 1 avocado daily on cardiometabolic risk factors.

Methods: Study subjects were given a diet with or without an avocado a day to replace energy from saturated fatty acids and added sugars.

Results: While on the avocado diet, subjects improved their lipoprotein profiles.

Conclusions: Replacing solid fats and added sugars with avocado in a typical American diet improves the lipoprotein lipid profile in adults with
elevated triglycerides.

Funding: “The Avocado Nutrition Center of the Hass Avocado Board funded this research. The sponsor was allowed to comment on the study design as part of the application process. The sponsor had no role or involvement in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or regarding the submission of the manuscript for publication, regardless of the results of the study.”

Conflict of interest:  The list of disclosed conflicts is much too long to bother to reproduce.  At least 3 of the 12 authors specifically disclose financial support from  from the Hass Avocado Board.

Comment: The disclosure statement is unusally forthcoming.  The funder had input into the study design, the part of the research process where industry influence is most likely to show up.  Funders are most likely to fund research that has the best chance of giving them the answers they want.  This was a cooperative effort to demonstrate the benefits of eating avocados.

I like avocados and appreciate that their fats are largely monounsaturated and benign or good for health.  But the purpose of this research is not about science; it is about avocado industry-sponsored research to market avocados.

I have no doubt the Hass Board would respond to this by saying, “if we don’t fund this kind of research, who will?”

That’s my point.

The new Dietary Guidelines have advised against consuming non-nutritive sweeteners despite research testifying to their harmlessness.  Much such research is funded by groups representing makers of artificial sweeteners, as these two examples show.

Study #1: A Systematic Review of Nonsugar Sweeteners and Cancer Epidemiology Studies Adv Nutr. 2025 Dec;16(12):100527. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100527.

Method: review of epidemiology studies of NSS intake and the risks of all types of cancer.

Results:  Overall, the epidemiology evidence does not support associations between any NSS and any cancer type.

Conflict of interest: All authors are employed by Gradient, Geosyntec, or the American Beverage Association (ABA). Gradient and Geosyntec are environmental and risk sciences consulting firms. ABA is the trade association that represents America’s non-alcoholic beverage industry.

Funding: ABA provided funding for this paper, which was written during the authors’ normal course of employment. This paper represents the professional opinions of the authors and not those of ABA.

Study #2:  Lack of Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Potential for Nonsugar Sweeteners: A Review of Animal and Mechanistic Evidence.  Adv Nutr. 2025 Dec;16(12):100552. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100552. Epub 2025 Nov 4.

Method: review of the available experimental evidence.

Results: high-quality studies have not shown evidence for carcinogenicity in animal models, except for saccharin, which causes bladder tumors in rats via a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Conclusions:  The results of this evaluation are consistent with the results of epidemiology studies, which have shown no consistent associations between NSS intake and cancer risk. Taken together, the body of available evidence supports previous conclusions by authoritative and regulatory bodies that Ace-K, advantame, aspartame, cyclamate, neotame, saccharin, steviol glycosides, and sucralose do not pose a genotoxic or carcinogenic risk to humans.

Conflict of interest: All authors are employed by Gradient or the American Beverage Association (ABA). Gradient is an environmental and risk sciences consulting firm. ABA is the trade association that represents America’s nonalcoholic beverage industry. This paper represents the professional opinions of the authors and not those of ABA.

Comment

These are two studies paid for by the American Beverage Association and conducted by paid consultants or employees to produce research favorable to the use of artificial sweeteners, which these studies did.

Research on artificial sweeteners is especially difficult to do because the amounts consumed are so small relative to other dietary components.  In general, independently funded research tends to find more problems associated with use of non-nutritive sweeteners than does industry-funded research.  This is an example of the “funding effect,” the by this time well documented influence of sponsorship on research outcome.

On Mondays, I typically post something about industry-funded research or investigator conflicts of interest.

In the light of Robert F. Kennedy’s complaints about conflicts of interest in previous dietary guidelines advisory committees, it is startling to observe the industry ties reported by members of this administration’s committee.

These conflicted interests are also surprising in light of the high prioritization of meat in these guidelines, which advise eating protein (a commonly understood euphemism for meat) in every meal, and high-fat dairy.

The committee’s membership and disclosures are given on pages ix-xviii of the Scientific Foundation report.

To focus just on ties to meat and dairy groups, members report financial ties to

• Global Dairy Platform
• Nutricia/Danone
• National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
• Texas Beef Council
• American Dairy Science Association
• National Dairy Council
• National Pork Board
• California Dairy Innovation Center
• Fonterra Limited
• California Dairy Research Foundation
• Dairy Management Inc

This was reported originally in Stat News (which quotes me elsewhere in the story).

It’s unclear how the Trump administration appointed its group of nutrition scientists and other researchers. A scientific report linked at the bottom of a new federal website, RealFood.gov, says only they were chosen through “a federal contracting process based on demonstrated expertise.”

The Times quotes Mark Kennedy, the senior vice president of legal affairs for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which supports plant-based diets and has filed a complaint with the government saying it should withdraw the guidelines.

Disclosing conflicts of interest at the end of the process “isn’t really going to cut it..Because if nobody ever had a chance to weigh in, and nobody other than the government behind closed doors had a way to assess it, there’s no way to ensure there’s fair balance.” (Mr. Kennedy is not related to the health secretary.)

Comment

In reading through press accounts, I’m pretty sure I saw one where one of the committee members reporting financial ties tossed it off with some comment about how he was sticking to the science and that’s all that mattered (I’ve searched but can’t find it now).

I heard that a lot after publication of my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.  In that book, I review research on the “funding effect,” the strong correlations between who pays for food and nutrition research and its outcome.  Industry-funded research tends to produce results favorable to the funder’s interests (otherwise it wouldn’t be funded).  But recipients of funding typically did not intend to be influenced and do not recognize the influence.  It is not surprising that this committee—unlike many other scientific committees over the past decades—came to precisely the conclusions decided in advance by Secretaries Kennedy and Rollins.

Rumors are that the 2025=2030 dietary guidelines will be released this week and they will favor saturated fat and meat.  We will know whether this is true when they appear, and I will be sure to report on them when they do.

In the meantime, the meat industry is hard at work to try to convince you that meat is good for you and the more the better.  Here are two examples sent to me recently.

I.  From Serge Hercberg, developer of Nutri-Score.

• The study: Red meat intake and its influences on inflammation and immune function biomarkers in human adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2025.2584482
• Conclusion: “Limited evidence from both experimental and observational research suggests no influence of red meat intake on multiple pro-inflammatory, anti-inflammatory, and immune function biomarkers…These results are consistent with recommendations for people who choose to consume red meat to limit or avoid consuming processed red meat, especially among individuals with cardiometabolic diseases.”
• Disclosure statement: “During the time this research was conducted, W.W.C. received funding for research grants, travel or honoraria for scientific presentations, or consulting services from the following organizations: U.S. National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Hatch Funding), Pork Checkoff, National Pork Board, Beef Checkoff, North Dakota Beef Commission, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education, American Egg Board, Whey Protein Research Consortium, National Dairy Council, Barilla Group, Mushroom Council, and the National Chicken Council. J.B.R. received funding for research grants from the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, Whey Protein Research Consortium, and National Chicken Council. M.R.O. received funding for research grants from the National Cattleman’s Beef Association. Y.W., C.N.U., E.R.H., J.N.S., and N.L.A. declare no conflict of interest. The funders and these other organizations had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.” [my emphasis]
• Funding: “The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff.”

II.   From a reader, Cory Brooks

• Press release: “Eating meat may protect against cancer, landmark research shows:  A large study of nearly 16,000 adults found no link between eating animal protein and higher death risk. Surprisingly, higher animal protein intake was associated with lower cancer mortality, supporting its role in a balanced, health-promoting diet.”
• The study: Yanni Papanikolaou, Stuart M. Phillips, Victor L. Fulgoni. Animal and plant protein usual intakes are not adversely associated with all-cause, cardiovascular disease–, or cancer-related mortality risk: an NHANES III analysis. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 2025; 50: 1 DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2023-0594
• Conclusion: “Our data do not support the thesis that source-specific protein intake is associated with greater mortality risk; however, animal protein may be mildly protective for cancer mortality. “
• Funding: From the press release: “This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff. NCBA was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis or publication of the findings.”

Comment: We have here two studies funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the research and education arm of the USDA-sponsored Beef Checkoff.  Checkoff programs are designed to promote consumer demand for the sponsored food, in this case, beef.  Eating less beef has long been viewed as beneficial to human health, because of studies linking beef consumption to certain cancers.  Eating less beef is demonstrably beneficial to the environment since beef production results in so much waste pollution and greenhouse gas emission.  The NCBA would prefer that you not think about potential health risks.  Hence, this sponsored research.

As for the statements about the funder having no involvement: these are demonstrably misleading.  The NCBA does not fund research unlikely to produce results in its interests.  The influence is there from the get go.