The British Medical Journal recently published what we would have liked to see in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics for years — a point/counterpoint on food industry funding of public health research.

In support of accepting research grants from the food industry:

Paul Aveyard (professor of behavioral medicine, University of Oxford)

Derek Yach (executive director, Vitality Institute)

In disagreement with accepting research grants from the food industry:

Anna B. Gilmore (professor of public health, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies)

Simon Capewell (professor of public health and policy, University of Liverpool)

First, some highlights from the authors in favor of accepting food industry funding:

“Working with the food industry inevitably involves accepting its funding, in kind at least. Take the FLICC study,2 in which a supermarket searched its database to find regular consumers of processed food, often high in saturated fat and salt, and asked them to participate in the trial. The trial is testing an intervention to promote the motivation and capacity of shoppers to make better use of front-of-pack “traffic light” nutrient labels and uses loyalty card data to determine the nutritional profile of purchases. The retailer paid the costs of its staff’s time used for discussion with researchers and to collect and process loyalty card data. Would the study be better if the researchers had paid the supermarket for their time and information? We doubt anyone would seriously argue so, bearing in mind this would remove funding from other worthy research.”

“In some cases, the interests of the food industry align so strongly with those of health researchers that industry is willing to pay the entire costs of the study. Basic research on better ways to reduce salt, sugar, and fat; intervention research on the benefits of micronutrients to health; or research on the effect of discounting healthy food on dietary patterns are examples.”

“Examples of bad practice do not invalidate findings from appropriate collaborations. Providing safeguards are in place, no reasonable person should doubt the integrity of collaborative research.”

Now, some highlights from the authors who raise concerns about food industry funding of public health research:

“Corporations are legally required to maximise shareholder profits and therefore have to oppose public health policies that could threaten profits. Unequivocal, longstanding evidence shows that, to achieve this, diverse industries with products that can damage health have worked systematically to subvert the scientific process. The research they fund produces uniquely favourable outcomes. Internal documents show how they manipulate evidence in their favour, strategically communicate that evidence to influence public and political opinion, and ultimately minimise regulation and legal liability.”

“Extensive evidence shows that quality, peer reviewed studies where scientists control the data and are free to publish are vital to corporate strategies. Industry funds these studies, often by the top researchers in the top institutions, because it knows they are safe (that is, the results will not threaten industry interests), will divert attention to alternative risk factors, enhance industry reputation, and create a cadre of indebted experts.”

“Industry funding accounts for a surprisingly small proportion of total research funding, less than one tenth in the UK or US.”

“Change will not occur until public health researchers refuse to take money from the ultraprocessed food industry. It worked for tobacco; in the early 1990s all bar one UK medical school took tobacco industry funding. That is unthinkable today, and the change has underpinned progress in tobacco control.”

We also want to point out that even the two authors in favor of food industry funding point out the following:

“Our aims are not always allied. Many elements of the industry promote and sell food that undermines health. When faced with effective public health actions to curtail consumption of unhealthy products it sometimes fights against the cause of public health. Therefore not all cooperation is appropriate. For example, although industry’s views are critical to developing public policy, its presence when such policy is decided is inappropriate.”

Kudos to BMJ for furthering the dialogue on this issue. Unfortunately, any time this topic has been broached in AND’s journal, it has exclusively been from the perspective that is entirely in favor of industry funding, with minimal acknowledgment of the fact that differing viewpoints exist.