Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles
Publication Information
This study suggests that when companies pay for nutrition research, the results are much more likely to support the companies’ products. This doesn’t automatically mean the research is false, but it highlights the need for caution and transparency about who funds health research and how that might impact the findings
Table of Contents
Summary of the findings (in simple terms):
- The study looked at 206 scientific articles on the health effects of soft drinks, juice, and milk, and examined who funded the studies (industry vs non-industry).
- It found that articles funded entirely by the food and drink industry were much more likely to report positive conclusions about those products.
- Specifically, in studies where the industry funded everything, none reported unfavorable results about the product, while 37% of non-industry-funded studies did. Statistically, industry-funded studies were over seven times more likely to have a positive conclusion regarding the product compared to those funded independently.
- The authors conclude that industry sponsorship appears to bias scientific findings in nutrition, usually favoring the sponsor’s products.
Abstract
Background Industrial support of biomedical research may bias scientific conclusions, as demonstrated by recent analyses of pharmaceutical studies. However, this issue has not been systematically examined in the area of nutrition research. The purpose of this study is to characterize financial sponsorship of scientific articles addressing the health effects of three commonly consumed beverages, and to determine how sponsorship affects published conclusions. Methods and Findings Medline searches of worldwide literature were used to identify three article types (interventional studies, observational studies, and scientific reviews) about soft drinks, juice, and milk published between 1 January, 1999 and 31 December, 2003. Financial sponsorship and article conclusions were classified by independent groups of coinvestigators. The relationship between sponsorship and conclusions was explored by exact tests and regression analyses, controlling for covariates. 206 articles were included in the study, of which 111 declared financial sponsorship. Of these, 22% had all industry funding, 47% had no industry funding, and 32% had mixed funding. Funding source was significantly related to conclusions when considering all article types (p = 0.037). For interventional studies, the proportion with unfavorable conclusions was 0% for all industry funding versus 37% for no industry funding (p = 0.009). The odds ratio of a favorable versus unfavorable conclusion was 7.61 (95% confidence interval 1.27 to 45.73), comparing articles with all industry funding to no industry funding. Conclusions Industry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in favor of sponsors' products, with potentially significant implications for public health.
Highlights
Selection of Articles We aimed to take the broadest view of the literature within the area of beverages and health, and therefore included a range of article types in the categories of interventional studies, observational studies, and scientific reviews. Page 2Sorry this page is not ready yet.
We used six inclusion criteria for study articles: (1) The topic relates directly to soft drinks, juices, or milk, or an inherent component of one of these beverages (e.g., calcium in milk). (2) At least one main endpoint relates directly to health, disease, or a disease marker. For example, an article demonstrating a health benefit of antioxidants in juice would be included, whereas an article describing manufacturing techniques to maximize antioxidant concentrations in juice would be excluded. Page 2Sorry this page is not ready yet.
The main finding of this study is that scientific articles about commonly consumed beverages funded entirely by industry were approximately four to eight times more likely to be favorable to the financial interests of the sponsors than articles without industry-related funding. Page 4Sorry this page is not ready yet.
some other plain block quotes test
none of the interventional studies with all industry support had an unfavorable conclusion. Page 5Sorry this page is not ready yet.
Studies of research supported by the pharmaceutical industry have suggested several ways that bias might be introduced into clinical trials [7–9], and some of these might apply to nutrition research. Page 5Sorry this page is not ready yet.
We speculate that our findings may relate to one or more of the following possibilities Page 5Sorry this page is not ready yet.
industrial organizations do not seem to sponsor articles about products in which they have no financial interest. Page 5Sorry this page is not ready yet.
Investigators might formulate hypotheses, design studies, or analyze data in ways that are consistent with the financial interests of their industrial sponsors. Page 5Sorry this page is not ready yet.
Industrial sponsors or investigators may choose to delay or not publish findings that have negative implications to the sponsor’s product Page 5Sorry this page is not ready yet.
Authors of scientific reviews may search and interpret the literature selectively, in ways consistent with the sponsor’s interests Page 5Sorry this page is not ready yet.
Scientific reviews arising from industry-supported scientific symposia, often published as journal supplements, may over- or under-represent certain viewpoints, if presenters whose opinions conflict with the sponsor’s financial interests are not invited to participate Page 5Sorry this page is not ready yet.
Research Disclaimer
This research summary is for educational purposes only. Individual results may vary. Always consult with healthcare professionals before implementing any research findings in your care plan.