The Conversation/Sarah Steele: Corporations are funding health and nutrition research – here’s why you should be worried

The Conversation
    Edition:

Available editions
Africa

    Job Board

    Become an author
    Sign up as a reader
    Sign in

The Conversation
Academic rigour, journalistic flair

    Arts + Culture
    Business + Economy
    Education
    Environment + Energy
    Health + Medicine
    Politics + Society
    Science + Technology
    In French

Corporations are funding health and nutrition research – here’s why you should be worried
May 8, 2019 4.57pm SAST
alphaspirit/Shutterstock
Authors

    Sarah Steele

    Senior Research Associate, University of Cambridge
    Lejla Sarcevic

    Forum Senior Research Associate, University of Cambridge

Disclosure statement

Sarah Steele receives funding from Bocconi University.

Lejla Sarcevic does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Partners

University of Cambridge

University of Cambridge provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

The Conversation is funded by the National Research Foundation, eight universities, including the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Rhodes University, Stellenbosch University and the Universities of Cape Town, Johannesburg, Kwa-Zulu Natal, Pretoria, and South Africa. It is hosted by the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Western Cape, the African Population and Health Research Centre and the Nigerian Academy of Science. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a Strategic Partner. more
Republish this article

Republish
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.

    Email
    Twitter55
    Facebook279
    LinkedIn
    Print

For the health-conscious consumer, it’s hard to keep up with the dizzying array of products on offer. Consumers want unbiased information to help them make the right choices, and industry says it is listening and working with health researchers to provide better and more nutritionally sound products. For academia, this can translate to serious funding opportunities.

Researchers and academics are increasingly being encouraged – even required – to get research funding from different sources, including industry and nonprofit organisations funded by industry. Generating income has become as important as the quality of academic output in hiring, retaining and even firing academic and research staff. In public health and nutrition, however, industry money remains the subject of fiery debate.

Some see industry as a necessary source of research support. From this perspective, these partnerships give scientists a say in the research, allowing them to improve health and well-being by collaborating with industry.

Corporate funding can pay for staff, conduct of studies, travel, publication charges and other research-related activities. These researchers say that we can better judge influence with clear conflict of interest statements that reveal the nature of their relationship with industry.

Meanwhile, multinational corporations say they remain committed to principles that protect the public interest. After all, it is in their financial interest to do so. This thinking directs how they fund researchers. For example, The Coca-Cola Company has pledged transparency, openness and commitments on social responsibility and research, stating that:

    In no event does The Coca-Cola Company have the right to prevent publication of research results. Nor does The Coca-Cola Company provide funding conditioned on the outcome of the research.

We sought to find out to what extent this was borne out in practice, questioning whether it funds research and allows publication, even if the findings could harm its interests and profits. Can industry money really bring all these benefits while simple conflict of interest statements negate any influence?
What industry funding means for research

Our research suggests that it isn’t that simple. We recently obtained Coca-Cola research agreements and email correspondence through freedom of information requests made by US Right to Know. We analysed five research agreements in an article recently published in the Journal of Public Health Policy. While contracts show that Coca-Cola does not control day-to-day conduct, it retains various rights throughout the process.

We found provisions in research funding agreements that could allow Coca-Cola to stop the research it funds at public universities in the US and Canada. Several clauses in legal documents give Coca-Cola the right to receive updates and comment on findings before research is published, and the power to terminate studies early without reason. Coca-Cola then holds rights regarding all the data and research, thereby potentially allowing it to deprive the public of this study data where the data is at odds with its commercial interests.

While these provisions mean some unfavourable results might not see the light of day, what about the studies we do see?

Research suggests industry money does bias results and produce troubling conflicts of interest. We know that while the studies may report no influence by the funder, they may get to comment on study design, presentation of results and even acknowledgement of funding itself.

In 2015, the New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola sponsored researchers whose studies played down the link between diet and obesity. Likewise, the Associated Press revealed how a food industry trade association funded and influenced studies which concluded that children who eat sweets have healthier body weights than those who do not.

Many experts in nutrition and public health suggest that the food industry is copying tactics from tobacco companies. Corporations can now determine our health.
Some studies claim to show that eating sweets is associated with a healthier body weight in children. eyal granith/Shutterstock
More transparency

To fix this problem, corporate social responsibility needs to be more than just shiny websites stating progressive policies that get ignored. And journals should require authors to disclosure research agreements with corporate funders so that readers can assess their influence on researchers and their work.

We would also like to see a registry of all industry-funded studies that have been terminated. The lack of information on industry input and studies terminated before results are published makes it impossible to know how much of the research entering the public domain reflects corporate positions. The research agreements we analysed suggest that if Coca-Cola wanted, it has the power to bury research that detracts from its image or profits.

The Conversation asked Coca Cola to respond and it said that since 2016 it had not independently funded research on issues related to health and well-being “in keeping with research guiding principles that have been posted publicly on our website since that time”. The company said it had adopted these guidelines to address questions that arose when it was the sole funder of similar research.

It said that a list of health and well-being research funded by The Coca-Cola Company dating back to 2010 had been made available on its website for nearly four years. It stressed that any research it had funded and disclosed on its site was conducted “in accordance with our publicly stated approach to funding scientific research, including the fact that we do not have the right to prevent the publication of research results nor do we provide funding conditioned on the outcome of the research”.

But there remain concerns that – with the power to trumpet positive findings and bury negative ones – some big corporations could use funded science as an exercise in public relations. It’s time we begin holding these powerful multinational corporations to account for their impacts on our health.

    Research
    Nutrition
    Corporate Social Responsibility

    Tweet
    Share
    Get newsletter

You might also like
Exaggerated portions alongside real nutrition claims on cereal boxes may mislead consumers – new study
More calories from fewer sources means more profit and less nutrition
The protein gap – nutritional science’s biggest error
Crime and nourishment – the link between food and offending behaviour
Sign in to comment
13 Comments
Oldest Newest

Show all comments
Most popular on The Conversation

    Breast ironing: a harmful practice that doesn’t get sufficient attention
    We asked people in Vietnam why they use rhino horn. Here’s what they said
    Why South Africa should seriously consider taxing its wealthy citizens
    Why the Indian Ocean is spawning strong and deadly tropical cyclones
    The story of Oromo slaves bound for Arabia who were brought to South Africa

    Wildebeest migrations in East Africa face extinction. What must be done
    Ethical questions around returning Dadaab refugees “home”
    South Africa’s poll is more about battles in the ANC than between political parties
    Red Sea stone tool find hints at hominins’ possible route out of Africa
    South Africa’s main parties all have plans for education. What’s missing?

Expert Database

    Find experts with knowledge in:*

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 83,700 academics and researchers from 2,839 institutions.

Register now
The Conversation
Community

    Community standards
    Republishing guidelines
    Research and Expert Database
    Analytics
    Job Board
    Our feeds

Company

    Who we are
    Our charter
    Our team
    Partners and funders
    Resource for media
    Contact us

Stay informed and subscribe to our free daily newsletter and get the latest analysis and commentary directly in your inbox.
Email address
Follow us on social media

Privacy policy Terms and conditions Corrections

Copyright © 2010–2019, The Conversation Africa, Inc.