|
| My wife is on an email list from someone named Chris Kresser. She forwarded this to me:
"In a perfect world, scientists would objectively study the evidence and come to conclusions that are unfettered by corporate or other financial evidence.
Alas, that’s not the world we live in—at least in the case of nutrition science.
This is the subject of a recent editorial in JAMA called “Backlash Over Meat Dietary Recommendations Raises Questions About Corporate Ties to Nutrition Scientists.”
You may have heard of a series of five systematic reviews published in the Annals of Internal Medicine last fall, which found that the evidence linking red meat to any chronic disease (including cardiovascular disease) was too weak to recommend eating less of it.
This was like dropping a 50-kiloton bomb on the conventional medical and nutrition establishment.
Doctors and researchers in that camp were up in arms. In fact, a group called the True Health Initiative (THI)—a nonprofit founded by Dr. David Katz, with members like Dr. Walter Willett and Dr. Frank Hu—wrote letters to the Annalsstaff demanding the retraction of the study.
(To their credit, the Annals stuck to their guns. In an editorial that accompanied the review, the journal acknowledged that the finding “is sure to be controversial, but it is based on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date.”)
Another group that was created by vegan activist Dr. Neal Barnard, called the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), even went as far as petitioning the Federal Trade Commission “to correct false statements regarding consumption of red and processed meat released by the Annals of Internal Medicine.”
Nothing came of that, either.
Now we come to the heart of the matter.
The THI and PCRM claimed the findings of the Annals paper couldn’t be trusted because the lead author had conflicts of interest with the meat industry.
The lead author, Dr. Bradley Johnson, had received previous funding from a nonprofit called the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), which is primarily supported by the food and agricultural industry, and a grant from Texas A&M AgriLife Research.
What’s particularly ironic here is that members of both the THI and PCRM have extensive ties to industry, including the ILSI!
According to the JAMA editorial:
“Meanwhile, industry ties and other potential conflicts of interest seem to be common among THI council members and the organization itself.
Among the not-for-profit ‘partners’ listed on the THI website are #NoBeef, the Olive Wellness Institute, which describes itself as a ‘science repository on the nutrition, health, and wellness benefits of olives and olive products’; and the Plantrician Project, whose mission is ‘to educate, equip, and empower our physicians, healthcare practitioners and other health influencers with knowledge about the indisputable benefits of plant-based nutrition.’
Among THI’s for-profit partners are Wholesome Goodness, which sells ‘better-for-you foods’ such as chips, breakfast cereals, and granola bars ‘developed with guidance from renowned nutrition expert Dr. David Katz’; and Quorn, which sells meatless products made of mycoprotein, or fermented fungus made into dough.”
According to independent journalist Nina Teicholz, Dr. Katz was paid $3,500/hour as an expert witness to defend the super-high sugar content (36 percent more sugar than protein) of Chobani yogurt. He downplayed the harm that sugar causes and claimed that added refined sugars affect the body in the same way as fruit.
Dr. Katz also received $731,000 in grant money from Hershey Foods to study the effects of cocoa on vascular function and diabetes, and $153,000 from Kind Healthy Snacks (the company that makes Kind bars)—who, incidentally, were warned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about falsely claiming that their snacks are “healthy.”
If you’re scratching your head and wondering why Dr. Katz and other members of the THI believe that conflicts of interest should invalidate the Annals of Internal Medicine study, but not their own research … well, you’re not alone.
That’s exactly the question the author of this editorial in JAMA is posing.
And there is no defensible answer." | |
|
Science and nutrition
