Researchers are seeking ways to eliminate bias from industry-funded claims
“Companies in the food industry want to influence food and public health policy in their favor,” notes new study
26 Aug 2019 --- Scientists have long been divided on the best way to manage industry involvement in diet and health research, according to a study from the University of Queensland (UQ) and University of Cambridge, which is exploring ways to better protect scientific integrity from the influence of the food industry. The study delves into the biases of industry-funded research, and will aid the further development of “internationally-agreed” guidance to help researchers better manage the risks of having their results be influenced by the industry.
As government funding for research is poorly available in some nations, more academics are looking to industries to contribute funding, says Dr. Katherine Cullerton, a UQ public health nutrition expert. “This is a particular challenge in low income countries, which represent important, emerging markets for food companies.”
With rising obesity levels and significant public interest in diet and health, the ethics surrounding research in this area is center stage, the researchers note. Their study seeks to build consensus on this issue through seeking the views of population health researchers and research stakeholders (e.g. funders, policy officers and journals) internationally.
While some scientists feel that the food industry should never be involved, many take the view that achieving healthier diets among whole populations will require actions by the food industry. “For these actions to be effective it requires new research and access to food industry data,” adds Dr. Cullerton.
The study found high levels of agreement among researchers and research stakeholders for many principles designed to prevent or manage conflicts of interest, note its researchers. “More contentious were principles that required values-based decision-making, such as determining which organizations in the food sector are acceptable to interact with,” highlights Dr. Cullerton.
“Our study, however, showed there was in fact consensus on many of the principles, although researchers are divided on what is acceptable when it comes to funding and interactions with these companies,” adds Dr. Cullerton. “Companies in the food industry want to influence food and public health policy in their favor.”
This research highlights the fact that greater understanding of the risks associated with accepting food industry funding and the implications of interacting with food companies is necessary. “They fund certain areas of research for many reasons; one reason can be to deflect attention away from products that are associated with poor health outcomes,” says Dr. Cullerton.
“Some researchers are unaware that they are susceptible to conflicts of interest or that they might be at risk of unconscious biases adversely affecting their science,” she notes. “Ultimately, all of these factors represent significant reputational risks for researchers.”
In the final stage of this research, Dr. Cullerton and her research colleagues will develop internationally-agreed guidance and a toolkit to help researchers better manage the risks resulting from interacting with the food industry.
Members of industry themselves have previously spoken out on the topic of bias in research. In 2016, the International Sweeteners Association (ISA) asserted that food industry funding in research can contribute to scientific advancements, while underscoring the need for transparency and the full disclosure of conflicts of interest.
By Benjamin Ferrer
