Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
A critical assessment of the relation between the food industry and health research
Abstract and Figures
Objective:
To describe the influence of the food industry in health research, observing how funding influences health outcomes and the quality of the studies.
Method:
We performed a systematic review in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Plus and Scopus using the MESH "Food Industry", "Food-Processing Industry", "Biomedical Research", "Research Support as Topic", and the keywords "Industry Sponsorship" and "Funding Source". The quality was assessed using the PRISMA guidelines.
Results:
We revised 1,506 articles and 10 were included; two reviewed the relationship between funding-outcomes and quality-outcomes; six focused on the funding-outcomes relationship; and the other two focused on methodological quality. Six showed that funding from the food industry resulted in more favourable outcomes for their products. No differences in quality were found in relation to the funding source, but those which did not declare their funding had a worse quality.
Conclusion:
Studies funded by the food industry showed favourable results for their products. However, this fact did not affect the quality of the studies.
Figures - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
: Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.
Independence in the formulation of public health policies can be affected by various agents with objectives contrary to population health, such as large corporations. This lack of independence may be exacerbated by the economic crisis due to lower funding for health regulatory bodies or other measures designed to protect health. Large corporations have influenced the formulation of certain policies with an impact on health, such as those related to the tobacco industry, the chemical industry, nutrition, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, and health technology. The main areas in which these companies can influence policies are science, education, politics, and society in general. In this scenario, public health associations should take an active role in ensuring the independence of political decisions via actions such as the following: supporting strategies that guarantee the independence of public health policies and apply criteria of impartiality and transparency; rejecting those public-private partnerships launched to prevent health problems partly caused by these corporations; establishing partnerships to achieve independent training of health professionals and an institution with scientific authority in order to improve public health communication and counteract the lack of sound public health information; promoting a critical analysis of the definition of health problems and their solutions, and establishing related agendas (scientific, political and media) and alliances, so that continuing training for health professionals is independent.
Copyright © 2013 SESPAS. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.
The role of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in increasing obesity is of great scientific, clinical, and public health interest. Many reviews have been published on this topic in recent years with very different conclusions.
We sought to assess the scientific quality and other characteristics that may be associated with the conclusions of reviews regarding the causal relation between SSB consumption and body weight.
A systematic search of reviews in English language-published peer-reviewed journals in 2006-2013 was performed. Their methodologic quality was assessed by 2 judges using 2 scoring systems: the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews and the American Dietetic Association Quality Criteria Checklist. The conclusions were blindly assessed by 11 independent readers using a Likert scale ranging from a position score of 0 = no evidence of a causal relation to 5 = strong evidence of a causal relation.
Twenty reviews were identified: 5 meta-analyses, 3 qualitative systematic reviews, and 12 qualitative nonsystematic reviews. Four received funding from the food industry. Quality scores were neither correlated with the readers' perception of conclusions nor with the source of funding. However, industry-funded reviews were more likely to suggest that evidence supporting a causal relation between SSB consumption and weight gain was weak (mean position score = 1.78), whereas evidence was generally considered well-founded in other reviews (mean position score = 3.39; P ≤ 0.01).
For a complex and controversial scientific issue, it is important to minimize perceived or actual threats to scientific objectivity and methodologic quality. More refined tools are needed to better assess their scientific quality and to identify factors and mechanisms that may influence authors' conclusions.
Industry sponsors' financial interests might bias the conclusions of scientific research. We examined whether financial industry funding or the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest influenced the results of published systematic reviews (SRs) conducted in the field of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and weight gain or obesity.
We conducted a search of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases to identify published SRs from the inception of the databases to August 31, 2013, on the association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. SR conclusions were independently classified by two researchers into two groups: those that found a positive association and those that did not. These two reviewers were blinded with respect to the stated source of funding and the disclosure of conflicts of interest. We identified 17 SRs (with 18 conclusions). In six of the SRs a financial conflict of interest with some food industry was disclosed. Among those reviews without any reported conflict of interest, 83.3% of the conclusions (10/12) were that SSB consumption could be a potential risk factor for weight gain. In contrast, the same percentage of conclusions, 83.3% (5/6), of those SRs disclosing some financial conflict of interest with the food industry were that the scientific evidence was insufficient to support a positive association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. Those reviews with conflicts of interest were five times more likely to present a conclusion of no positive association than those without them (relative risk: 5.0, 95% CI: 1.3-19.3). An important limitation of this study is the impossibility of ruling out the existence of publication bias among those studies not declaring any conflict of interest. However, the best large randomized trials also support a direct association between SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity.
Financial conflicts of interest may bias conclusions from SRs on SSB consumption and weight gain or obesity. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
There is little or no information available on the impact of funding by the food industry on trial outcomes and methodological quality of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics research in infants. The objective of this study was to compare the methodological quality, outcomes of food industry sponsored trials versus non industry sponsored trials, with regards to supplementation of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics in infant formula.
A comprehensive search was conducted to identify published and unpublished randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Cochrane methodology was used to assess the risk of bias of included RCTs in the following domains: 1) sequence generation; 2) allocation concealment; 3) blinding; 4) incomplete outcome data; 5) selective outcome reporting; and 6) other bias. Clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions were reported in frequencies and percentages. The association between source of funding, risk of bias, clinical outcomes and conclusions were assessed using Pearson's Chi-square test and the Fisher's exact test. A p-value < 0.05 was statistically significant.
Sixty seven completed and 3 on-going RCTs were included. Forty (59.7%) were funded by food industry, 11 (16.4%) by non-industry entities and 16 (23.9%) did not specify source of funding. Several risk of bias domains, especially sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, were not adequately reported. There was no significant association between the source of funding and sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective reporting, majority of reported clinical outcomes or authors' conclusions. On the other hand, source of funding was significantly associated with the domains of incomplete outcome data, free of other bias domains as well as reported antibiotic use and conclusions on weight gain.
In RCTs on infants fed infant formula containing probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics, the source of funding did not influence the majority of outcomes in favour of the sponsors' products. More non-industry funded research is needed to further assess the impact of funding on methodological quality, reported clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions.
The Corporate Play Book, Health and Democracy: The Snack Food and Beverage Industry’s Tactics in Context.
Chapter 6, Part 2
By William H. Wiist
In Stuckler, David and Karen Siegel. 2011. Sick Societies: Responding to the Global Challenge of Chronic Disease. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abstract
In this chapter the food industry’s tactics and potentially adverse effects on public health are evaluated. Lessons from the tobacco and other industries are applied to the food industry, using material from from PepsiCo’s proposals. Our analysis suggests that food companies may be replicating several of the tactics used by tobacco companies to promote a positive image and influence research as part of an effort to reduce the prospects for public regulation and taxation. A series of Recommendations are offered about how public health practitioners should engage with the food industry to promote healthy transformation with industry while avoiding potential conflicts-of-interest and adverse influences on the public’s health and democracy.
Table 6.3. Twenty-three questions to ask about the food and beverage industry: Corporate operations, Products, testing and standards.
Table 6.4. Thirty-six examples of the corporate play book: Public relations, distortion of science, political influence, financial tactics, legal and regulatory tactics, products and services.
Table 6.5. Forty-one examples of actions corporations could take to gain the trust of potential public health partners, government and human citizens.
The 2011 UN high-level meeting on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) called for multisectoral action including with the private sector and industry. However, through the sale and promotion of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink (unhealthy commodities), transnational corporations are major drivers of global epidemics of NCDs. What role then should these industries have in NCD prevention and control? We emphasise the rise in sales of these unhealthy commodities in low-income and middle-income countries, and consider the common strategies that the transnational corporations use to undermine NCD prevention and control. We assess the effectiveness of self-regulation, public-private partnerships, and public regulation models of interaction with these industries and conclude that unhealthy commodity industries should have no role in the formation of national or international NCD policy. Despite the common reliance on industry self-regulation and public-private partnerships, there is no evidence of their effectiveness or safety. Public regulation and market intervention are the only evidence-based mechanisms to prevent harm caused by the unhealthy commodity industries.
This study examined the relationship between funding sources and the outcomes of published obesity-related research. A list of funded projects for human nutrition research linking food intake to obesity in 2001-2005 was drawn from two distinct sources: (a) the federal government's semi-public generic commodity promotion or "checkoff" programs for Fluid Milk and Dairy and (b) the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Principal Investigator for each funded project was determined. Published literature by that individual was located using an Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed author search. All articles related to both dairy and obesity were included. Financial sponsorship for each article and article conclusions were classified by independent groups of co-investigators. Seventy-nine relevant articles were included in the study. Of these, 62 were sponsored by the checkoff programs and 17 by the NIH. The study did not find consistent evidence that checkoff-funded projects were more likely to support an obesity prevention benefit from dairy consumption. The study did identify a new research methodology for the investigation of bias by source of sponsorship.