Currently browsing posts about: Conflicts-of-interest

A study funded by the Egg Nutrition Center concludes that eating two eggs a day reduces LDL-cholesterol, a risk factor for heart disease.

My NYU colleague, Mitchell Moss, sent me this news release:

Landmark study flips decades of cholesterol panic aimed at eggs:  In a groundbreaking clinical trial, researchers have unraveled the effects of cholesterol and saturated fat, finding that eggs may be far less harmful – and potentially more beneficial – than previously thought. It’s the latest research, using robust scientific work, to recast a nutritional villain in a new light.

My immediate reaction: Who paid for this?

I went right to the study: Impact of dietary cholesterol from eggs and saturated fat on LDL cholesterol levels: a randomized cross-over study, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition  Volume 122, Issue 1, July 2025, Pages 83-91.

Conclusions: Saturated fat, not dietary cholesterol, elevates LDL cholesterol. Compared with consuming a high-saturated fat diet with only 1 egg/wk, consuming 2 eggs daily as part of a low-saturated fat diet lowers LDL concentrations, which may reduce CVD risk.

Funding.  This work was funded by the Egg Nutrition Center, a division of the American Egg Board. This funding source had no role in the design of this study, and no role in the analysis or interpretation of the data or writing of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest. JDB, AMC and AMH report financial support was provided by Egg Nutrition Center. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Comment: This seems like old news.  We’ve known for a long time that saturated fat raises blood cholesterol to a greater extent than does dietary cholesterol.  Eggs are the greatest source of cholesterol in U.S. diets.  But even during the fiercest days of pushing to lower dietary cholesterol, one egg a day was always OK.  Egg consumption has declined and the egg industry wants you to eat more of them.  Does eating two eggs a day really reduce heart disease risk?  It would be nice to have independentlyy funded corroborating research.  This, alas, is an industry-funded study conducted by investigators funded by the egg industry.  The claim that the funding source had no role should raise eyebrows.  Research shows that funding exerts influence, whether recognized by investigators or not.

_________

Forthcoming November 11, 2025: What To Eat Now

A new study says eating saffron will improve your mood.  Guess who funded it.

The Study: Lopresti AL, Smith SJ, Marx W, Díez-Municio M, Morán-Valero MI. An Examination into the Effects of a Saffron Extract (Affron) on Mood and General Wellbeing in Adults Experiencing Low Mood: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. J Nutr. 2025 Jul;155(7):2300-2311. doi: 10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.05.024. Epub 2025 May 23. PMID: 40414301.

Background: Saffron, derived from the stigmas of the Crocus sativus flower, has been shown in previous trials to have antidepressant effects in clinically diagnosed adults. However, the recruitment of small sample sizes, short treatment periods, and variability in the quality of studies have negatively impacted the strength of conclusions.

Objectives: The purpose of this 2-arm, 12-wk, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to examine the effects of supplementation with a saffron extract (Affron) on mood and sleep in adults experiencing subclinical depressive symptoms.

Methods: Two hundred and two adults aged 18-70 with depressive symptoms were supplemented with 28 mg saffron daily or a placebo.

Results: Compared to the placebo, saffron was associated with greater improvements in the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale….However, in the other secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of between-group differences.

Conclusions: This study…provides evidence supporting the beneficial effects of 3 mo of saffron supplementation on depressive symptoms in adults. Large placebo responses were evident in this study, which require consideration in future trials.

Funding: We thank Pharmactive Biotech Products, SLU, for funding the project and supplying the investigational products used for this
study.

Conflict of interest: ALL is the Managing Director of Clinical Research Australia, a contract research organization that receives research funding rom nutraceutical companies… SJS is an employee of Clinical Research Australia. WM has received funding and/or attended events funded by Cobram Estate Pty. Ltd. and Bega Dairy and Drinks Pty. Ltd…MD-M and MIM-V are employees of the study sponsor, Pharmactive
Biotech Products SLU.

Comment:  Let’s hear it for placebo responses!  Saffron is an extremely expensive spice usually used in pinch amounts.  If it’s hard for you to imagine that it could do anything to affect depression, subclinical depression yet, there’s a good reason for that—although saffron makes food taste delicious and that alone is a mood-improver.  But this study was done with a supplement, not the expensive spice.  Overall, this is a study done under contract from the supplement’s manufacturer by employees of the manufacturer.  As such, it is explicitly marketing research.  The interpretation of this study is predictable if you know who funded it.  The title of the study alone should generate the question: Who funded this?

The study: Maher, C. , Alcorn M., Childress A., Dawson J. A., and Galyean S.. 2025. “Increasing Vegetable Intake Using Monosodium Glutamate in a Randomized Controlled Trial: A Culinary Medicine Intervention.” Food Science & Nutrition 13, no. 6: e70441. 10.1002/fsn3.70441.

Purpose: “This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of monosodium glutamate (MSG) as a flavor enhancer in increasing vegetable intake compared to sodium chloride (NaCl) alone combined with a digital culinary medicine education program.”

Results: “The 50/50 NaCl/MSG group showed a mean increase in vegetable intake from 1.46 to 1.55 cups/day, while the NaCl group showed a decrease from 1.33 to 0.95 cups/day.”

Conclusion: “Although the differences in vegetable intake were not statistically significant, the findings suggest that MSG could enhance vegetable palatability and intake, aligning with the principles of culinary medicine.”

Conflicts of Interest: “The authors declare a conflict of interest due to Ajinomoto’s involvement in the funding and design of this study. Ajinomoto is a company that manufactures and sells MSG products. Their contribution included financial support and assistance in the study design, which could be perceived as influencing the outcomes of the research.”

Funding: “This study was funded by the American Society for Nutrition and its Foundation, grant number 1195905, and the APC [article processing charge] was funded by Ajinomoto.
Health & Nutrition North America Inc.”

Comment: The idea here is that if you sprinkle MSG rather than salt (NaCl) on your vegetables, they will taste better and you will eat more of them.  The study produced a non-significant result but is given a positive spin (“MSG could enhance…”).  The shocker here is the funding.  The authors say Ajinomoto funded it, but the funding statement mentions the American Society for Nutrition, an organization of nutrition researchers and clinicians to which I belong.  I had no idea ASN was funding research, let alone industry-funded research.  I have long been concerned about ASN’s industry partnerships, which I believe compromise the ability of the organization to issue advice on nutrition.  This is an old issue, but one that it seems time to bring up again.

I haven’t done one of these in a while.  This one is especially timely with all the fuss going on about the supposed toxicity of seed oils, soy among them.  To be clear: I do not see convincing evidence for this contention.

Still, it makes soy producers want to demonstrate that eating soy poses no health problems.  Hence, this study.

Effect of Soy Isoflavones on Measures of Estrogenicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.  Gabrielle Viscardi, Songhee Back, Amna Ahmed, Shuting Yang, Sonia Blanco Mejia, Andreea Zurbau, Tauseef A Khan, Amanda Selk, Mark Messina, Cyril WC Kendall, David JA Jenkins, John L Sievenpiper, Laura Chiavaroli.  Advances in Nutrition, Volume 16, Issue 1, 2025, 100327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100327.

The abstract begins:

Despite recommendations to increase plant food consumption for public and planetary health and the role that soy foods can play in plant-predominant diets, controversies around the effects of soy foods, especially soy isoflavones, are a barrier to their intake. Given their cardioprotective effects and ability to alleviate menopausal symptoms, addressing these concerns is particularly relevant to women…This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to determine the effect of soy isoflavones on measures of estrogenicity in postmenopausal women.

Conclusion: “Current evidence suggests that soy isoflavones do not exhibit estrogenic effects compared with non-isoflavone controls on 4 measures of estrogenicity in postmenopausal women.”

Funding: “This work was supported by the United Soybean Board (the United States Department of Agriculture soy check-off program)….”

Conflicts of interest:  Oh dear.  It’s hard to know where to begin, as the lists go on and on and on.  One of the authors “is the Director of Nutrition Science and Research at the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, an organization that receives partial funding from the principal funder, the United Soybean Board (USB).”  Others report financial ties to Soy Foods Association of North America, the Soy Nutrition Institute, and the United Soybean Board.

Comment.  Some of the authors on this review appear highly conflicted.  What is especially troubling is their apparent mocking of the concept of conflicted interests and conflating of personal views (which all researchers have, but these vary) with financial ties (which are discretionary and almost invariably produce results favorable to the sponsor’s interests).   Authors on this paper report as conflicts such things as awards, funding from professional societies, unpaid work for professional societies, vegan dietary preferences, and activities of their spouses and children—none of which are in the same category as financial ties to industries with direct interests in research outcome.  I don’t think this kind of conflicted research helps the soybean cause.

This is an example of what the late and much missed Sheldon Krimsky called “the funding effect,” the strong tendency for industry-funded studies to produce results favorable to the commercial interests of the sponsor.

The study: Industry study sponsorship and conflicts of interest on the effect of unprocessed red meat on cardiovascular disease risk: a systematic review of clinical trials. Miguel López-Moreno, Ujué Fresán, Carlos Marchena-Giráldez, Gabriele Bertotti, Alberto Roldán-Ruiz.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.02.030.

The findings:  

• Of 44 studies of meat and cardiovascular risks, 66% had links to the meat industry.
• All independently funded studies reported unfavorable (73.3%) or neutral (26.7%) results.
• All studies with funding ties to the meat industry reported favorable (20.7%) or neutral (79.3 %) results.
• Studies with conflicts of interest were nearly 4 times more likely to report favorable/neutral outcomes.

Conclusion: 

• Studies funded by the meat industry “may underestimate the cardiovascular benefits of reducing red meat intake.”

Comment

This study confirms an enormous body of research on this topic: industry funding influences research outcome.  How?  Usually by influencing how the research question is framed or in how the results are interpreted (unfavorable results reported as neutral, for example).  I’ve seen criticisms of this study arguing that ideology (favoring plant-based diets, for example) also influences research outcome.  It does, but all investigators have belief systems that influence their work.  These can go in any direction.  That’s why research needs repeating by other investigators with other biases.  Financial ties are different; they invariably skew results in the same direction—toward the commercial interests of the sponsor.

I would not think the avocado industry would need to fund research on the benefits of avocados—surely the Superbowl takes care of sales—but its trade association is very busy.

The Hass Avocado Board has its own USDA-sponsored checkoff marketing program.

It also sponsors The Avocado Nutrition Center, where you can read all about the research studies it funds.

The avocado is well-loved but little-understood.

That’s why the Avocado Nutrition Center works to grow the world’s scientific understanding of the avocado.

Misinformation will fill the void if the pace of scientific knowledge does not match the pace of the avocado’s growing popularity.

I love avocados.  But really?

Apparently so.  Here are two recent examples.

I.  The Effect of Daily Avocado Intake on Food and Nutrient Displacement in a Free-Living Population with Abdominal Obesity. Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 10, 2024, 104451, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdnut.2024.104451.

Conclusion: Incorporating 1 avocado daily led to favorable modifications in the dietary composition of participants, including an increase in potassium and fiber intake, which can improve diet quality.

Sponsor: Hass Avocado Board.

II.  Avocado consumption during pregnancy linked to lower child food allergy risk: prospective KuBiCo study. Pediatr Res (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-025-03968-4.  Thanks to Charles Platkin for this one.

Conclusion: Avocado consumption during pregnancy was associated with lower odds of infant food allergies at 12 months, even when accounting for potential covariates.

Conflict of interest: Three of the authors work for the Avocado Nutrition Center, Hass Avocado Board.

Comment: These are standard examples of what the late Sheldon Krimsky called the “funding effect,” the strong tendency of industry-funded studies to produce favorable outcomes.   They raise the question: Would independent researchers do one-food studies like these if they were not funded by an interested party?

A Canadian reader, Michel Lucas, sent this one (merci).

The report: Benoît Lamarche, Arne Astrup, Robert H Eckel, Emma Feeney, Ian Givens, Ronald M Krauss, Philippe Legrand, Renata Micha, Marie-Caroline Michalski, Sabita Soedamah-Muthu, Qi Sun, Frans J Kok.  Regular-fat and low-fat dairy foods and cardiovascular diseases: perspectives for future dietary recommendations.  The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 121, Issue 5, 2025, Pages 956-964,  ISSN 0002-9165, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajcnut.2025.03.009.

The workshop: Saturated Fat in Dairy and Cardiovascular Diseases, Amsterdam, 15–16 April, 2024.

Findings: “The most recent evidence indicates that overall, consumption of milk, yogurt and cheese, irrespective of fat content, is neutrally associated with CVD risk. There is also no evidence yet from randomized controlled trials that consumption of regular-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese has different effects on a broad array of cardiometabolic risk factors when compared with consumption of low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese.”

Conclusion: “Thus, the body of evidence does not support differentiation between regular-fat and low-fat dairy foods in dietary guidelines for both adults and children.”

Implication: “Strategies focusing primarily on reduction of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, the main source of SFAs in Western diets, rather than on the fat content of dairy foods, are more likely to benefit the population’s cardiovascular health.”

Funding: The workshop “was supported by an unrestricted grant from the Dutch Dairy Association.”

Comment: Foods from animal sources—meat and dairy—are by far the main sources of saturated fatty acids in US diets (all food fats, no exceptions, are mixtures of saturated, unsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids; it’s just the proportions that differ).

Cows eat grass; grass has fatty acids but they are mostly unsaturated; bacteria in the cows’ rumens saturate the fatty acids.

Pretty much everyone agrees that when saturated fatty acids are substituted for unsaturated or polyunsaturated fatty acids, they raise blood cholesterol and the risk for heart disease.  The disagreements are over by how much and whether clinically meaningful.

The dairy industry would like everyone to believe that the saturated fatty acids in dairy foods are benign.  Hence this workshop.

Conflict of interest: The disclosure statement begins with “The Dutch Dairy Association had no role in the discussions held at the high-level closed workshop and did not participate or provide comments during the development and writing of this manuscript.”  It didn’t have to.

Here’s the rest of the statement (I’ve emphasized dairy connections):

AA is a member of the Journal’s Editorial Board and is also an Associate Editor on The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and played no role in the journal’s evaluation of the manuscript, reports a relationship with Rééducation Nutritionnelle et Psycho-Comportementale Scientific Committee and American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that includes board membership; and a relationship with Ferrero that includes funding grants. QS reports travel provided by Dutch Dairy Association. AA, RHE, IG, EF, RMK, PL, RM, M-CM, SS-M, and FJK reports financial support and travel provided by Dutch Dairy Association. BL reports writing assistance provided by Chill Pill Media Ltd and relationship with Health Canada that includes funding grants. EF reports a relationship with Food for Heath Ireland and Teagasc Food Research Ireland that includes funding grants; relationship with Irish section of the Nutrition Society and British Journal of Nutrition that includes board membership; relationship with National Dairy Council Ireland that includes consulting or advisory and travel reimbursement. IG reports a relationship with Global Dairy Platform, Dairy Australia, Barham Benevolent Foundation, UK Research and Innovation, Medical Research Council that includes funding grants; relationship with European Milk Federation, French National Interprofessional Centre for Dairy Economics, and Dairy Council Northern Ireland that includes speaking and lecture fees and travel reimbursement; relationship with ELSEVIER INC that includes consulting or advisory. RMK reports a relationship with Dairy Management Inc that includes funding grants. RM reports a relationship with National Institutes of Health and Gates Foundation that includes funding grants. M-CM reports a relationship with French Dairy Interbranch Organization, Sodiaal-Candia and Danone that includes funding grants; relationship with Sodiaal-Candia that includes consulting or advisory; relationship with International Milk Genomics Consortium that includes speaking and lecture fees and travel reimbursement; relationship with Danone Nutricia Research and French Dairy Interbranch Organization that includes travel reimbursement. SS-M reports a relationship with Dutch Dairy Association and Danish Dairy Research Foundation that includes funding grants.

 

 

My inbox was flooded last week with messages alerting me to this study.  Thanks to Matthew Kadey, Matthew Stasiewicz, Christopher Gardner, and others who preferred anonymity.

The study: Askow, Andrew T.; Barnes, Takeshi M.; Zupancic, Zan; Deutz, Max T.; Paulussen, Kevin J.M.; McKenna, Colleen F.; Salvador, Amadeo F.; Ulanov, Alexander V.; Paluska, Scott A.; Willard, Jared W.; Petruzzello, Steven J.; Burd, Nicholas A. Impact of Vegan Diets on Resistance Exercise-Mediated Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis in Healthy Young Males and Females: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise ():10.1249/MSS.0000000000003725, April 4, 2025. | DOI: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003725

Conclusions: “Our results demonstrated that the anabolic action of animal vs. vegan dietary patterns are similar. Moreover, there is no regulatory influence of distribution between the two dietary patterns on the stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in young adults.”

Conflict of Interest and Funding Source: “This study was funded by The Beef Checkoff…Beef Checkoff sponsor was only involved in financial support of the project, without involvement in design, data collection, and analysis, nor interpretation and dissemination of the report.”

Comment: The idea here was that meat protein would promote muscle synthesis better than vegetable protein, especially at relatively low levels of intake. Hence, the Beef Checkoff’s interest.  Not only did this sponsored study come to what must have been an unexpected conclusion, but the University of Illinois issued a press release announcing it:  Omnivorous? Vegan? Makes no difference to muscle building after weight training, study finds.  High marks to the researchers and to the university press office.  This is one instance where you can be sure the Beef Checkoff really did stay out of the study design and interpretation.  Exceptions that prove the rule do happen. Sometimes.  I wish they happened more often.