Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

A new study says eating saffron will improve your mood.  Guess who funded it.

The Study: Lopresti AL, Smith SJ, Marx W, Díez-Municio M, Morán-Valero MI. An Examination into the Effects of a Saffron Extract (Affron) on Mood and General Wellbeing in Adults Experiencing Low Mood: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. J Nutr. 2025 Jul;155(7):2300-2311. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.05.024. Epub 2025 May 23. PMID: 40414301.

Background: Saffron, derived from the stigmas of the Crocus sativus flower, has been shown in previous trials to have antidepressant effects in clinically diagnosed adults. However, the recruitment of small sample sizes, short treatment periods, and variability in the quality of studies have negatively impacted the strength of conclusions.

Objectives: The purpose of this 2-arm, 12-wk, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to examine the effects of supplementation with a saffron extract (Affron) on mood and sleep in adults experiencing subclinical depressive symptoms.

Methods: Two hundred and two adults aged 18-70 with depressive symptoms were supplemented with 28 mg saffron daily or a placebo.

Results: Compared to the placebo, saffron was associated with greater improvements in the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale….However, in the other secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of between-group differences.

Conclusions: This study…provides evidence supporting the beneficial effects of 3 mo of saffron supplementation on depressive symptoms in adults. Large placebo responses were evident in this study, which require consideration in future trials.

Funding: We thank Pharmactive Biotech Products, SLU, for funding the project and supplying the investigational products used for this
study.

Conflict of interest: ALL is the Managing Director of Clinical Research Australia, a contract research organization that receives research funding rom nutraceutical companies… SJS is an employee of Clinical Research Australia. WM has received funding and/or attended events funded by Cobram Estate Pty. Ltd. and Bega Dairy and Drinks Pty. Ltd…MD-M and MIM-V are employees of the study sponsor, Pharmactive
Biotech Products SLU.

Comment:  Let’s hear it for placebo responses!  Saffron is an extremely expensive spice usually used in pinch amounts.  If it’s hard for you to imagine that it could do anything to affect depression, subclinical depression yet, there’s a good reason for that—although saffron makes food taste delicious and that alone is a mood-improver.  But this study was done with a supplement, not the expensive spice.  Overall, this is a study done under contract from the supplement’s manufacturer by employees of the manufacturer.  As such, it is explicitly marketing research.  The interpretation of this study is predictable if you know who funded it.  The title of the study alone should generate the question: Who funded this?

Thanks to Matthew Kadey for this one.

Apparently, no food can exist without research attesting to its healthfulness.  This item comes from Karla Alindahao, senior editor at Food & Wine (for which I have promised to start writing—more on this later in the summer).

She sent me the NBC News account: Eating kimchi every day could help stave off weight gain, new study says:  Cabbage and radish kimchi, a popular fermented vegetable dish, in particular were effective in reducing the risk of obesity and abdominal obesity in both men and women.

As usual, I went right to the study: Jung H, Yun Y-R, Hong SW, et al.  Association between kimchi consumption and obesity based on BMI and abdominal obesity in Korean adults: a cross- sectional analysis of the Health Examinees study. BMJ Open 2024;14:e076650. doi:10.1136/ bmjopen-2023-076650

Kimchi, fermented vegetables, contains probiotic lactic acid bacteria.

In this survey, higher kimchi consumption was related to a lower prevalence of obesity.

Eating radish kimchi was associated with 8% lower abdominal obesity in men and 11% in women.

As for the funding: “This research was supported by grants from the World Institute of Kimchi (KE2201- 1) funded by the Ministry of Science and ICT, Republic of Korea.”

Comment

Somehow, the caveats got lost in the press releases.

Oops: Both lower and higher kimchi consumption were associated with obesity (a ‘J- shaped’ association).

The authors caution:

In conclusion, total kimchi consumption of 1–3 servings/day was shown to be reversely associated with obesity in men…However, since all results showed a ‘J- shaped’ association, excessive consumption suggests the potential for an increase in obesity prevalence. As kimchi is one of the major sources of sodium intake, a moderate amount of kimchi should be recommended for the health benefits of its other components.

The study: Maher, C. , Alcorn M., Childress A., Dawson J. A., and Galyean S.. 2025. “Increasing Vegetable Intake Using Monosodium Glutamate in a Randomized Controlled Trial: A Culinary Medicine Intervention.” Food Science & Nutrition 13, no. 6: e70441. 10.1002/fsn3.70441.

Purpose: “This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of monosodium glutamate (MSG) as a flavor enhancer in increasing vegetable intake compared to sodium chloride (NaCl) alone combined with a digital culinary medicine education program.”

Results: “The 50/50 NaCl/MSG group showed a mean increase in vegetable intake from 1.46 to 1.55 cups/day, while the NaCl group showed a decrease from 1.33 to 0.95 cups/day.”

Conclusion: “Although the differences in vegetable intake were not statistically significant, the findings suggest that MSG could enhance vegetable palatability and intake, aligning with the principles of culinary medicine.”

Conflicts of Interest: “The authors declare a conflict of interest due to Ajinomoto’s involvement in the funding and design of this study. Ajinomoto is a company that manufactures and sells MSG products. Their contribution included financial support and assistance in the study design, which could be perceived as influencing the outcomes of the research.”

Funding: “This study was funded by the American Society for Nutrition and its Foundation, grant number 1195905, and the APC [article processing charge] was funded by Ajinomoto.
Health & Nutrition North America Inc.”

Comment: The idea here is that if you sprinkle MSG rather than salt (NaCl) on your vegetables, they will taste better and you will eat more of them.  The study produced a non-significant result but is given a positive spin (“MSG could enhance…”).  The shocker here is the funding.  The authors say Ajinomoto funded it, but the funding statement mentions the American Society for Nutrition, an organization of nutrition researchers and clinicians to which I belong.  I had no idea ASN was funding research, let alone industry-funded research.  I have long been concerned about ASN’s industry partnerships, which I believe compromise the ability of the organization to issue advice on nutrition.  This is an old issue, but one that it seems time to bring up again.

I haven’t done one of these in a while.  This one is especially timely with all the fuss going on about the supposed toxicity of seed oils, soy among them.  To be clear: I do not see convincing evidence for this contention.

Still, it makes soy producers want to demonstrate that eating soy poses no health problems.  Hence, this study.

Effect of Soy Isoflavones on Measures of Estrogenicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.  Gabrielle Viscardi, Songhee Back, Amna Ahmed, Shuting Yang, Sonia Blanco Mejia, Andreea Zurbau, Tauseef A Khan, Amanda Selk, Mark Messina, Cyril WC Kendall, David JA Jenkins, John L Sievenpiper, Laura Chiavaroli.  Advances in Nutrition, Volume 16, Issue 1, 2025, 100327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100327.

The abstract begins:

Despite recommendations to increase plant food consumption for public and planetary health and the role that soy foods can play in plant-predominant diets, controversies around the effects of soy foods, especially soy isoflavones, are a barrier to their intake. Given their cardioprotective effects and ability to alleviate menopausal symptoms, addressing these concerns is particularly relevant to women…This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to determine the effect of soy isoflavones on measures of estrogenicity in postmenopausal women.

Conclusion: “Current evidence suggests that soy isoflavones do not exhibit estrogenic effects compared with non-isoflavone controls on 4 measures of estrogenicity in postmenopausal women.”

Funding: “This work was supported by the United Soybean Board (the United States Department of Agriculture soy check-off program)….”

Conflicts of interest:  Oh dear.  It’s hard to know where to begin, as the lists go on and on and on.  One of the authors “is the Director of Nutrition Science and Research at the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, an organization that receives partial funding from the principal funder, the United Soybean Board (USB).”  Others report financial ties to Soy Foods Association of North America, the Soy Nutrition Institute, and the United Soybean Board.

Comment.  Some of the authors on this review appear highly conflicted.  What is especially troubling is their apparent mocking of the concept of conflicted interests and conflating of personal views (which all researchers have, but these vary) with financial ties (which are discretionary and almost invariably produce results favorable to the sponsor’s interests).   Authors on this paper report as conflicts such things as awards, funding from professional societies, unpaid work for professional societies, vegan dietary preferences, and activities of their spouses and children—none of which are in the same category as financial ties to industries with direct interests in research outcome.  I don’t think this kind of conflicted research helps the soybean cause.

Why alas?  I love maple syrup.

But the Quebec Maple Syrup Producers association apparently has decided that it needs to boost sales by promoting maple syrup as a superfood.

Sigh.

The article in the New York Times is titled: “A Scientist Is Paid to Study Maple Syrup. He’s Also Paid to Promote It.”

The subtitle: “Funded by the maple industry, a researcher has exaggerated his findings to suggest that syrup could help prevent serious diseases.”

For more than a decade, Navindra Seeram, a biomedical researcher, has praised maple syrup, calling it a “hero ingredient” and “champion food” that could have wide-ranging health benefits…As he straddles the realms of scientific inquiry and promotion, he has distorted the real-world implications of his findings and exaggerated health benefits…In videos and press releases, he has suggested that consuming maple syrup may help stave off diseases including cancer, Alzheimer’s and diabetes.

The article continues…

At the University of Rhode Island, where he worked until last year, Dr. Seeram oversaw projects that were awarded $2.6 million in U.S. government funding, including a grant explicitly intended to increase maple syrup sales. That promotional work produced a stream of social media posts like, “Maple Syrup’s Benefits: Anti-Cancer, Anti-Oxidant, Anti-Inflammatory.”

Oh how I wish.

As for who pays for this,

The Quebec Maple Syrup Producers, an industry association that markets and regulates most of the world’s maple syrup, has long funded Dr. Seeram’s work. The association and the Canadian government have together provided at least $2.8 million for his research, according to a 2019 grant applicatio

Maple syrup is just a form of sugar, and mostly sucrose at that.  It does have a few minerals in small amounts, along with its fabulously delicious flavoring ingredients.

But a nutritional powerhouse?  Alas, no.

This is an example of what the late and much missed Sheldon Krimsky called “the funding effect,” the strong tendency for industry-funded studies to produce results favorable to the commercial interests of the sponsor.

The study: Industry study sponsorship and conflicts of interest on the effect of unprocessed red meat on cardiovascular disease risk: a systematic review of clinical trials. Miguel López-Moreno, Ujué Fresán, Carlos Marchena-Giráldez, Gabriele Bertotti, Alberto Roldán-Ruiz.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.02.030.

The findings:  

• Of 44 studies of meat and cardiovascular risks, 66% had links to the meat industry.
• All independently funded studies reported unfavorable (73.3%) or neutral (26.7%) results.
• All studies with funding ties to the meat industry reported favorable (20.7%) or neutral (79.3 %) results.
• Studies with conflicts of interest were nearly 4 times more likely to report favorable/neutral outcomes.

Conclusion: 

• Studies funded by the meat industry “may underestimate the cardiovascular benefits of reducing red meat intake.”

Comment

This study confirms an enormous body of research on this topic: industry funding influences research outcome.  How?  Usually by influencing how the research question is framed or in how the results are interpreted (unfavorable results reported as neutral, for example).  I’ve seen criticisms of this study arguing that ideology (favoring plant-based diets, for example) also influences research outcome.  It does, but all investigators have belief systems that influence their work.  These can go in any direction.  That’s why research needs repeating by other investigators with other biases.  Financial ties are different; they invariably skew results in the same direction—toward the commercial interests of the sponsor.

I would not think the avocado industry would need to fund research on the benefits of avocados—surely the Superbowl takes care of sales—but its trade association is very busy.

The Hass Avocado Board has its own USDA-sponsored checkoff marketing program.

It also sponsors The Avocado Nutrition Center, where you can read all about the research studies it funds.

The avocado is well-loved but little-understood.

That’s why the Avocado Nutrition Center works to grow the world’s scientific understanding of the avocado.

Misinformation will fill the void if the pace of scientific knowledge does not match the pace of the avocado’s growing popularity.

I love avocados.  But really?

Apparently so.  Here are two recent examples.

I.  The Effect of Daily Avocado Intake on Food and Nutrient Displacement in a Free-Living Population with Abdominal Obesity. Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 10, 2024, 104451, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.104451.

Conclusion: Incorporating 1 avocado daily led to favorable modifications in the dietary composition of participants, including an increase in potassium and fiber intake, which can improve diet quality.

Sponsor: Hass Avocado Board.

II.  Avocado consumption during pregnancy linked to lower child food allergy risk: prospective KuBiCo study. Pediatr Res (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-025-03968-4.  Thanks to Charles Platkin for this one.

Conclusion: Avocado consumption during pregnancy was associated with lower odds of infant food allergies at 12 months, even when accounting for potential covariates.

Conflict of interest: Three of the authors work for the Avocado Nutrition Center, Hass Avocado Board.

Comment: These are standard examples of what the late Sheldon Krimsky called the “funding effect,” the strong tendency of industry-funded studies to produce favorable outcomes.   They raise the question: Would independent researchers do one-food studies like these if they were not funded by an interested party?