Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles

Abstract

BackgroundIndustrial 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 FindingsMedline 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.ConclusionsIndustry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in favor of sponsors' products, with potentially significant implications for public health.

Randomized trials assessing calcium supplementation in healthy children: relationship between industry sponsorship and study outcomes

“…Recipients of industrysupported grants tend to publish research and give advice that favours the sponsor (13) . A recent article by Lesser et al (18) evaluated a wide range of studies examining the health effects of three commonly consumed beverages (soft drinks, juice and milk) and concluded that industry funding may bias conclusions in favour of sponsors' products in the area of nutrition research. Although no statistically significant association between funding source and outcomes was identified in the present study, 81?3 % of industry-funded studies and 66?7 % of government-funded studies reported favourable conclusions that supported Ca supplementation.…”

Sickeningly Sweet: Does Sugar Cause Type 2 Diabetes? Yes

“…c) Lack of subclassification of industry-sponsored vs. independent studies. Analysis of food industry-sponsored studies demonstrates an odds ratio of a conclusion favourable to the industry of 7.61 (38). Furthermore, a meta-analysis of meta-analyses showed that 5 of 6 food industry-sponsored studies showed that sugared beverages do not cause weight gain, whereas 10 of 12 independent studies showed that they did (39).…”

Communicating actionable nutrition messages: challenges and opportunities

“…As government funding has shrunk, concern over industry-funded research in academic settings has grown. There is a perception that it is more likely to be biased than the research supported by the government and non-profit foundations (26,27) . There is also debate around the role of academic-university partnerships in shaping research agendas, and about how these relationships should be developed and disclosed (28)(29)(30) .…”