Currently browsing posts about: Conflicts-of-interest

US and UK Consumer Adoption of Cultivated Meat: A Segmentation Study.  Keri Szejda, Christopher J. Bryant, Tessa Urbanovich.  Foods 2021, 10(5), 1050.

Background: “Despite growing evidence of the environmental and public health threats posed by today’s intensive animal production, consumers in the west remain largely attached to meat. Cultivated meat offers a way to grow meat directly from cells, circumventing these issues as well as the use of animals altogether.”

Purpose: “The aim of this study was to assess the overall consumer markets and a range of preferences around cultivated meat in the US and the UK relating to nomenclature, genetic modification, health enhancements, and other features.”

Conclusion: “there are solid consumer markets for cultivated meat in the UK and the US, despite an overall lack of familiarity with the product. Younger generations are the most open to trying cultivated meat, and government seals of approval are considered important. Consumers tend to prefer non-GM cultivated meat, and while nutritional enhancements do not add much to consumer appeal overall, they may be an effective way to provide tangible benefits to more skeptical consumers.”

Funding: “This work was supported by Aleph Farms. Aleph Farms participated in the study design, but not other aspects of the project.”

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

Comment: Aleph Farms produces cell-based meat substitutes: “We’re paving a new way forward in the field of cultivated meat, growing delicious, real beef steaks from the cells of cows, eliminating the need for slaughtering animals or harming the environment.”

The company paid for consumer research to find out how to sell its product.   The authors perceive no conflicted interests in this kind of paid research.  The biases induced by paid research are often unconscious and unrecognized.  The result of this study is an implied suggestion to add nutrients to cell-based meat products as a means to convince people to buy them.

This is marketing research.

Thanks to Michele Simon for sending a query about this paper.

I recently received an email from the Soyfoods Council: “If You’re Confused About Endocrine Disruptors, Here’s Why Soy Isn’t One.”

The email explained that “the Soyfoods Council is a non-profit organization, created and funded by Iowa soybean farmers, providing a complete resource to increase awareness of soyfoods, educate and inform media, healthcare professionals, consumers and the retail and foodservice markets about the many benefits of soyfoods.  Iowa is the country’s number one grower of soybeans and is the Soyfoods Capital of the world.”

The email referred to a just-published paper

The Study: Neither soyfoods nor isoflavones warrant classification as endocrine disruptors: a technical review of the observational and clinical data, by Mark Messina,Sonia Blanco Mejia,Aedin Cassidy,Alison Duncan,Mindy Kurzer,Chisato Nagato, et al.  Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, published online: 27 Mar 2021.

Conclusion: After extensive [my emphasis] review, the evidence does not support classifying isoflavones as endocrine disruptors.

Funding: “Funds were provided by the Soy Nutrition Institute and the European Plant-based Food Association to MM and the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis & Clinical Trials Foundation for work related to the development and writing of this paper.”

Disclosures: Mark John Messina receives funding from the Soy Nutrition Institute as its Executive Director. Both Mindy Kurzer and John Sievenpiper are on the advisory board of the Soy Nutrition Institute. Ian Rowland is on the advisory board of the European Plant-based Foods Association. I have disclosed those interests fully to Taylor & Francis, and have in place an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from these positions.

Comment: “Extensive” is an understatement; the paper has 688 references.  This may be overkill, but its purpose is to put to rest any concerns that soybeans might act as endocrine disrupters and, therefore, should be avoided.  The Soy Foods Council, obviously, wants you to stop worrying about this and paid for this review for that purpose.

I’m not particularly worried about soybeans.  As I wrote in What to Eat, I view soy as neither poison nor panacea.  But there is plenty of evidence on both sides.  That’s why paid reviews are not helpful.

You might not think that avocados need any special sales efforts, but the Haas Avocado marketers are particularly aggressive in funding research to demonstrate the health benefits of this food.

I’ve written about Haas-funded avocado research previously (most recently, here and here) but here’s yet another, this time initiated by a tweet:

I think avocados are fine foods, love them, but wish their marketers would not do this.  Here’s the Good News Network headline: “An Avocado a Day May Keep Your Gut Microbes Happy, Study Shows.”  As always, the operative word is “may.”  The headline would be equally correct saying “may not.”

The study: Avocado Consumption Alters Gastrointestinal Bacteria Abundance and Microbial Metabolite Concentrations among Adults with Overweight or Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Sharon V Thompson, Melisa A Bailey, Andrew M Taylor, Jennifer L Kaczmarek, Annemarie R Mysonhimer, Caitlyn G Edwards, Ginger E Reeser, Nicholas A Burd, Naiman A Khan, Hannah D Holscher.  The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 151, Issue 4, April 2021, Pages 753–762.

Conclusions: “Daily avocado consumption resulted in lower fecal bile acid concentrations, greater fecal fatty acid and SCFAs, and greater relative abundances of bacteria capable of fiber fermentation, providing evidence that this nutrient-dense food affects digestive physiology, as well as the composition and metabolic functions of the intestinal microbiota.”

Funding: Support for this research was provided by the Hass Avocado Board and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project 1009249.

Author disclosures: NAB, NAK, and HDH received grant funding from the Hass Avocado Board.

Comment: All fruits and vegetables provide nutritional value and the best way to get the nutrients you need is by eating a variety of them.  If you like avocados, include them in that variety.  If not, don’t.

The Haas marketers want you to think that avocados are a superfood.  Alas, there is no such thing.  All fruits and vegetables provide nutritional value.  By that criterion, all fruits and vegetables are superfoods.

Here’s an example of how Haas advertises:

Did you know fresh avocados can be part of the MyPlate food guide?

• Make half your plate fruits and vegetables.

Avocados are a nutrient-dense fruit with naturally good fats and are easily incorporated into various meals and snacks. One serving (50g or one-third of a medium avocado) has only 80 calories and contributes nearly 20 vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients along with dietary fiber.

The same could be said for most other fruits and vegetables, although most will be lower in calories.

Nutritional Viewpoints on Eggs and Cholesterol. by Michihiro Sugano and Ryosuke Matsuoka.  Foods 2021, 10(3), 494; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030494

Opinion:  This review says that although Japanese people eat more eggs than Americans, they may be protected against higher cholesterol levels due to the differences in everything else they eat (more seafood, for example?).

Conclusion: “Although randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are required to evaluate the association between consumption of eggs and human health, available information, at least from the nutritional viewpoint, suggests that egg is a healthy and cost-efficient food worldwide.”

Conflicts of interest: “M.S. declares no conflicts of interest, and R.M. is an employee of Kewpie Corporation. There are no other patents, products in development, or marketed products to declare. Kewpie Corporation has no conflicts of interest with this research.”

Comment: Really?  No conflicts of interest?  But Kewpie is Japan’s #1 mayonaise company.  Kewpie says that it “uses about four billion eggs a year. Recognizing that eggs contain all the necessary ingredients for creating life, we continually study ways of effectively utilizing such ingredients and manufacture fine chemicals for use in a broad range of food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical applications.”

One of those ways, apparently, is to get its employees to write opinion pieces like this.

With that said, concerns about eggs and cholesterol have diminished in recent years.  The 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans says not a word about eggs and cholesterol; it just recommends eggs as a source of protein.  A study in the American Heart Association Journal finds no association between eggs and heart disease mortality.

The American Heart Association notes that eggs are the leading source of dietary cholesterol but their negative effects may be confounded by the fact that they are so often eaten with bacon and sausage.  The AHA egg recommendations:

• Vegetarians (lacto-ovo) who do not consume meat-based cholesterol-containing foods may include more dairy and eggs in their diets within the context of moderation discussed herein.
• Patients with dyslipidemia, particularly those with diabetes mellitus or at risk for heart failure, should be cautious in consuming foods rich in cholesterol.
• For older normocholesterolemic patients, given the nutritional benefits and convenience of eggs, consumption of up to 2 eggs per day is acceptable within the context of a heart-healthy dietary pattern.

And even with that said, the authors should have disclosed Kewpie’s evident conflicted interests.

Dietary Patterns and Nutritional Status in Relation to Consumption of Chickpeas and Hummus in the U.S. Population.  by  Cara L. Frankenfeld and Taylor C. Wallace.   Appl. Sci. 2020, 10(20), 7341; https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207341

Conclusion: ” Adults who consumed chickpeas and hummus were 48% and 62% less likely to have metabolic syndrome, respectively. Consuming chickpeas or hummus may be a practical means of improving diet quality and nutritional status. ”

Funding:  This research was funded by an investigator-initiated, unrestricted educational grant from Sabra Dipping Co., LLC.

Comment: That’s what they all say about the sponsor’s role, despite substantial evidence to the contrary (in many other cases).  Sabra is owned by PepsiCo.

Hat tip: To Daniel Bowmn Simon for sending me this one.

The Study:  Maaike J. Bruins and Ulla Létinois. Adequate Vitamin D Intake Cannot Be Achieved within Carbon Emission Limits Unless Food Is Fortified: A Simulation Study.  Nutrients 2021, 13(2), 592; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020592

Conclusion: The present study shows that adequate intakes for vitamin D cannot be achieved with the current diet alone within realistic calorie and carbon emission limits, and additional vitamin D sources are needed to overcome the shortfalls. Universal fortification along with small dietary shifts represents an approach to improve the vitamin D status of the general population, at a high acceptability without affecting the carbon footprint.

Conflicts of Interest: M.J.B. and U.L. are employed by DSM Nutritional Products, a manufacturer of nutritional ingredients.

Comment: Study after study shows that vitamin D supplements do not make healthy people healthier, but the idea persists and supplement companies take advantage of faith in these products.  Well, there isn’t much evidence for harm either, but sunshine on skin is a better source by far.

OK.  I know there’s a big controversy about this.

Here’s a study that shows benefits for patients with COVID; supplements were associated with keeping people out of intensive care.  One of its authors has financial ties to supplement companies, but the study has been criticized on other grounds as has a member of the British Parliament who thinks it provides evidence for supplementing everyone.

And here’s an independently funded study in JAMA shows that vitamin D to have no effect on patients hospitalized with Covid-19.

This one, comes with an editorial.

Given the lack of highly effective therapies against COVID-19, except perhaps for corticosteroids, it is important to remain open-minded to emerging results from rigorously conducted studies of vitamin D (despite smaller sample sizes and important limitations of some studies). However, taken together with existing randomized clinical trials of vitamin D administration in hospitalized patients with respiratory infection and critical illness, the results reported by Murai et al¹² do not support routine administration of vitamin D in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Fortunately, vitamin D supplements are unlikely to be harmful unless taken in very large doses.

Sunshine, anyone?

As a general rule, industry-funded studies produce results favorable to the sponsor’s interests.  But what have we here?

The study: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Effects of Oats and Oat Processing on Postprandial Blood Glucose and Insulin Responses.  Kathy Musa-Veloso, Daniel Noori, Carolina Venditti, Theresa Poon, Jodee Johnson, Laura S Harkness, Marianne O’Shea, YiFang Chu.  The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 151, Issue 2, February 2021, Pages 341–351.

Results: the consumption of thick—but not thin—oat flakes was associated with significant reductions in postprandial blood glucose and insulin responses.

Conclusion: “Relative to a refined grain control food with the same amount of available carbohydrate, the postprandial glycemic and insulin responses elicited by intact oat kernels and thick oats were significantly reduced. The postprandial glycemic and insulin responses with thin/instant/quick oats were not significantly different from those elicited by the refined grain control.”

Funding: The systematic review and meta-analysis, as well as the writing of the manuscript, were funded by PepsiCo, Inc.

Author disclosures: “KM-V, DN, CV, and TP are employees of Intertek Health Sciences Inc., which has provided consulting services to PepsiCo, Inc. JJ, MO, and YC are employees of PepsiCo, Inc., which manufactures oatmeal products under the brand name Quaker Oats and which funded this systematic review and meta-analysis. LSH is a former employee of PepsiCo, Inc.  The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or policies of Intertek Health Sciences Inc. or PepsiCo, Inc.”

Comment:  This is a PepsiCo study paid for by the company and conducted by employees or contractors.  PepsiCo owns Quaker Oats instant oatmeal.  In the late 1980s, oat bran was a craze.  Everyone I knew was sprinkling oat bran on everything they ate as a means to reduce their blood cholesterol levels.  Even then, there were real questions about whether oats had any special effects on blood cholesterol levels.   But the idea has persisted.  This study demonstrates that oats might have metabolic benefits, but only if they are thick, whole-grain, and minimally processed.  Instant oatmeal is not in that category.  I wonder what the company’s reaction is to this study, whether it intends to fund more like it, and whether it will us thicker oats in its Quaker products.

I’ve been collecting items about meat.  This is a good week to post them, starting with this.

The study:  Effects of Total Red Meat Intake on Glycemic Control and Inflammatory Biomarkers: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Lauren E O’Connor, Jung Eun Kim, Caroline M Clark, Wenbin Zhu, and Wayne W Campbell. . Adv Nutr 2021;12:115–127.

Conclusion:  “Total red meat consumption, for up to 16 weeks, does not affect changes in biomarkers of glycemic control or inflammation for adults free of, but at risk for, cardiometabolic disease.”

Funder (my emphasis): “This study was funded by The Pork Checkoff and Purdue University’s Bilsland Dissertation Fellowship (LEO). The funder had no role in the design or conduct of the study or the analysis or interpretation of data.

Author disclosures: LEO received honoraria and travel to present related research as a graduate student from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. During the time this research was conducted, WWC received funding for research grants, travel, or honoraria for scientific presentations or consulting services from the following organizations: National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Board, National Dairy Council, North Dakota Beef Commission, Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education, Barilla Group, New York Beef Council, and North American Meat Institute. All the other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Comment:  Red meat is under attack for its strong association with health problems, cancer in particular.  In the 24 studies this group looked at, selected out of nearly 1200, they found no bad effects.  This is a typical result for an industry-funded study conducted by investigators with industry ties.  It would be more reassuring if found by independent investigators.