by Marion Nestle

Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

Mar 1 2021

Industry-funded study of the week: vitamin D supplements

The Study:  Maaike J. Bruins and Ulla Létinois. Adequate Vitamin D Intake Cannot Be Achieved within Carbon Emission Limits Unless Food Is Fortified: A Simulation Study.  Nutrients 2021, 13(2), 592; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020592

Conclusion: The present study shows that adequate intakes for vitamin D cannot be achieved with the current diet alone within realistic calorie and carbon emission limits, and additional vitamin D sources are needed to overcome the shortfalls. Universal fortification along with small dietary shifts represents an approach to improve the vitamin D status of the general population, at a high acceptability without affecting the carbon footprint.

Conflicts of Interest: M.J.B. and U.L. are employed by DSM Nutritional Products, a manufacturer of nutritional ingredients.

Comment: Study after study shows that vitamin D supplements do not make healthy people healthier, but the idea persists and supplement companies take advantage of faith in these products.  Well, there isn’t much evidence for harm either, but sunshine on skin is a better source by far.

OK.  I know there’s a big controversy about this.

Here’s a study that shows benefits for patients with COVID; supplements were associated with keeping people out of intensive care.  One of its authors has financial ties to supplement companies, but the study has been criticized on other grounds as has a member of the British Parliament who thinks it provides evidence for supplementing everyone.

And here’s an independently funded study in JAMA shows that vitamin D to have no effect on patients hospitalized with Covid-19.

This one, comes with an editorial.

Given the lack of highly effective therapies against COVID-19, except perhaps for corticosteroids, it is important to remain open-minded to emerging results from rigorously conducted studies of vitamin D (despite smaller sample sizes and important limitations of some studies). However, taken together with existing randomized clinical trials of vitamin D administration in hospitalized patients with respiratory infection and critical illness, the results reported by Murai et al12 do not support routine administration of vitamin D in hospitalized patients with moderate to severe COVID-19.

Fortunately, vitamin D supplements are unlikely to be harmful unless taken in very large doses.

Sunshine, anyone?

Tags: , , ,
Feb 22 2021

Industry-funded study of the week: a rare exception to the rule?

As a general rule, industry-funded studies produce results favorable to the sponsor’s interests.  But what have we here?

The study: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Effects of Oats and Oat Processing on Postprandial Blood Glucose and Insulin Responses.  Kathy Musa-Veloso, Daniel Noori, Carolina Venditti, Theresa Poon, Jodee Johnson, Laura S Harkness, Marianne O’Shea, YiFang Chu.  The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 151, Issue 2, February 2021, Pages 341–351.

Results: the consumption of thick—but not thin—oat flakes was associated with significant reductions in postprandial blood glucose and insulin responses.

Conclusion: “Relative to a refined grain control food with the same amount of available carbohydrate, the postprandial glycemic and insulin responses elicited by intact oat kernels and thick oats were significantly reduced. The postprandial glycemic and insulin responses with thin/instant/quick oats were not significantly different from those elicited by the refined grain control.”

Funding: The systematic review and meta-analysis, as well as the writing of the manuscript, were funded by PepsiCo, Inc.

Author disclosures: “KM-V, DN, CV, and TP are employees of Intertek Health Sciences Inc., which has provided consulting services to PepsiCo, Inc. JJ, MO, and YC are employees of PepsiCo, Inc., which manufactures oatmeal products under the brand name Quaker Oats and which funded this systematic review and meta-analysis. LSH is a former employee of PepsiCo, Inc.  The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or policies of Intertek Health Sciences Inc. or PepsiCo, Inc.”

Comment:  This is a PepsiCo study paid for by the company and conducted by employees or contractors.  PepsiCo owns Quaker Oats instant oatmeal.  In the late 1980s, oat bran was a craze.  Everyone I knew was sprinkling oat bran on everything they ate as a means to reduce their blood cholesterol levels.  Even then, there were real questions about whether oats had any special effects on blood cholesterol levels.   But the idea has persisted.  This study demonstrates that oats might have metabolic benefits, but only if they are thick, whole-grain, and minimally processed.  Instant oatmeal is not in that category.  I wonder what the company’s reaction is to this study, whether it intends to fund more like it, and whether it will us thicker oats in its Quaker products.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Feb 15 2021

Industry-funded study of the week: meat and metabolism

I’ve been collecting items about meat.  This is a good week to post them, starting with this.

The study:  Effects of Total Red Meat Intake on Glycemic Control and Inflammatory Biomarkers: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Lauren E O’Connor, Jung Eun Kim, Caroline M Clark, Wenbin Zhu, and Wayne W Campbell. . Adv Nutr 2021;12:115–127.

Conclusion:  “Total red meat consumption, for up to 16 weeks, does not affect changes in biomarkers of glycemic control or inflammation for adults free of, but at risk for, cardiometabolic disease.”

Funder (my emphasis): “This study was funded by The Pork Checkoff and Purdue University’s Bilsland Dissertation Fellowship (LEO). The funder had no role in the design or conduct of the study or the analysis or interpretation of data.

Author disclosures: LEO received honoraria and travel to present related research as a graduate student from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. During the time this research was conducted, WWC received funding for research grants, travel, or honoraria for scientific presentations or consulting services from the following organizations: National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Board, National Dairy Council, North Dakota Beef Commission, Foundation for Meat and Poultry Research and Education, Barilla Group, New York Beef Council, and North American Meat Institute. All the other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Comment:  Red meat is under attack for its strong association with health problems, cancer in particular.  In the 24 studies this group looked at, selected out of nearly 1200, they found no bad effects.  This is a typical result for an industry-funded study conducted by investigators with industry ties.  It would be more reassuring if found by independent investigators.

Tags: , ,
Feb 8 2021

Annals of industry-funded research: Peanuts this time

I recently received a letter (with my emphasis) making the rounds from the research director at The Peanut Institute (yes, such places exist):

Dear Colleague….

The Peanut Institute Foundation is a non-profit 501 (C)(3) entity that funds research in the area of peanut nutrition. We are requesting proposals from researchers across the country to enhance our understanding of how consuming peanuts, peanut butter, and peanut products improves health in various populations (eg. immune health, personalized nutrition, gut microbiome, brain health, chronic diseases, diet quality, etc.).

Suggested funding amount: $25,000 – $250,000

Deadline for submission: March 26, 2021

To download an application, visit: https://peanut-institute.com/nutrition-research/peanut-nutrition-grant-2021/

This is a classic example of how industry-funded research gets aimed at marketing, not science.  If the Peanut Institute were interested in science, it would request open-ended proposals about whether peanuts—as opposed to any other nut or legume—have any particular effect on health.  Big difference.

The Peanut Institute wants evidence of benefits.  It will not fund proposals unlikely to demonstrate benefits.

This is about marketing, not science.

And while we are on the subject of peanuts

Take a look at this Civil Eats’ superb investigative report on Big Peanut (yes, this too exists): “The Peanut Industry Has a Monopoly Problem—but Farmers Are Pushing Back.  Two shelling companies buy 80 percent of the nation’s peanut crop each year, allowing them to drive prices down while costing U.S. taxpayers millions in subsidies.

the peanut shelling industry is dominated by two powerful companies that together buy 80 percent of all peanuts grown in the U.S. The two companies, Golden Peanut and Birdsong, operate massive shelling facilities throughout the peanut belt, and together control or outright own nearly 200 buying points, where farmers must go to sell their raw peanuts. The system isn’t just unfair—it’s wildly expensive. Subsidizing the peanut industry cost U.S. taxpayers more than $2 billion from 2014 through 2018. It’ s the most costly per-acre crop to taxpayers in America, in large part because monopoly power controls pricing in the industry….For many growers, Birdsong and Golden are the only options, so they take whatever price the big shellers offer. Before 2002, growers received a more than $600-per-ton price guarantee; now that’s been replaced with a marketing loan system that guarantees just half that.

Looks like this industry could use even more scrutiny.

Tags: , ,
Feb 1 2021

Industry-funded study of the week: artificial sweeteeners

The study: Effects of Unsweetened Preloads and Preloads Sweetened with Caloric or Low-/No-Calorie [LNCS] Sweeteners on Subsequent Energy Intakes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Human Intervention Studies.  Han Youl Lee, Maia Jack, Theresa Poon, Daniel Noori, Carolina Venditti, Samer Hamamji, Kathy Musa-Veloso.  Advances in Nutrition, nmaa157, https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmaa157

Conclusions:  “These findings suggest that LNCS-sweetened foods and beverages are viable alternatives to CS-sweetened foods and beverages to manage short-term energy intake.

Funder: The American Beverage Association provided funding for the work presented herein.

Author disclosures: MJ is a paid employee of the American Beverage Association. Intertek Health Sciences, Inc.(HYL, TP, DN, CV, SH, KMV), works for the American Beverage Association as paid scientific and regulatory consultants.

Comment: This is a study paid for by the American Beverage Association, a trade association for the makers of soft drinks, sweetened with sugars or artificial sweeteners, conducted in-house.  Its purpose is to demonstrate that artificial and low-calorie sweeteners will help you lose weight, something that independently funded studies often do not.  I’d classsify this as marketing research.  I don’t think it belongs in professional journals published by the American Society for Nutrition.  We need a new journal for this, as Corinna Hawkes of City University London once suggested, “The Journal of Industry-Funded Research.”

 

Tags: , ,
Jan 11 2021

Sponsored research study of the week: mangos and skin wrinkles (I’m not kidding)

I learned about this one from a press release: “Can eating mangoes reduce women’s facial wrinkles?”

A new study from researchers at the University of California, Davis, finds eating Ataulfo mangoes, also known as honey or Champagne mangoes, may have another benefit — reducing facial wrinkles in older women with fairer skin. The study was published in the journal Nutrients.

Postmenopausal women who ate a half cup of Ataulfo mangoes four times a week saw a 23 percent decrease in deep wrinkles after two months and a 20 percent decrease after four months.

Surely, this can’t be serious?  Who paid for this?

The study: Prospective Evaluation of Mango Fruit Intake on Facial Wrinkles and Erythema in Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized Clinical Pilot Study.  Vivien W. Fam, Roberta R. Holt Carl L. Keen, Raja K. Sivamani .  and Robert M. Hackman.  Nutrients 2020, 12(11), 3381; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12113381

Method: Women were given either 85 g or 250 g of mangos to eat every day for 16 weeks.  Their wrinkles were photographed and measured before and after.

Conclusion: “The intake of 85 g of mangos reduced wrinkles in fair-skinned postmenopausal women, while an intake of 250 g showed the opposite effect.”

Funding: “This study was supported in part by a grant from the National Mango Board (NMB)…which also supplied the fresh mangos for the study. The NMB had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.”

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Comment:  I love mangos (despite being somewhat allergic to them), but come on.  According to the press release, the researchers “said it’s unclear why consuming more mango would increase the severity of wrinkles but speculate that it may be related to a robust amount of sugar in the larger portion of mangoes.”  Another interpretation is that mangos have no effect (which makes more sense).  In any case, this study did not compare mangos to any other fruit.  This is a classic case of an industry-sponsored study coming out with results favorable to the sponsor’s interests and allowing those interests to be announced in a press release.  The authors may think industry sponsorship does not create a conflict of interest, but much evidence strongly suggests that it does (I reviewed that evidence in my book, Unsavory Truth).

Tags: , ,
Nov 23 2020

Industry-funded study of the week: dairy foods and child growth

Growth and Development of Preschool Children (12–60 Months): A Review of the Effect of Dairy Intake.   David C. Clark, Christopher J. Cifelli, Matthew A Pikosky.  Nutrients 2020, 12(11), 3556; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12113556

The study:  A narrative review of studies of dairy intake and child growth, cognitive development, and weight gain.
Results: there is a positive association between dairy intake and linear growth. The impact of milk or dairy products on cognitive development is less clear due to a lack of evidence and is a gap in the literature that should be addressed. Regarding the impact on body weight, the majority of evidence suggests there is either no association or an inverse association between milk intake by preschool children on overweight and obesity later in life.
Funding: “The work involved for this manuscript was funded by National Dairy Council (provided to D.C.C.).”
Conflicts of interest: “C.J.C. and M.A.P. are employees of National Dairy Council.”
Comment: The Dairy Council has a vested interest in demonstrating that dairy foods promote linear growth and cognitive function in young children, but do not promote overweight or obesity. This dairy-funded literature review is remarkable for its cautious interpretation: “the absence of data from studies conducted in low- and middle-income countries is a serious gap, especially given the dual burden of undernutrition and overnutrition that is becoming prevalent in developing countries.”  That’s another reason for this study: sell more dairy foods in middle- and low-income countries.  China, for example, is pushing dairy products as a means to grow taller children; it does so despite widespread lactose intolerance among the Chinese population.
Tags: , ,
Nov 16 2020

Industry-funded studies of the week: blueberries—again!

Thanks to Lisa Young for sending this announcement: New Research Examines Blueberries’ Positive Impact in Men with Type 2 Diabetes. 

I am already on record as saying that I love blueberries, but I wish they weren’t marketed as superfoods.  All fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains provide nutrients and fiber.  That makes all of them worth eating for their nutrition-and-health value as well as their taste.  Singling out one or another makes no sense to me, but I’m not in the business of selling one rather than another.  Because similar results would be expected from studies of many other fruits, I put this one in the category of marketing research.

Effect of Blueberry Consumption on Cardiometabolic Health Parameters in Men with Type 2 Diabetes: An 8-Week, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.  Kim S Stote, Margaret M Wilson, Deborah Hallenbeck, Krista Thomas, Joanne M Rourke, Marva I Sweeney, Katherine T Gottschall-Pass, Aidar R Gosmanov.  Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 4, Issue 4, April 2020, nzaa030. 

Conclusion: “Consumption of 22 g freeze-dried blueberries for 8 wk may beneficially affect cardiometabolic health parameters in men with type 2 diabetes.”

Funding:  “Supported by the US Highbush Blueberry Council (to KSS, MMW, and ARG) and by resources and the use of facilities at the Stratton VA Medical Center, Albany, NY, USA.  Author disclosures: KSS, MMW, and ARG received intervention products from the US Highbush Blueberry Council. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.  The US Highbush Blueberry Council supplied the funds to conduct the study but was not involved in the design, implementation, analysis, or interpretation of data.

Comment:  The funder does not have to be involved.  Everyone knows funders are not interested in funding research that might produce results unfavorable to their product.  Freeze-dried blueberries sound like medicine.  I’d rather eat the real things.

Tags: ,