Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

I learned about this one from a sponsored article in the online newsletter, NutraIngredients:

Magnesium L-threonate delivers effective cognitive support, studies show:  Demand for cognitive health support has never been higher. Unique ingredient can unlock high magnesium bioavailability, studies show…. Read more. 

I went right to the site it and saw this, first thing:

When I clicked on “Learn more,” I got this:

Translation: This article looks like a scientific report but it’s actually an ad for the supplement, magnesium L-threonate, which Threotech patents and markets as Magtein.  Indeed, Threotech says it is “Dedicated to the worldwide expansion of Magtein.”

The article summarizes studies showing impressive improvements in memory and cognition with this supplement, and provides a bunch of references to studies, some of which were also funded by Threotech.

When I say things like this, companies write me in despair: If they don’t do the studies, who will?

That’s my point.

Studies like these are important for selling supplements.

But magnesium is widely available in the diet: “Good sources of magnesium include green leafy vegetables, legumes, nuts, seeds, whole grains….”

Magnesium is another reason for eating plenty of foods from plant sources.

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.

A reader, Harish Chintakunta, sent this suggestion for one of my Monday posts on conflicted science.

Subject: UC Davis Methane Summit—A Case Study in Industry-Framed Science?

Dear Dr. Nestle,

…UC Davis hosted a “State of the Science Summit on Reducing Methane from Animal Agriculture” (link). While the summit was billed as scientific, it was organized by institutions with strong financial ties to the livestock industry. Unsurprisingly, the most effective methane reduction strategy—phasing out animal agriculture—was not mentioned.

Instead, the narrative centered on sustaining and expanding animal production, framed as essential for global nutrition which you very well know is not supported by science. The result was less a discussion of science and more a reinforcement of corporate priorities, masquerading as objectivity.

I believe this event is a powerful example of how public institutions can unintentionally (or otherwise) advance industry agendas while sidelining viable alternatives. Your perspective on this would carry tremendous weight.

Methane emissions from cattle are greenhouse gases that strongly contribute to global warming.  The livestock industry would like to reduce methane if it can.  UC Davis, the University of California’s land grant campus, has long provided research to support the state’s industrial producers.  Its scientists recently found that feeding seaweed to cattle can reduce methane emissions.

I looked at the agenda for the 2025 conference.  It appears at first glance to be quite well balanced.  Speakers come from industry, but also from academia and at least one environmental organization.   Several speakers come from the Global Methane Hub, which funds methane-reduction programs; the Hub is sponsored by a variety of industry- and privately funded foundations.

Without having been there, I have no way of knowing whether anyone at this meeting talked about how people and the planet would be healthier eating less meat.  As far as I can tell, no representatives of the EAT-Lancet Commission, which promotes a less-meat Planetary Health Diet, were listed as speakers.

So Mr. Chintakunta is correct: by focusing this meeting on reduction of methane emissions from cattle, rather than on methane emissions in general, it avoids having to deal with the inconvenient truth that eating less meat—which would be bad for the meat business—would be a lot better for planetary health.

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.

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.

Alert to readers: Amazon.com displays listings for several more workbooks, study guides, and cookbooks purportedly based on my book, What to Eat Now (see previous post on this).  I did not write any of them.  Caveat emptor!

___________________________

Thanks to Lais Miachon Silva of the Micronutrient Forum for sending this item.

The study: A Systematic Review of Nonsugar Sweeteners and Cancer Epidemiology Studies. Advances in Nutrition Volume 16, Issue 12, December 2025, 100527.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2025.100527

Methods: systematic literature review

Results: “We found no consistent associations between any NSS or NSSs in aggregate and any cancer overall, and no evidence for dose–response.”

Conclusions: “Experimental animal and mechanistic evidence for NSSs does not support human-relevant carcinogenicity or any biologically plausible mechanisms by which NSSs could cause genotoxicity or cancer in humans. Overall, the epidemiology evidence does not support associations between any NSS and any cancer type.”

Funding: ABA [American Beverage Association] provided funding for this paper, which was written during the authors’ normal course of employment.

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. 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.

Comment: This is a classic example of an industry-funded study conducted by industry employees producing results favorable to the sponsor’s commercial interests.  I am particularly amused by the last conflict of interest statement.  It too is a classic example, this time of Upton Sinclair’s famous quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” 

I’m always fascinated by egg-and-health studies because advice about eggs really has never changed: one egg a day was OK decades ago, and still is.

But the egg industry wants you to eat more eggs.  And encourages research to promote doing so.

Hence this study.

The study: Egg intake and cognitive function in healthy adults: A systematic review of the literature. J Nutr Health Aging. 2025 Dec;29(12):100696. doi: 10.1016/j.jnha.2025.100696. Epub 2025 Oct 7.

Background: “Eggs are a widely consumed, nutrient-dense food containing choline, phospholipids, tryptophan, and omega-3 fatty acids, which individually support cognitive processes such as memory, attention, and neurogenesis.”

Method: Systematic literature review.

Conclusions: “This systematic review identified preliminary observational evidence that moderate habitual egg consumption may be associated with better cognitive performance, particularly in memory and verbal fluency domains, and reduced risk of cognitive impairment in adults without chronic disease. However, findings were inconsistent, and the overall evidence base remains limited in both quantity and quality. Further rigorous studies, especially well-powered randomised controlled trials, are required to determine whether egg consumption contributes to cognitive resilience and to clarify dose–response relationships. [My emphasis]

Funding: [The first author] was supported by a PhD Scholarship partly funded by Australian Eggs Ltd (GROW005). The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.

Comment: “May” is equivalent to “may not,” making the positive spin on the conclusions an example of interpretation bias consistent with industry funding.  The analysis shows that nobody is finding evidence that eggs have any measurable effect on cognitive function, so why bother with further studies.  They are unlikely to find a stronger effect.  This study is especially unfortunate because the first author is a doctoral student, whose mentors ought to have kept free of industry influence.