Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

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.

Navid Teimouri, who is at the School of Public Health, University of Queensland, sent me his team’s recently published analysis of meat industry sponsored nutrition studies and their outcomes: Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review.

This is a classic study of what the late Sheldon Krimsky called the “funding effect,” the bias toward favorable results caused by industry sponsorship of research.

The authors examined 500 research studies of meat and health outcome.

The results:

Of 500 included studies, 78 (15.6%) reported industry involvement. Studies with industry ties were 16 times more likely to report favorable conclusions regarding meat consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 16.4, 95% CI: 7.5–35.8), and there was a significant association (p < 0.001) between industry involvement and study conclusion.

The conclusion:

Meat industry involvement significantly increases the likelihood of favorable study conclusions in nutrition research. These findings underscore the need for caution when interpreting research funded or associated with the meat industry and emphasize the importance of minimizing conflicts of interest in nutrition research.

Comment

When I wrote my book, Unsavory Truth, I could only find a few funding-effect studies dealing with food or nutrition.  This one adds to the collection.  It confirms previous findings.  Only a small percent of nutrition research is industry funded, but those studies are more likely to find results favoring the sponsor’s commercial interests than those that are not industry funded.  Why?  Food companies are unlikely to sponsor research that might find their products harmful.  Sheldon Krimsky mostly looked at studies funded by the pharmaceutical drug industry.  Studies funded by food or nutrition companies share similar biases.

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.

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

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.