What do you think?

Member Exclusive Content

Sign up to be a member to access this content.

Join now!

Already a member? Login

Has industry funded research gone too far?

It’s known as the funding effect: the tendency for industry-funded studies to produce results favorable to the commercial interests of the sponsor. How?  Most often by influencing how the research question is framed or in how the results are ultimately interpreted (not-so-favorable results reported as neutral, for example). A recent deep dive into beef industry funded studies addressing the link between red meat intake and heart health sheds a light on this issue. As reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, when 44 studies addressing the link between red meat intake and cardiovascular disease risk were analyzed by investigators in Spain, 66% were determined to have links to the meat industry. All independently funded studies reported unfavorable (73.3%) or neutral (26.7%) results. However, all studies with funding ties to the meat industry reported favorable (20.7%) or neutral (79.3 %) results. What this means is that studies with conflicts of interest were nearly four times more likely to report favorable or neutral outcomes as opposed to reporting an increased risk for cardiovascular disease when people eat higher amounts of beef. Not just beef, but everything from avocados to pistachios to milk has seemingly benefited from industry funded research. Financial ties invariably skew results towards the commercial interests of the sponsor, even if the research is sound.

Are you concerned that industry funding seems to influence research outcomes? Do you believe that industry funds are needed to ensure that nutrition research gets conducted? Would you prefer if the food and beverage industry were not permitted to provide financial assistance to researchers? Do you still find the results of industry sponsored research to be valid? Share your thoughts in the comments below.