Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

One of the points of my Monday “industry-funded study of the week” posts is that companies usually get the results they want.  Exceptions do exist.  Here’s one of those rare ones.

The study: Changes in Biomarkers of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) upon Access to Avocados in Hispanic/Latino Adults: Secondary Data Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.  Lorena S. Pacheco, Ryan D. Bradley, Cheryl A. M. Anderson and Matthew A. Allison.  Nutrients 2022, 14(13), 2744; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14132744

Rationale: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common cause of abnormal liver functions tests and of increased increased risk for morbidity and mortality.  Monounsaturated fatty acids such as those in avocados havew been associated with improved NAFLD-related markers.

Hypothesis: “We hypothesized compared to low avocado intake, high avocado intake would have a beneficial effect on oxidative stress and hepatic health indicated by greater reductions in liver function tests and NAFLD fibrosis score.”

Results: “No statistically significant differences were observed between low and high avocado allotment groups” in anything measured.

Conclusion: “Varied intake of avocados resulted in no effects on biomarkers of NAFLD in healthy adults, free of severe chronic disease.”

Funding: “The parent research was funded by The Hass Avocado Board.”

Conflicts of interest: “The authors declare no potential conflict of interest. All authors report the grant from the Hass Avocado Board….The Hass Avocado Board funded the parent trial and provided all the trial’s avocados at no cost to study participants. The parent trial funder 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.”

Comment: The authors say they have no conflicts of interest but I think they do; the Hass Avocado Board paid for a study of the effects of avocados on NAFLD markers.  Such payments are well established to predict results that favor the sponsor’s interests.

Nevertheless, the results came out contrary to those interests, and the authors were unambiguous in saying so.  In this case, the assertion that the sponsor had no role seems credible, even though it often is not.

High marks to the authors. 

Thanks to Lisa Young and three other readers for sending along this one.

The press release: New Research Finds Consumption of Peanuts Supports Weight Loss, Lowers Blood Pressure and Improves Glucose Levels

The Study: Petersen, K.S.; Murphy, J.; Whitbread, J.; Clifton, P.M.; Keogh, J.B. The Effect of a Peanut-Enriched Weight Loss Diet Compared to a Low-Fat Weight Loss Diet on Body Weight, Blood Pressure, and Glycemic Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2986. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14142986.

Conclusion: Intake of 35 g of peanuts prior to two main meals per day, in the context of an energy-restricted diet, resulted in weight loss comparable to a traditional low-fat weight loss diet without preloads. Greater systolic blood pressure reductions were observed with peanut intake, which may lower cardiovascular disease risk.

Funding: This research was funded by The Peanut Institute…The funder 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.

Conflicts of Interest: J.B.K., P.M.C. and K.S.P. received a grant from The Peanut Institute to conduct this study. The funder 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.

Comment: The funder had no role?  That’s what they all say.  That may be true in this instance, but but much research demonstrates otherwise, and funders are unlikely to pay for studies that might give them unfavorable results.

The underlying purpose of this study was to demonstrate that if you are on a weight-loss diet, you can eat lots of peanuts and still lose weight: “70 g/d of peanuts may be included in an energy-restricted weight loss diet without attenuating weight loss over a 6-month period.”  Of course you can, if you stick to a low-calorie diet.

I’m all for eating nuts.  Substituting them for ultra-processed snack foods is a reasonable approach to dieting, but don’t expect to lose any more weight eating nuts than from any other source of calories.  This is a marketing study, aimed at encouraging you to eat more peanuts.

Several people sent me this one:

Prunes preserve hip bone mineral density in a 12-month randomized controlled trial in postmenopausal women: the Prune Study.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,  nqac189, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqac189

Conclusions: A 50g daily dose of prunes can prevent loss of total hip BMD [bone mineral density] in postmenopausal females after six months, which persisted for 12-months…we propose that the 50g dose represents a valuable non-pharmacological treatment strategy that can be used to preserve hip BMD in postmenopausal females and possibly reduce hip fracture risk

Sources of Support: California Prune Board (Award Number: 180215)

Acknowledgments: We thank the California Prune Board for the funding and prunes…The California Prune Board had no role in the data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of manuscript.in this study.

Comment: The California Prune Board did not have to have that kind of role to get the outcome it wanted.  Research on funding effects shows that industry influence is exerted primarily in the ways the research question is framed and the results interpreted.  It also shows that investigators hardly ever recognize how industry funding exerts influence.

Reference:  Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

The title alone was enough to make me ask: Who paid for this?

Title: Approximately Half of Total Protein Intake by Adults must be Animal-Based to Meet Non-Protein Nutrient-Based Recommendations with Variation Due to Age and Sex.  

Conclusion:  This study provides factual information about the animal protein contribution to total proteins compatible with meeting all nutrient-based recommendations at no additional cost and shows that it varies between 45% and 60% depending on the group of adults considered.

Comment: The meat industry has a problem.  High meat consumption has been associated with poor health; meat production has been associated with climate change.  This study is designed to push back on the first association.

For data on whether and how industry funding influences the design and outcome of research, please see my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.

It’s been more than a year since I last wrote about avocado industry funding of research but the Avocado Nutrition Center has been sending out press releases so it’s time for another look.

Given the Superbowl—105 million pounds of avocados consumed that day by one estimate—you might not think that the avocado industry would have to work as hard as it does to convince you that avocados are a superfood.

But maybe what it is trying to do is to get us to ignore the effects of our demand for avocados on deforestation and social unrest in Mexico.

The avocado industry is a good example of how to fund research for marketing purposes.  It funds the Avocado Nutrition Center’s research program.

The program’s website covers dozens of industry-funded studies that demonstrate benefits of avocados for cardiovascular health, weight management, type 2 diabetes, and healthy living at every age.

Here’s how the Center uses them.

Another recent study of 2,886 older adults, published in Frontiers in Nutrition, examined cognitive function among older American avocado consumers compared to nonconsumers.

On that basis, the Center produced a fact sheet: Proactive thinking on cognition.  

The Center also lists a few independently funded studies that produced equally beneficial results.

I picked one at random and looked it up: Avocado Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in US Adults.

• Conclusion: Higher avocado intake was associated with lower risk of CVD and coronary heart disease in 2 large prospective cohorts of US men and women. The replacement of certain fat-containing foods with avocado could lead to lower risk of CVD.
• Funding: mostly by NIH
• Conflicts of interest: the lead author reports having “collaborated in the Hass Avocado Board–funded trial Effects of Avocado Intake on the Nutritional Status of Families during 2016 to 2019 as a graduate student researcher, but the present study was not supported or endorsed by the Hass Avocado Board. The remaining authors have no disclosures to report.”

And here’s the most recent study: Effect of Incorporating 1 Avocado Per Day Versus Habitual Diet on Visceral Adiposity: A Randomized Trial

• Conclusion: Addition of 1 avocado per day to the habitual diet for 6 months in free‐living individuals with elevated waist circumference did not reduce visceral adipose tissue volume and had minimal effect on risk factors associated with cardiometabolic disorders.
• Funding: This work was supported by the Avocado Nutrition Center.

Why be concerned?  Aren’t avocados good for you?

Sure, and I love them.  But superfoods?  All fruits and vegetables have useful nutrients, but some have fewer calories (a serving size is one-third of an avocado) and most are less caught up in ecological damage.

I discuss the scientific reasons for concern in my book, Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.  In it, I review the literature on the “funding effect”—the observation that research sponsored by food companies almost invariably produces results favorable to the sponsor’s interests.  Research on conflicts of interest also demonstrates that recipients of industry funding do not recognize its influence, did not intend to be influenced, and deny the influence, despite vast amounts of research to the contrary.

I am a member of the American Society for Nutrition and received this notice about a sponsored session at it forthcoming annual meeting.

Potatoes generally score high on the Glycemic Index, indicating that their starches are quickly digested to sugars.  The Alliance for Potato Research & Education has a speaker at this session.  I’m guessing that the speakers won’t have anything good to say about the Glycemic Index.  I don’t either, actually, but opinions would be more credible if they came from independent sources.

This made me look up the other sponsored sessions.

Here’s another reason why I don’t think the ASN should allow these sessions at annual meetings.

In my experience, you don’t get much scientific debate at industry-sponsored scientific sessions. Alas.

The USDA has just released this summary of food research funding.

This graph clearly indicates what I view as a big problem: government funding for agricultural and food research has been declining since the early 2000s, whereas private funding—meaning corporations and industries—has sharply increased since 2008 or so.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Government funding can support basic research with no obvious commercial implications—science.

Funding by food corporations and industries has one primary purpose: to develop and promote products—marketing.

I’m not opposed to marketing research, as long as it is labeled as such.

The decline in federal funding for food and nutrition research has long-term implications for scientific progress.

We need basic research on agriculture, food, nutrition, and health.

These curves need to be reversed.

Cranberry marketing gets wilder and wilder.  Last week I posted a study of endothelial function paid for by the cranberry industry.

But here’s a study that tops it.  I learned about it from a headline in NutraIngredients.com: Cranberry consumption may boost memory and ward off dementia in elderly, study finds.

Oh come on.  Really?

I went right to it.

The study: Chronic Consumption of Cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon) for 12 Weeks Improves Episodic Memory and Regional Brain Perfusion in Healthy Older Adults: A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Groups Feasibility Study.  Emma Flanagan, Donnie Cameron, Rashed Sobhan, Chloe Wong, Matthew G. Pontifex, Nicole Tosi, Pedro Mena, Daniele Del Rio³, Saber Sami, Arjan Narbad, Michael Müller, Michael Hornberger and David Vauzour.  Front. Nutr., 19 May 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.849902

Design: This was a 12-week randomised placebo-controlled trial of freeze-dried cranberry powder in 60 older adults aged between 50 and 80 years. Investigators measured memory and executive function, did neuroimaging, and took blood samples before and after .

Results: “Cranberry supplementation for 12 weeks was associated with improvements in visual episodic memory in aged participants when compared to placebo.”

Conclusions: “The results of this study indicate that daily cranberry supplementation (equivalent to 1 small cup of cranberries) over a 12-week period improves episodic memory performance and neural functioning.”

Funding: “This research was supported by a Cranberry Institute grant…The Cranberry Institute was not involved in the design, implementation, analysis, and interpretation of the data.”

Conflict of Interest: “DV, MH, MM, and AN received funding from the Cranberry Institute.  The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.”

Publisher’s Note:  “All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.”

Comment: This is the first time I have ever seen a Publisher’s Note like this.  Even the publisher is troubled by the fact that this study is funded by a cranberry industry trade group and the four most senior authors report funding from the group.  Without even getting into whether cranberry powder is equivalent to cranberries, whether anyone can eat cranberries without adding their weight in sugar, or whether any other fruit might have similar effects, we should ask whether it makes any sense at all to think that any one single food could boost memory and prevent dementia in the elderly.

For detailed discussion of how industry funding influences research, and the consequences of such practices, see my book Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat.