Stephen Daniells , the Food Science Reporter for NutraIngredients.com, writing for AP-Food Technology.com echoes a theme often voiced in our blog: that a proper concern is with the science in studies of nutrtition and health, not whether they are funded by governments or private parties. Says Daniells:

It is important to have an independent watchdog for both industry and academia, but the statements of subtle bias, or insinuations of industry meddling merely serve to undermine scientific integrity, industrial sponsors, and consumer confidence.

He goes on with regard to a recent example:

After starting with 538 articles, the reviewers, from the Children's Hospital Boston and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), whittled this down to 206 according to their specific inclusion/ exclusion criteria. Of these, only 111 declared financial sponsorship - 22 per cent were funded entirely by industry, 47 per cent had no industry funding, and 32 per cent had mixed funding.

They then calculated that the 22 per cent declaring an industry-only source of funding were four to eight times likely to report favourable conclusions for the sponsors than studies with no industry funding.

And this led to the researchers to imply: Bias! Industry meddling! Company heavyweights leaning on the little academic!

Let's just think about this for a moment.

First of all, the studies used in the review were all published in peer-review journals, meaning independent and anonymous reviewers had already passed their expert eyes over the studies.

Undoubtedly, the studies fitted in with other results - in vitro research, and in vivo animal studies, as well as other human studies. I have never seen an article published without supporting references - have you? Some of the studies were clinical interventions.

Everything looks ok, so far…

Next up is the role of industry in funding a study. As was stated in an insightful, balanced, and levelheaded editorial by Martijn Katan from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam that accompanied the review, when industry plans to fund a study, it is natural that it would select a product with a potentially favourable nutritional profile.

Finally, some sense!

You'll want to read it all .

Stephen Daniells , the Food Science Reporter for NutraIngredients.com, writing for AP-Food Technology.com echoes a theme often voiced in our blog: that a proper concern is with the science in studies of nutrtiion and health, not whether they are funded by governments or private parties. Says Daniells:

It is important to have an independent watchdog for both industry and academia, but the statements of subtle bias, or insinuations of industry meddling merely serve to undermine scientific integrity, industrial sponsors, and consumer confidence.

He goes on with regard to a recent example:

After starting with 538 articles, the reviewers, from the Children's Hospital Boston and the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), whittled this down to 206 according to their specific inclusion/ exclusion criteria. Of these, only 111 declared financial sponsorship - 22 per cent were funded entirely by industry, 47 per cent had no industry funding, and 32 per cent had mixed funding.

They then calculated that the 22 per cent declaring an industry-only source of funding were four to eight times likely to report favourable conclusions for the sponsors than studies with no industry funding.

And this led to the researchers to imply: Bias! Industry meddling! Company heavyweights leaning on the little academic!

Let's just think about this for a moment.

First of all, the studies used in the review were all published in peer-review journals, meaning independent and anonymous reviewers had already passed their expert eyes over the studies.

Undoubtedly, the studies fitted in with other results - in vitro research, and in vivo animal studies, as well as other human studies. I have never seen an article published without supporting references - have you? Some of the studies were clinical interventions.

Everything looks ok, so far…

Next up is the role of industry in funding a study. As was stated in an insightful, balanced, and levelheaded editorial by Martijn Katan from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam that accompanied the review, when industry plans to fund a study, it is natural that it would select a product with a potentially favourable nutritional profile.

Finally, some sense!

You'll want to read it all .