The food industry is at our fingertips throughout our nutrition research. According to a new study, one in eight major, peer-reviewed studies on nutrition is industry-related.
Worse still, the conflict of interest between these interests, while clearly recognized within scientific journals, tends to yield industry-favorable results, and may have false results.
“This study found that the food industry is often involved in published research from major nutrition journals,” researchers write.
“Where the food industry is involved, survey findings are almost six times more likely to be in their interests than when the food industry is not involved. “
As far as the authors are aware, this is the first systematic review of the extent and nature of food industry participation in peer-reviewed research. Similar results aimed at business participation have produced mixed results, but much more research is needed.
In the last few years, as industry links to scientific research have begun to emerge, many have lost faith in nutrition science and some have called it a ‘credit crunch’. there. Whether that trust is proven or not, scientists and independent businesses have been trying to prove it ever since.
These new findings are supported by growing evidence and growing concerns that competing interests are polluting the field of nutrition and dietetics, even at the most prestigious journals. The results also show that this involvement is a scathing outcome.
Skimming articles from the top 10 nutrition magazines of 2018, researchers in Australia found 13 per cent of the 1,461 papers selected for the study reported that the food industry was involved.
Of the various manufacturers, those involved in processed foods were involved in the most scientific research, making up 40 percent of all studies involving industry.
In some peer-reviewed publications, e.g. Journal of Nutrition, business links were found in 28 percent of all articles evaluated.
In a magazine called Nutrition reviews, published by an institute founded and funded exclusively by food companies, such as Mars, Nestlé, Coca-Cola, and PepsiCo, business interests were cited in a quarter of all papers examined.
“Both of these journals have uncovered links with the food industry,” the study’s authors write.
“Several board members of the Journal of Nutrition has expressed conflict of interest with food companies. Journal of Nutrition published by the Nutrition Society of America (ASN), which has formal partnerships with several food companies and has been criticized for supporting the food industry’s goals in the interests of public health. “
There are a number of reasons why a company may support a scientific study of its results – sometimes it is their legal obligation to do so. Embracing goodwill, industry-led food research is an attempt to generate new knowledge about a product that can be used to better inform consumers.
But from a public health perspective, this is also a problem. When a business funds or supports scientific research, it is very likely that the competing interests of non-regulators may influence what is being studied and how it is being studied, whatever that may be. intentionally or not.
Even when peer-reviewed journals cite conflicts of interest, it is possible that human bias remains contaminated as the results are analyzed and sold to the public.
Nutrition is very complex and difficult to study. Finding out if something is good or bad for you is not so easy, despite the many headlines you would otherwise believe.
Therefore, some scientists argue that publicity for journals is not enough. We also need to actively reduce business impact in the field.
“While it has previously been reported that nutrition research funded by the food industry generally respects scientific standards for the production and reporting of scientific studies, the food industry itself has been involved. in that assessment, and the case deserves further detailed investigation, ”the authors write.
Sugar drinks are a great example of how company-led research can sweeten sales, even when conflicts of interest are declared.
But there are also times where they are not. Coca-Cola, for example, is accused of controlling survey data and results for research it funded. Eventually he had a say in publishing.
This new research is limited in that it looked only at those preliminary studies of business engagement and published in peer-reviewed journals.
But even just by spraying key results in the field and taking publications at face value, researchers found that business interests in the field are driven.
Of all the industry-related articles, more than half yielded results that were favorable to the food industry. In peer-reviewed papers it may not be because companies are circulating the decisions.
Instead, businesses may be pursuing themes and approaches that are biased toward favorable outcomes. Editing processes can also be involved.
Nothing reflects this better than the alternative. In the review, articles without food industry gave positive results just under 10 percent of the time.
Further research is needed that uses larger sample sizes from more journals. That way, we can find out why this big difference exists and how we can reduce business impact and increase creditworthiness.
The authors offer a few suggestions, including limiting the impact of business in government agencies and public research institutions or limiting the number of industry-related journal articles for review. peers.
“Based on the findings of this study, all articles involving any type of food industry involvement are subject to close review from journals, with a particular focus on more direct types of involvement (e.g., author links and direct funding for research), ”the authors write.
“Magazines should also have clear policies on disclosing conflicts between editorial interests, including any links between editors and the food industry. In addition, there must be a conflict of interest. or enforce such a rule. “
The study was published in PLOS One.