- #1
- 4,770
- 3,816
"The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018"
G Sachs et al. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243144#sec012
Popular science version
https://www.sciencealert.com/nutrit...imes-more-likely-to-report-favourable-results
Read the bibliography here to see the the long time lines and extent of the claimed practices in the Sachs paper.
N. Teicholz 2014 "The big fat surprise"
Did you ever wonder why one day you see a report in the news: "X in your diet reduces [whatever bad thing]" and then a month later another report which seems to reverse it? The cause, in part, is what Robert Ludwig, a pediatric endocrinologist, and other researchers refer to as "literature pollution". Research on products fully funded by the food industry with no declaration of that fact that it is their product being tested.
The Sachs paper claims that as much as 28% of the studies from 10 important nutrition journals from 2018 are indeed polluted, i.e., results were skewed by a factor of six in favor of food industry products being analyzed.
The Teicholz book: I think at a least glance at the bibiography will convince you this problem is neither transient nor recent. There is a recent spate of books on nutrition research, written by reporters who interviewed researchers and claim similar disturbing trends, and scientific misconduct.
The reasons behind this problem boil down to the enormous amount, US 4 trillion $ (per Teicholz), that is generated by industry prepared foods, which includes oils, grains, dairy, and meat products. In the US, this is any food item that has a nutrition label. Lots of things we eat. Anything in a can or bottle.
Be aware that prepared foods have done very good things for food safety and food shelf life. A lot of good. However, it is simply the industry short sided view of trying avoid additional financially painful changes beyond what they experienced when trans fats were declared unsafe by the FDA. It is still hitting their pocketbooks. And have been doing this since the 1950's (Teicholz see the "Crisco" chapter).
See also the PF lead problem thread on scientific misconduct, same potential cause, different product:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...th's-age-discovery-of-pb-contamination.997770
<edit: fix spelling>
G Sachs et al. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243144#sec012
Popular science version
https://www.sciencealert.com/nutrit...imes-more-likely-to-report-favourable-results
Read the bibliography here to see the the long time lines and extent of the claimed practices in the Sachs paper.
N. Teicholz 2014 "The big fat surprise"
Did you ever wonder why one day you see a report in the news: "X in your diet reduces [whatever bad thing]" and then a month later another report which seems to reverse it? The cause, in part, is what Robert Ludwig, a pediatric endocrinologist, and other researchers refer to as "literature pollution". Research on products fully funded by the food industry with no declaration of that fact that it is their product being tested.
The Sachs paper claims that as much as 28% of the studies from 10 important nutrition journals from 2018 are indeed polluted, i.e., results were skewed by a factor of six in favor of food industry products being analyzed.
The Teicholz book: I think at a least glance at the bibiography will convince you this problem is neither transient nor recent. There is a recent spate of books on nutrition research, written by reporters who interviewed researchers and claim similar disturbing trends, and scientific misconduct.
The reasons behind this problem boil down to the enormous amount, US 4 trillion $ (per Teicholz), that is generated by industry prepared foods, which includes oils, grains, dairy, and meat products. In the US, this is any food item that has a nutrition label. Lots of things we eat. Anything in a can or bottle.
Be aware that prepared foods have done very good things for food safety and food shelf life. A lot of good. However, it is simply the industry short sided view of trying avoid additional financially painful changes beyond what they experienced when trans fats were declared unsafe by the FDA. It is still hitting their pocketbooks. And have been doing this since the 1950's (Teicholz see the "Crisco" chapter).
See also the PF lead problem thread on scientific misconduct, same potential cause, different product:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...th's-age-discovery-of-pb-contamination.997770
<edit: fix spelling>
Last edited: