Currently browsing posts about: Sponsored-research

I often get asked why I think industry funding biases research in ways that almost always ensure that results favor the sponsor’s interests.

A reader, Professor Michael Tlusty, sent me this excellent example (my emphasis in bold).

BEEF CHECKOFF 2026 HUMAN NUTRITION REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NOW OPEN

On behalf of The Beef Checkoff, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is conducting a request for proposals (RFP) in Human Nutrition, to further understand beef’s nutritional qualities and define beef’s role in a healthy diet to nourish and optimize health at every life stage including research topics related to growth and development, healthy aging, and reduced risk of chronic disease.As part of their long-standing commitment to further scientific discovery, beef farmers and ranchers are invested in funding high quality, rigorous research — from observational epidemiological and clinical intervention trials to modeling and substitution analyses. As nutrition science continues to evolve, broadening and deepening the beef nutrition evidence base is essential to ensure that consumers have the most up-to-date information to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

The Human Nutrition Research Program follows a two-part application process, beginning with the submission of a pre-proposal. Pre-proposals are intended to be a brief overview of the proposed project….

Comment: If you want your project funded, you need to make sure it will demonstrate beef’s role in nourishing and optimizing health.  If your project does not do this, it won’t get funded.

OK.  Here’s your chance.  Pre-proposals are due May 30 at 11:59 pm MT.  Directions: Submit a Pre-Proposal

A Canadian reader, Michel Lucas, sent this one (merci).

The report: Benoît Lamarche, Arne Astrup, Robert H Eckel, Emma Feeney, Ian Givens, Ronald M Krauss, Philippe Legrand, Renata Micha, Marie-Caroline Michalski, Sabita Soedamah-Muthu, Qi Sun, Frans J Kok.  Regular-fat and low-fat dairy foods and cardiovascular diseases: perspectives for future dietary recommendations.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 121, Issue 5, 2025, Pages 956-964,  ISSN 0002-9165, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.03.009.

The workshop: Saturated Fat in Dairy and Cardiovascular Diseases, Amsterdam, 15–16 April, 2024.

Findings: “The most recent evidence indicates that overall, consumption of milk, yogurt and cheese, irrespective of fat content, is neutrally associated with CVD risk. There is also no evidence yet from randomized controlled trials that consumption of regular-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese has different effects on a broad array of cardiometabolic risk factors when compared with consumption of low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese.”

Conclusion: “Thus, the body of evidence does not support differentiation between regular-fat and low-fat dairy foods in dietary guidelines for both adults and children.”

Implication: “Strategies focusing primarily on reduction of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, the main source of SFAs in Western diets, rather than on the fat content of dairy foods, are more likely to benefit the population’s cardiovascular health.”

Funding: The workshop “was supported by an unrestricted grant from the Dutch Dairy Association.”

Comment: Foods from animal sources—meat and dairy—are by far the main sources of saturated fatty acids in US diets (all food fats, no exceptions, are mixtures of saturated, unsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids; it’s just the proportions that differ).

Cows eat grass; grass has fatty acids but they are mostly unsaturated; bacteria in the cows’ rumens saturate the fatty acids.

Pretty much everyone agrees that when saturated fatty acids are substituted for unsaturated or polyunsaturated fatty acids, they raise blood cholesterol and the risk for heart disease.  The disagreements are over by how much and whether clinically meaningful.

The dairy industry would like everyone to believe that the saturated fatty acids in dairy foods are benign.  Hence this workshop.

Conflict of interest: The disclosure statement begins with “The Dutch Dairy Association had no role in the discussions held at the high-level closed workshop and did not participate or provide comments during the development and writing of this manuscript.”  It didn’t have to.

Here’s the rest of the statement (I’ve emphasized dairy connections):

AA is a member of the Journal’s Editorial Board and is also an Associate Editor on The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and played no role in the journal’s evaluation of the manuscript, reports a relationship with Rééducation Nutritionnelle et Psycho-Comportementale Scientific Committee and American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that includes board membership; and a relationship with Ferrero that includes funding grants. QS reports travel provided by Dutch Dairy Association. AA, RHE, IG, EF, RMK, PL, RM, M-CM, SS-M, and FJK reports financial support and travel provided by Dutch Dairy Association. BL reports writing assistance provided by Chill Pill Media Ltd and relationship with Health Canada that includes funding grants. EF reports a relationship with Food for Heath Ireland and Teagasc Food Research Ireland that includes funding grants; relationship with Irish section of the Nutrition Society and British Journal of Nutrition that includes board membership; relationship with National Dairy Council Ireland that includes consulting or advisory and travel reimbursement. IG reports a relationship with Global Dairy Platform, Dairy Australia, Barham Benevolent Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, Medical Research Council that includes funding grants; relationship with European Milk Federation, French National Interprofessional Centre for Dairy Economics, and Dairy Council Northern Ireland that includes speaking and lecture fees and travel reimbursement; relationship with ELSEVIER INC that includes consulting or advisory. RMK reports a relationship with Dairy Management Inc that includes funding grants. RM reports a relationship with National Institutes of Health and Gates Foundation that includes funding grants. M-CM reports a relationship with French Dairy Interbranch Organization, Sodiaal-Candia and Danone that includes funding grants; relationship with Sodiaal-Candia that includes consulting or advisory; relationship with International Milk Genomics Consortium that includes speaking and lecture fees and travel reimbursement; relationship with Danone Nutricia Research and French Dairy Interbranch Organization that includes travel reimbursement. SS-M reports a relationship with Dutch Dairy Association and Danish Dairy Research Foundation that includes funding grants.

 

 

My inbox was flooded last week with messages alerting me to this study.  Thanks to Matthew Kadey, Matthew Stasiewicz, Christopher Gardner, and others who preferred anonymity.

The study: Askow, Andrew T.; Barnes, Takeshi M.; Zupancic, Zan; Deutz, Max T.; Paulussen, Kevin J.M.; McKenna, Colleen F.; Salvador, Amadeo F.; Ulanov, Alexander V.; Paluska, Scott A.; Willard, Jared W.; Petruzzello, Steven J.; Burd, Nicholas A. Impact of Vegan Diets on Resistance Exercise-Mediated Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis in Healthy Young Males and Females: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise ():10.1249/MSS.0000000000003725, April 4, 2025. | DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003725

Conclusions: “Our results demonstrated that the anabolic action of animal vs. vegan dietary patterns are similar. Moreover, there is no regulatory influence of distribution between the two dietary patterns on the stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in young adults.”

Conflict of Interest and Funding Source: “This study was funded by The Beef Checkoff…Beef Checkoff sponsor was only involved in financial support of the project, without involvement in design, data collection, and analysis, nor interpretation and dissemination of the report.”

Comment: The idea here was that meat protein would promote muscle synthesis better than vegetable protein, especially at relatively low levels of intake. Hence, the Beef Checkoff’s interest.  Not only did this sponsored study come to what must have been an unexpected conclusion, but the University of Illinois issued a press release announcing it:  Omnivorous? Vegan? Makes no difference to muscle building after weight training, study finds.  High marks to the researchers and to the university press office.  This is one instance where you can be sure the Beef Checkoff really did stay out of the study design and interpretation.  Exceptions that prove the rule do happen. Sometimes.  I wish they happened more often.

The Study: Whole cranberry fruit powder supplement reduces the incidence of culture-confirmed urinary tract infections in females with a history of recurrent urinary tract infection: A 6-month multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Stonehouse, Welma et al. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 121, Issue 4, 932 – 941

Methods: “This multicenter, 6-mo, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study enrolled 150 healthy females [18–65 y, body mass index (BMI) >17.5 and <35 kg/m²] with rUTI defined as ≥3 UTIs in the last year or ≤2 UTIs in the last 6 mo, excluding those with >5 UTIs in the last 6 mo. Participants consumed either 1 capsule of 500 mg/d of whole cranberry powder (Pacran) or placebo.”

Results: “Whole cranberry powder capsules reduced culture-confirmed UTI risk compared with placebo by 52%…reduced Escherichia coli UTIs…reduced incidence of UTI with urinary frequency and urgency symptomatology; delayed time to first UTI episode…and reduced the mean total number of UTIs per participant.”

Conclusion: “This study shows that whole cranberry powder capsules do not impact safety markers and reduce the incidence of culture-confirmed UTI and several other UTI-related outcomes in healthy females with rUTI history.”

Conflict of interest: “Financial sponsorship for the study was provided by Swisse Wellness Pty Ltd to the Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation. All authors report no conflicts of interest.”

Funding: “Swisse Wellness Pty Ltd was the trial sponsor and Givaudan Flavors Corp was the raw material supplier.”

Disclaimers: “The funding source and the raw material supplier, in collaboration with the research scientists, designed the trial and monitored its implementation, but had no influence over the analyses, reporting, interpretation of the data and preparation of the manuscript. The manuscript was reviewed by the sponsor and the raw material supplier before the submission to the journal, but they had no influence over the manuscript content.”

Comment: You should not be surprised to learn that the funder, Swisse Wellness Pty Ltd, makes “supplements for everyday lifestyle.” among them cranberry supplements.  The raw material supplier, Givaudan, sells cransberry oil.  The disclaimer reveals that both companies  designed the trial, were involved throughout, and reviewed the manuscript.  The authors consider all this to constitute “no influence,” in quotes because it is impossible to avoid influence under these circumstances.  At the very least, the companies would make sure the study design had little chance of coming up with the wrong result.  This is an industry-funded study with predictable results that will help them sell cranberry powder.  I hope it works.

Thanks again to Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America for sending this one.

The study: Sievenpiper JL, Purkayastha S, Grotz VL, Mora M, Zhou J, Hennings K, Goody CM, Germana K. Dietary Guidance, Sensory, Health and Safety Considerations When Choosing Low and No-Calorie Sweeteners [LNCSs]. Nutrients. 2025 Feb 25;17(5):793. doi: 10.3390/nu17050793.

The greater sweetness intensity of LNCSs compared to sucrose allows for the use of lesser amounts to achieve a similar level of sweetness, facilitating a reduction in an individual’s caloric and sugar consumption. Furthermore, the substitution of LNCSs for sugar supports individual and public health outcomes by addressing issues related to obesity, diabetes, and chronic illnesses…Lastly, emerging evidence from in vitro and a randomized controlled trial have investigated food intake and satiety management and suggests that natural LNCSs may be beneficial…The diverse range of LNCSs available in global food and beverage choices, coupled with their varying sweetness intensities, offers enjoyment and pleasure to consumers on their respective health and wellness journeys.

Conflict of interest statement: The following authors are employed at Ingredion, Inc.: Margaux Mora, Jing Zhou, Katie Hennings, and Kristen Germana. The following authors received an honorarium from Ingredion, Inc. for professional services provided: John L. Sievenpiper, Sidd Purkayastha, V. Lee Grotz and Cynthia Goody. Dr. John L Sievenpiper has received research support from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Ontario Research Fund, Province of Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation and Science, Canadian Institutes of health Research (CIHR), Diabetes Canada, American Society for Nutrition (ASN), National Honey Board (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] honey “Checkoff” program), Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS), Pulse Canada, Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, INC International Nut and Dried Fruit Council Foundation, The United Soybean Board (USDA soy “Checkoff” program), Protein Industries Canada (a Government of Canada Global Innovation Cluster), Almond Board of California, European Fruit Juice Association, The Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, The Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Alberta Pulse Growers), The Plant Protein Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund which has received contributions from IFF among other donors), The Plant Milk Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Karuna Foundation through Vegan Grants), and The Nutrition Trialists Network Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by donations from the Calorie Control Council, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and Login5 Foundation). He has received food donations to support randomized controlled trials from the Almond Board of California, California Walnut Commission, Danone, Nutrartis, Soylent, and Dairy Farmers of Canada. He has received travel support, speaker fees and/or honoraria from FoodMinds LLC, Nestlé, Abbott, General Mills, Nutrition Communications, International Food Information Council (IFIC), Arab Beverage Association, International Sweeteners Association, Calorie Control Council, and Phynova. He has or has had ad hoc consulting arrangements with Almond Board of California, Perkins Coie LLP, Tate and Lyle, Ingredion, and Brightseed. He is on the Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committees of Diabetes Canada, European Association for the study of Diabetes (EASD), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and Obesity Canada/Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons. He serves as an unpaid member of the Board of Trustees of IAFNS. He is a Director at Large of the Canadian Nutrition Society (CNS), founding member of the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC), Executive Board Member of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the EASD, and Director of the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials foundation. His spouse is a former employee of Nestle Health Science and AB InBev.

If you have any doubts about the value of the concept of ultra-processed, the breadth and extent of industry pushback against the idea is excellent evidence.  The concept is an existential threat to the processed food industry, and it is fighting back.  The Italian food industry is especially concerned because it also has the Nutri-Score front-of-pack labeling system to contend with; the letter grades on ultra-processed products tend to be C’s, D’s, and E’s—as bad as they come.

Here’s an example of the pushback.

The opinion piece: Visioli, F., Del Rio, D., Fogliano, V., Marangoni F, Ricci C, Poli A.  Ultra-processed foods and health: are we correctly interpreting the available evidence?. Eur J Clin Nutr 79, 177–180 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-024-01515-8

Competing interests: AP and FM are the Chairman and Scientific Director, respectively, of NFI—Nutrition Foundation of Italy, a non-profit organisation partially supported by Italian and non-Italian Food Companies. All other authors declare no conflict of interest associated with this publication.

Comment: The senior (last) author and one other run the Italian Nutrition Foundation, an organization sponsored by food companies, Italan and international.  This makes the Foundation an industry front group, pretending to be independent, but not.  Its job is to further the commercial interests of its corporate sponsors, which is what it is doing here.  It is using the tobacco industry playbook: cast doubt on the research, suggest alternatives, argue against regulation.  The foundation’s authors are joined by academic and government authors, who have their own, not necessarily commercial, reasons for unhappiness with the UPF concept, which focuses on degree of processing, not nutrient content.  Yes, nutrients matter, but there are better ways of getting them than through UPFs.

The Study:  Prunes May Blunt Adverse Effects of Oral Contraceptives on Bone Health in Young Adult Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.  DeMasi, Taylor et al.  Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 9, 104417.

The rationale: Oral contraceptives (OCs) may promote bone loss.  Prunes may prevent that.

Objective: Will consuming 50 g of prunes daily prevent bone loss or increase bone accrual in OC users.

Methods: Ninety women were randomly assigned to a control group not using OCs (non-OC), an OC group not consuming prunes (OC), and an OC group consuming 50 g prunes daily (OC+P) for 12 mo.

Results:  Bone mineral density (BMD) did not change among groups, but ultradistal radius BMD increased over time within non-OC and OC+P groups. Trabecular density of the distal tibia decreased within the OC group.

Conclusions: OC use promoted minor negative effects on bone.  Consuming prunes “tended to provide a potential protective effect on trabecular density of the distal tibia and ultradistal radius in young women.”

Conflict of interest: “The authors report no conflict of interest.”

Funding: “This study was funded by the California Prune Board. The California Prune Board had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.”

Comment: I’ve put the wiggle words in red.  Why, you might well ask, would anyone expect two ounces of prunes a day to have anything to do with bone loss?  The authors do not say.  They merely observe an association of prunes with bone health in animals, and say they had seen minor prevention of bone loss in postmenopausal women in previous research.  I’m all for eating prunes if you like them, but bone health seems like a stretch.  So does the statement that the Prune Board had no role in the study.  It funded the study.  It is not going to fund studies that might not produce favorable results.  Industry funding exerts influence from the get go, whether or not recognized by authors as a conflict of interest.

Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America forwarded this email announcement sent to members of the American Society for Nutrition (I am a member, but somehow missed this).  It’s an example of how industry-funded research gets started.

This is a sponsored message from the American Pistachio Growers, an ASN [American Society for Nutrition] Sustaining Partner.

But you can see how this works.  The Pistachio trade association is looking for research to show how eating pistachios enhances sleep, improves performance, and supports weight management (like taking GLP-1 drugs).

If research proposals do not support these objectives, they won’t be funded.

I realize I’m posting this too late for you to apply and test this statement.  Sorry about that.  Next time!