Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

I learned about this one from a press release: Natural trans fats in dairy do not raise heart disease risk.

Trans fats found naturally in dairy foods such as milk, butter and cheese do not increase the risk of heart disease or type 2 diabetes, a new study has found.

Who, I wondered, could possibly have paid for this study?

Bingo!

This research was funded by the National Dairy Council (USA). Several authors work for or receive funding from dairy interbranch or industry organisations.

I could see why the dairy industry would fund something like this.

Ruminants—cattle and dairy cows—naturally hydrogenate unsaturated fatty acids and convert them to trans fats, the bad kind that raise the risk of heart disease.

Meat and dairy producers would love to be able to show that naturally hydrogenated trans fats are healthier than those that are artificially hydrogenated.  Hence this study.

The study:  Gayet-Boyer, C., Tenenhaus-Aziza, F., Torres-Gonzalez, M., Givens, D.I., & Schweitzer, C. (2026). Trans fatty acids from dairy foods do not affect risk of cardiometabolic diseases: Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials and systematic review of prospective cohort studies. Nutrition Research, 150, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nutres.2026.03.009

Comment: Would independent scientists who demonstrated the harm of artificial trans fats find something different with ruminant trans fats?  I’d like to see those studies.

When I saw the title of this study, I thought I’ll bet the Hass Avocado people paid for this one.

Bingo.

This is a classic example of an industry-funded study producing the desired result.

• The study: LeBeau K, Segovia-Siapco G, Heskey C …  The Effect of Including 1 Avocado Daily in a Habitual Diet on the Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load in Free-Living Adults with Overweight/Obesity. Current Developments in Nutrition, 2026; 10
• Methods: This secondary analysis used data from the Habitual Diet and Avocado Trial, a multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm study involving 1008 adults with elevated waist circumference. Participants were randomly assigned to either an avocado-supplemented group, instructed to consume 1 large avocado daily with their usual diet, or a control group who maintained their habitual diet and avoided avocados.
• Results: Among 961 participants with complete data (73% females, mean age 50.5 y), the avocado-supplemented group showed a reduction in dietary GL by 13.7 points (95% confidence interval: 17.0, 10.4; P < 0.001) compared with the control. Food groups contributed similar amounts to the overall GL, except for avocado.
• Conclusions: Daily consumption of 1 avocado within the habitual diet significantly reduced GL by almost 14 points, without requiring significant dietary changes. This suggests that incorporating a single nutrient-dense food like avocado can effectively improve the GL simply and sustainably.
• Conflict of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
• Funding: The study was funded by the Hass Avocado Board, which had no role in data collection, data analysis, interpretation, or writing the manuscript.

Comment

This also is a classic demonstration of failure to recognize conflicted interests when they exist.  Funding research automatically generates conflicted interests, whether the authors recognize it or not, as these authors do not.  The Hass Board does not have to be involved in data collection, interpretation, or writing.  The mere fact of its funding the study trial establishes its vested interest in the outcome.

Thanks to Phyllis Entis of eFoodAlert.com for this one.

• The Study: Minimally processed, human-grade diet alters canine epigenetic ageing: Results from a pilot study. Aimee Chen, Wei Guo, Janina A. Krumbeck, Dan Su, Vincent Michels, Xiaojing Yang.  First published: 05 August 2026.  https://doi.org/10.1002/vro2.70047

• Results: Dogs fed with MPHGF diet [minimally processed, human-grade food] exhibited a significant reduction in delta age, decreasing from 2.75 to 1.80 years over 6 months (p = 0.02), indicating a trend of slowed epigenetic ageing. In contrast, dogs fed with EDK diet [extruded dry kibble] exhibited no significant change in epigenetic ageing (p = 0.86).

• Conclusion: This study demonstrates the potential for dietary interventions to influence epigenetic ageing in dogs and provides a practical, quantitative framework for investigating healthy ageing in companion animals.

• Funding: This study was funded by JustFoodForDogs, Inc. and involved food provided by the company.

• Conflict of interest: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest. Dan Su and Vincent Michels are employees of JustFoodforDogs who funded the study.

Comment: I hardly know what to make of the Conflict of Interest statement here.  The authors declare no COI, but they are employed by the funder of the study, JustFoodForDogs, which has much to gain from demonstrating that its products improve dog longevity.  The authors must not consider this a COI.  I do.

____________________

Arriving Sept 8. For a 30% discount, pre-order here using code UCPSAVE30.

I keep saying that I can often tell who funded a study from its title, and if I know the funder I can often predict the result.  But sometimes I’m wrong.  This is one of those times.

The study:  Effects of Short-Term Broccoli Powder Supplementation on Acute Oxidative Stress and Recovery Following a Metabolically Demanding Exercise Session. Cesanelli L, Venckunas T, Minderis P, Maconyte V, Stasiulis A, Snieckus A, Mickevicius M, Mickeviciene D, Kamandulis S.  Antioxidants. 2026; 15(3):379. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox15030379

Background/Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of short-term broccoli powder supplementation on metabolically demanding exercise performance, muscle power, and blood lactate recovery. It also investigated broccoli powder-derived sulforaphane bioavailability and its effects in attenuating exercise-induced oxidative stress.

Methods: Seventeen healthy males (age 23.8 ± 4.9 years, height 182.3 ± 6.1 cm, weight 80.0 ± 12.8 kg), in a double-blind crossover design, three weeks apart, consumed ten standard doses of either broccoli powder or spinach powder as a placebo over a period of 2 weeks. They then performed a maximal progressive cycling task with concomitant analysis of expired gas composition. Plasma malondialdehyde (MDA) level was measured before and 60 min after the completion of the task, and blood lactate and muscle power (counter-movement vertical jump (CMJ) performance) were measured before and up to 60 min after exercise.

Results: The main findings were that despite urine sulforaphane output being markedly higher following broccoli supplementation (p < 0.05), which confirms effective absorption and systemic availability of the compound, this did not influence exercise-induced changes in plasma MDA concentration, blood lactate dynamics, exercise test performance, or functional recovery measured as muscle power via CMJ performance (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: In conclusion, broccoli powder supplementation, despite efficient delivery of sulforaphane, does not seem to either acutely affect performance or modify oxidative stress and recovery from metabolically demanding exercise.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no personal financial relationships, consultancies, or equity interests related to this work. The Smarter Food Company (Norwich, UK) provided partial funding (unrestricted) and supplied the glucoraphanin-rich broccoli and placebo powder used as the study supplements but had no involvement in the study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, manuscript writing, or decision to submit for publication.

Comment: So this was one of those studies where I saw the title and asked: “Who paid for this?”  Why would anyone care about the effects of eating broccoli or spinach powder, when nobody eats such things unless they have to?  The obvious answer: the company that sells such things or is thinking of selling them.  Hence The Smarter Food Company.  But then I expected the study to say that broccoli powder produced miracles, but it does not.  High marks to the Lithuanian authors.

The Examination has released an investigative report in its new “Behind the Buzz” series: “Is it safe to drink Red Bull and vodka? Dubious research tied to the company has shaped energy drink policy. The company paid scientists whose studies largely found that mixing energy drinks and alcohol isn’t harmful, contrary to most research.”

The studies backed by Red Bull have been nearly unanimous in their message: Consuming energy drinks and alcohol together is no more harmful than drinking alcohol alone.

That stands in stark contrast to the vast majority of independent studies on the subject.

The Examination gathered more than 100 studies about the health or behavioral risks of mixing energy drinks and alcohol. Of the studies that received funding by Red Bull or were conducted by researchers who disclosed financial conflicts of interest with the company, 95% concluded that mixing alcohol with energy drinks did not increase those risks. Roughly 80% of independent studies reached the opposite conclusion, The Examination found.

…Laura Schmidt, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco who has examined research funded by the food and beverage industry, described those studies as “marketing dressed up as science.”

Indeed.  This is a classic “funding effect” study.  “Funding effect” is the term coined by the late (and much missed) Sheldon Krimsky to describe how industry-funded studies tend to produce results favorable to the funder’s interest, as has been frequently observed in studies funded by the pharmaceutical, chemical, and cigarette industries.

As for the funding effect in studies of food and health, see my book Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat( Basic Books, 2018)

The Examination’s investigation is particularly valuable because lives are at stake, especially for young men, the core customer for Red Bull.  Highly caffeinated energy drinks magnify the effects of alcohol.  Red Bull is often consumed with alcohol and its marketing does not discourage that combination.

Red Bull is a sugary beverage—One 8.4 ounce can contains 26 grams of sugar and 80 mg caffeine; it provides 110 sugary calories.

Red Bull ingredients: carbonated water, sugar, glucose, citric acid, taurine, natural and artificial flavors, sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), magnesium carbonate, colors, caffeine, and a few vitamins and minerals.

This is basically sugar water with a few electrolytes and taurine added.  The energy boost comes from sugar and caffeine.

The Examination authors describe their methods for identifying studies funded by Red Bull; they used AI.

I wish they had included the raw data—a list of the studies, funders, and outcomes.  As it is, we have to take them at their word, but their conclusion is certainly plausible and consistent with much other published research.

____________________

Pub date is September 8. For a 30% discount, pre-order here with promo code UCPSAVE30.

Here’s how I learned about this one:

KSM-66 ashwagandha may support cognition and sleep in children: Supplementation with KSM-66 ashwagandha root extract in gummy form for eight weeks is well tolerated and may enhance cognitive performance and sleep quality in children between the ages of 6 and 12, according to new research…. Read more

One look and I immediately wanted to know: Who paid for this?

To its credit, NutraIngredients said so right away:

Shri Kartikeya Pharma, India, which manufactures and supplies KSM-66 ashwagandha extract, provided financial support, the test product and a matching placebo for the study.

I dug up the original paper:

• The study: Saxena A, Lopresti A, Sharif M, Elon N, Suri R and Langade DK (2026) A clinical assessment of the therapeutic effects of Ashwagandha root extract on cognitive performance, sleep, and fatigue in children aged 6–12 years. Front. Nutr. 13:1742138. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2026.1742138
• Rationale: “Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera L.Dunal) is an adaptogenic herb known to reduce stress and enhance well-being in adults.”
• Methods: randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, parallel-group trial in children with parent-reported concerns related to attention, concentration, or memory.
• Results:supplementation significantly improved speed of information processing, and non-significantly improved delayed word recall, Stroop task accuracy, Corsi block span, choice reaction time accuracy, and parent-reported sleep quality.
• Conclusion: “These findings suggest that an eight-week supplementation with ARE is well tolerated and may enhance cognitive performance and sleep quality in children.”
• Funding: “The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication.This study was sponsored by Shri Kartikeya Pharma, India, which provided financial support, study intervention (Ashwagandha root extract), and a matching placebo for both study sites. The Sponsor had no role in data analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation.”
• Conflict of interest: “The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”

Comment

Most of the study results were non-significant; “may enhance” equally means “may not enhance.”  As always, I’m amused by the denial of conflicted interests, as if funding by the maker of the supplement was not sufficient as a conflict.  I think it is.

____________________

Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

I learned about this one from a National Pork Board story in SciTechDaily: Animal vs. Plant Protein: Scientists Found a Surprising Nutritional Difference.

A 2023 Purdue University study found that two ounce equivalents (oz-eq) of animal-based protein foods supplied more bioavailable essential amino acids (EAA) than the same two oz-eq amount of plant-based protein foods. Essential amino acids are especially important because the body cannot make them on its own. They must come from food, and they help support muscle and whole-body protein building.

It wasn’t much work to figure out who paid for the study.

Advice to get most of your protein from plant sources does not go over well with animal food trade associations like the National Pork Board (which is sponsored by USDA, by the way).

The study: Connolly G, Hudson JL, Bergia RE, Davis EM, Hartman AS, Zhu W, Carroll CC, Campbell WW. Effects of Consuming Ounce-Equivalent Portions of Animal- vs. Plant-Based Protein Foods, as Defined by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on Essential Amino Acids Bioavailability in Young and Older Adults: Two Cross-Over Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2023; 15(13):2870. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15132870

Conclusions: The same “oz-eq” portions of animal- and plant-based protein foods do not provide equivalent EAA content and postprandial bioavailability for protein anabolism in young and older adults.

Funding: This research was funded by the Pork Checkoff and the American Egg Board—Egg Nutrition Center. The supporting sources had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or submission of the report for publication.

_____________________

Pub date is September 8. Pre-orders through UC Press get a 30% discount. Use promo code UCPSAVE30.

I learned about this one from a British public relations firm.

Hey Marion,

Eating an egg a day could cut Alzheimer’s risk by 27%, major new study reveals as UK searches for dementia prevention hit a five-year high.

The press release linked to the study

Egg Intake and the Incidence of Alzheimer’s Disease in the Adventist Health Study-2 Cohort Linked with Medicare Data, followed nearly 40,000 American adults aged 65 and over for an average of 15.3 years — making it one of the largest investigations to date into how diet affects dementia risk.  Compared with people who never ate eggs, the researchers found:

– 5+ eggs per week — 27% lower Alzheimer’s risk

– 2-4 eggs per week — 20% lower risk

– 1-3 eggs per month — 17% lower risk

Why eggs?

Researchers say the protective effect comes from the unique cocktail of brain-essential nutrients found in eggs. The standout is choline — used by the body to produce acetylcholine, a brain chemical critical for memory and learning. Eggs are also rich in lutein, tryptophan, and the omega-3 fat DHA.

Lest I forget that this is about public relations, the message ends with this:

If you use the story, could you please link back to our client’s website.

Comment

Guess who paid for this study:

Funding: Initial support for the cohort was provided by the National Cancer Institute (grant 1U01CA152939). The analyses in this study were supported by an investigator-initiated grant from the American Egg Board. The funding sources had no role in the study design, execution, data analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication.

Conflict of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Adventists are generally healthier than the general population, so it’s hard to know what to make of this.  Dietary advice in the U.S. even at the height of concerns about cholesterol always said one egg a day is OK.  This study does not change that.

Will eating eggs help you prevent Alzheimer’s?  If only it were that easy.

And again: the authors do not believe that requesting a grant from the American Egg Board constitutes a conflict of interest.  I do.  The egg industry has a vested interest in the outcome of this study, and got the result it wanted.