Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

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.

There was much fuss last week about the retraction of this highly significant paper about the safety of glyphosate (Roundup), the Monsanto weed killer widely used with genetically modified crops.  As has been suspected for years, it was ghostwritten by Monsanto on cherry-picked data.

The original paper: Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2000 Apr;31(2 Pt 1):117-65.  doi: 10.1006/rtph.1999.1371.  

Its conclusion: “Roundup herbicide does not pose a health risk to humans.”

The authors thanked Monsanto for generous provision of data.  The acknowledgments did not disclose funding or conflicts of interest.

The retraction notice includes several remarkable statements.

• The article’s conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate are solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto.
• The authors did not include multiple other long-term chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity studies, that were already done at the time of writing their review in 1999.
• Litigation in the United States revealed correspondence from Monsanto suggesting that the authors of the article were not solely responsible for writing its content. It appears from that correspondence that employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors.
• The apparent contributions of Monsanto employees as co-writers to this article were not explicitly mentioned as such in the acknowledgments section.
• Further correspondence with Monsanto disclosed during litigation indicates that the authors may have received financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article, which was not disclosed as such in this publication.

The retraction points out that the article “has been widely regarded as a hallmark paper in the discourse surrounding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and Roundup…[and] had a significant impact on regulatory decision-making regarding glyphosate and
Roundup for decades.”

Yikes.

Much of this was discovered as a result of litigation.  Do not miss this analysis by Alexander Kaurov and Naomi Orestes: The afterlife of a ghost-written paper: How corporate authorship shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse.  Environmental Science & Policy Volume 171, September 2025, 104160

Litigation in 2017 revealed that Monsanto ghost-wrote an influential 2000 review defending the safety of glyphosate…In all domains, citations predominantly appear without caveats, even after the ghost-writing was exposed.

 I wrote an in-depth investigation of this study and the journal that published it, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, eight years ago, revealing that the society behind the journal, ISRTP, was run by a tobacco consultant and held their meetings in the offices of Keller and Heckman, the chief law firm in DC for the chemical industry.

In short, a National Academies staffer seeking a job in the biotech industry picked panelists with ties to biotech companies to write an influential report that alleged no harms in GE agriculture … and that report just happened to be littered with studies published in Reg Tox Pharm—industry’s favorite journal.

And here’s what Retraction Watch has to say: “Glyphosate safety article retracted eight years after Monsanto ghostwriting revealed in court”

The safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is hotly debated and currently under review at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, in 2015 declared glyphosate “possibly carcinogenic.”…Three papers about glyphosate on which Williams was an author received an expression of concern and lengthy corrections in 2018 because the authors didn’t fully disclose their ties to Monsanto or the company’s involvement in the articles.

• The New Lede: Citing “serious ethical concerns,” journal retracts key Monsanto Roundup safety study
• The New Lede: Trump administration sides with Bayer in seeking Supreme Court ruling on Roundup fight
• US Right to Know: Landmark glyphosate safety study retracted for Monsanto ghostwriting, other ethics problems
• U.S. Supreme Court:  Monsanto Company, Petitioner v John L. Durnell: Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae
• EPA Office of Pesticide Programs:  Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential (December 12, 2017)
• EPA: Glyphosate
•  The Guardian:  Science journal retracts study on safety of Monsanto’s Roundup: ‘Serious ethical concerns’
• Le Monde: Influential study on glyphosate safety retracted 25 years after publication
• AgFunder News: Landmark glyphosate paper retracted in random reckoning for a scientific relic
• The Canadian Press: Study that said glyphosate herbicide is safe retracted 25 years after publication
• No More Glyphosate NZ: Stop the Chemical Creep

I learned about this industry-funded study from NutraIngredients, one of a series of industry publications especially careful to disclose sponsorship, this time in the headline.

Specnova’s ginger extract reduces joint pain and inflammation: Study:  Low-dose ginger supplementation reduces perceptions of pain, according to new Specnova-funded research published in the journal Nutrients…. Read more

The study:  Effects of Ginger Supplementation on Markers of Inflammation and Functional Capacity in Individuals with Mild to Moderate Joint Pain.  Nutrients 2025, 17(14), 2365; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17142365

Rationale: “Ginger contains gingerols, shagaols, paradols, gingerdiones, and terpenes, which have been shown to display anti-inflammatory properties and inhibit pain receptors.”

Method: 30 participants with joint pain took either ginger or a placebo for two months.

Results: “There was evidence” that ginger “attenuated perceptions” of pain.

Conclusions: “Ginger supplementation (125 mg/d, providing 12.5 mg/d of gingerols) appears to have some favorable effects on perceptions of pain, functional capacity, and inflammatory markers in men and women experiencing mild to moderate muscle and joint pain.”

Funding: “This research was funded by a grant to Texas A&M University MU (M2203671) from Specnova LLC (Tysons Corner, VA, USA), in collaboration with Increnovo LLC (Whitefish Bay, WI, USA), which served as an independent external consultant to facilitate the planning and completion of the study.”

Comment: Specnova is a dietary supplement company. Mostly, the results did not reach statistical significance, meaning that they could have occurred by chance.  Hence, the hedging language.  Usually, industry funding exerts its influence primarily in the framing of the research question, and secondarily in putting a positive spin on the results.  This study is an example of the latter.

I find ginger to be especially delicious in practically anything edible (ginger ice cream is my favorite).  That’s reason enough to enjoy it.

Thanks to Charles Platkin, who directs the Center for Food as Medicine & Longevity, for sending this press release from the Peanut Institute: New research finds dietary intervention of peanuts improves brain vascular function and memory.  

The NUTRIM study of 31 healthy older adults ranging in age from 60-75 observed that consuming 60 grams (approximately two servings) of peanuts daily for 16 weeks increased global cerebral blood flow (CBF) by 3.6% and verbal memory by 5.8%. In addition to the brain improvements, systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure decreased by 5 mmHg and 4 mmHg, respectively.

This seemed fantastic, and worth a look.

The study: Longer-term skin-roasted peanut consumption improves brain vascular function and memory: A randomized, single-blind, controlled crossover trial in healthy older adults.  Clinical Nutrition 2025;55:170-179.  

Conclusions: Daily consumption of skin-roasted peanuts for 16 weeks improved brain vascular function in healthy older men and women. These favorable effects may underlie the observed improvements in verbal memory, highlighting a potential mechanism by which increased peanut intake beneficially affects cognitive performance.

Funding: This research was funded through a grant from The Peanut Institute Foundation (TPIF). TPIF did not participate in the study design, data acquisition or analysis, decisions regarding publication, or the writing of the manuscript.

Comment: The logic behind this study goes like this: The Mediterranean and DASH diets are associated with less decline in cognition with aging.  Nuts are part of both diets and also show that correlation.  Peanuts, which are legumes high in protein, should do that too.  I can’t wait to see how peanuts will be marketed based on this study.

OK, give peanuts a try, but watch out for the calories.  Participants in this study must have added the two ounces of peanuts to their regular diets. and guess what: “self-reported dietary intake data indicated a higher caloric intake during the peanut intervention.”  They gained an average of 0,7 kg (1.5 pounds), which the authors deem not clinically meaningful.

In case it’s not obvious, I view studies claiming major health benefits from eating one food—mangoes in this case—to be about marketing, not science.  We don’t eat just one food; we eat diets of enormous complexity.  This makes such studies inherently ridiculous.  And I’m not the only one who thinks so.  Some examples:

I.  Insulin sensitivity

This one comes from Obesity and Energetics Offerings’ occasional series on “Headline vs Study”

Headline: Daily Mango Consumption May Improve Insulin Sensitivity in Overweight or Obese Adults.

Study: RCT [randomized control trial] of Mango or Control Product: Markers of Inflammation [Joint Primary Outcomes] Were Not Different at the End of 4 Weeks. [Oops]

Here’s the press release from the National Mango Board: New Study: Eating Mangos Daily Shown to Improve Insulin Sensitivity and Blood Glucose Control.  It notes: “This study was supported through an unrestricted grant from the National Mango Board (NMB). NMB had no influence over the study or its findings.”

II.  Cholesterol and blood pressure

Here’s the blurb for this one: Journal of the American Nutrition Association Mango intake linked to short-term cholesterol, blood pressure benefits A two-week trial in postmenopausal women found that daily mango consumption lowered blood pressure and fasting cholesterol, though it did not affect microvascular function or inflammation markers. Read More

Conclusions: Further research using amounts of mango typically consumed, over an extended period of time, are warranted [well, at least this is an honest assessment].

Funding: This study was supported by a research grant from the National Mango Board. The sponsor had no role in the design or conduct of the study, the data analysis, interpretation of the results, or the decision to publish.

III.  Diabetes prevention

Basiri R, Dawkins K, Singar S, Ormsbee LT, Akhavan NS, Hickner RC, Arjmandi BH. Daily Mango Intake Improves Glycemic and Body Composition Outcomes in Adults with Prediabetes: A Randomized Controlled Study. Foods. 2025; 14(17):2971. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods14172971 

Conclusion: The daily consumption of mango for 24 weeks improved the glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, and body composition in adults with prediabetes, which supports the potential of mango as a practical dietary intervention for metabolic health.

Funding: The National Mango Board provided funding for this study.

From ConscienHealth: Magical Mango Thinking About Preventing Diabetes

Diabetes Prevention?

But the real problem with claiming a benefit for diabetes prevention is that this study did not study the onset of diabetes.

So do mangoes prevent diabetes? Not likely. Not all by themselves.

Are they a better snack than sugary granola bars? Probably so.

From Medical News Today: Is it OK to eat mango if you’re at risk for diabetes? Experts weigh in

• In a recent study, mangoes more effectively improved prediabetes risk factors in a new study than low-sugar granola bars.
• The key to mangoes’ better results likely lies in their being a whole food with natural fiber, vitamins, and nutrients.
• However, experts agree that the best way to avoid type 2 diabetes is to eat a balanced, healthy diet and be physically active, rather than to depend on a single ‘superfood’ to prevent the condition.

Comment

Enough said.  I love mangoes (although I have to be careful about their skin and pits).  Their deliciousness is reason enough to eat them.  I suppose the Mango Board has to justify its existence….

When I see a study with a title like this, my first question is “Who paid for this study?”

The title:  Association of Egg Intake With Alzheimer’s Dementia Risk in Older Adults: The Rush Memory and Aging Project. The Journal of Nutrition Volume 154, Issue 7, July 2024, Pages 2236-2243.

The study: It collected dietary data by food frequency questionnaire from older adults (average age 81) and assessed Alzheimer’s dementia after nearly 7 years of follow up.

Results: Eating 1 or 2 eggs a week was associated with decreased risk.

Conclusions: “In conclusion, these findings suggest that more frequent egg consumption is associated with a lower risk of Alzheimer’s dementia, and this association is partially mediated through the effect of dietary choline on Alzheimer’s dementia…Once replicated in other prospective cohorts and confirmed by clinical trials, these findings may have important public health implications for reducing the population’s risk of AD.”

Funding: Funding for the Rush University qualifications of choline intake was provided through an unrestricted investigator-initiated grant from the Egg Nutrition Center to Think Healthy Group, LLC…The authors and sponsor strictly adhered to the American Society for Nutrition’s guiding principles for private funding for food science and nutrition research.

Conflicts of interest: One author is the Editor-in-chief of the Journal of Dietary Supplements and has received past research support from the Egg Nutrition Center.

Comment: At first glance, this is a standard egg industry funded study with an outcome favoring frequent egg consumption.  But egg consumption in this study—one or two a week—does not seem frequent to me.  What this study may really be about is choline, a conditionally essential nutrient (we make our own, but not always enough).  The “important public health implications?” Eat more eggs and take choline supplements, I guess.  If only.