Food Industry “Funding Effect”

Food Industry “Funding Effect”
5 (100%) 14 votes

He who pays the piper calls the tune: studies funded by the dairy and soda industries appear to be even more biased than studies funded by drug companies.

Discuss
Republish

When food companies claim there is science to support their wild claims, it may very well be true. Multibillion dollar industries have the cash to spread around to research establishments.

The “funding effect” describes the uncanny correlation between the conclusion desired by a funding source, and the conclusion reached by the researchers being funded. The funding effect, and the strategy of “manufacturing uncertainty”, have been used with great success by manufacturers of dangerous products, to oppose public health regulation. To resist regulation, industries fund scientific reviews to downplay the risks of their products. Tobacco is the classic case, but producers have funded studies downplaying the risks of asbestos, benzene, lead, etc.

This has been studied extensively in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug company-funded studies just happen to be about four times more likely to reach a pro-industry conclusion than independent studies. But: “In contrast, little information is available regarding the prevalence or impact of funding by the food industry on nutrition research. Whereas bias in pharmaceutical research could have an adverse effect on the health of millions of individuals who take medications, bias in nutrition research could have an adverse effect on the health of everyone.”

So, they looked at soda and milk. Are studies funded by Coca Cola or the Dairy Council more likely to reach favorable conclusions about their sponsors’ products?

Turns out, even worse than the drug companies. “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.”

“Of particular interest,” check this out, “none of the interventional studies on [soda or milk] with all-industry support had an unfavorable conclusion. Not one.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Peter Mellor.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image thanks to espensorvik / Flickr

When food companies claim there is science to support their wild claims, it may very well be true. Multibillion dollar industries have the cash to spread around to research establishments.

The “funding effect” describes the uncanny correlation between the conclusion desired by a funding source, and the conclusion reached by the researchers being funded. The funding effect, and the strategy of “manufacturing uncertainty”, have been used with great success by manufacturers of dangerous products, to oppose public health regulation. To resist regulation, industries fund scientific reviews to downplay the risks of their products. Tobacco is the classic case, but producers have funded studies downplaying the risks of asbestos, benzene, lead, etc.

This has been studied extensively in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug company-funded studies just happen to be about four times more likely to reach a pro-industry conclusion than independent studies. But: “In contrast, little information is available regarding the prevalence or impact of funding by the food industry on nutrition research. Whereas bias in pharmaceutical research could have an adverse effect on the health of millions of individuals who take medications, bias in nutrition research could have an adverse effect on the health of everyone.”

So, they looked at soda and milk. Are studies funded by Coca Cola or the Dairy Council more likely to reach favorable conclusions about their sponsors’ products?

Turns out, even worse than the drug companies. “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.”

“Of particular interest,” check this out, “none of the interventional studies on [soda or milk] with all-industry support had an unfavorable conclusion. Not one.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by Peter Mellor.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image thanks to espensorvik / Flickr

Doctor's Note

Be sure to check out my other videos on industry influence

For more context, also check out my associated blog posts: Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board Accused of Making Illegally Deceptive Claims, and Aspartame: Fibromyalgia & Preterm Birth.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

10 responses to “Food Industry “Funding Effect”

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

    1. Dr. Greger, The last two years I was on an estrogen patch, had a hysterectomy 6 years ago, have my ovaries. I also was taking a progestrone pill at night. I have stopped taking both of them, I get a hot flash about three times a day, what can I do. I have lost 25 lbs in the last year and changed my total way of eating. Thanks,
      Judy

  1. The funding source of a study affects the finding all too frequently. Where is the “science”? Who can you trust? Perhaps it should be illegal for industries to fund studies in which they have a vested interest.

  2. I assisted to your conference sunday in Montreal and very appreciate.
    My weight is around 105 pounds. As a start eating Raw food, I lost about 5 pounds in 2 weeks. I would like to know if I should continue or just tell me what to do. Thanks so much.

  3. What about kefir as a food and its health benefits…. the eastern part of europe in the Caucasus Mountains the natives drink kefir daily and foutinely live to 100… so a recent site said,…. any current research that backs that up…. or do the Caucasus Mtn people eat somthing else that helps the longivity….

  4. Hello,
    I am a student researching the effects of dairy and egg industry funding on nutrition research, especially research on plant-based nutrition. This video is very informative, however I am looking for other sources on this topic. Do you have any suggestions on where I could find this information?
    Thank you.

  5. Fund industry has direct links with the funds. This leads for their bets level. The increase in cost caused difficult bargaining power for the use. The prices should be in control form This leads them for best situation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This