|
An analysis of 60 studies found 26 out of 26 papers that failed to
find a link between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity or
diabetes were funded by industry sources, compared to one
industry-funded study out of the 34 that did find a connection.
Regulations, taxes and nutrition guidance hinge on whether these
drinks cause health problems, but opponents of those initiatives
continue to question whether the drinks are to blame, the study team
writes in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
"If it were truly controversial, you would expect some of the
independently funded studies would not find associations," said Dr.
Dean Schillinger, lead author of the analysis, from the University
of California, San Francisco.
For their analysis, the researchers looked for studies published
from January 2001 through July 2016 that tested the health effects
of sugar-sweetened beverages. Studies sponsored by competing
industries like dairy and bottled water were excluded from the
analysis.
Twenty six studies failed to find links between the drinks and
obesity or diabetes, and all of them were industry-funded. Another
34 studies did find associations between the drinks and those health
outcomes, but just one was industry-funded.
"This industry seems to be manipulating contemporary scientific
processes to create controversy and advance their business interests
at the expense of the public's health," the researchers write.
The American Beverage Association (ABA), which represents the
non-alcoholic beverage industry in the U.S., argued in a statement
to Reuters Health that Schillinger is biased. He is a paid expert
for the City of San Francisco in a suit challenging a law that would
require a warning label be placed on advertisements for
sugar-sweetened beverages.
Schillinger told Reuters Health that he would not be serving as an
expert in the suit if the ABA and other organizations did not
challenge the law. "I can thank them for being paid," he said.
The ABA statement continued that the industry has the right and
responsibility to engage in scientific research.
"The research we fund adheres to the highest standards of integrity
for scientific inquiry based on recognized standards by prominent
research institutions," the statement reads. "It contributes to the
body of scientific knowledge, meets the needs of regulatory agencies
and enables consumers to make informed decisions."
The ABA also argued that the new analysis is an opinion piece meant
to influence people in areas near San Francisco and Boulder,
Colorado, where soda taxes will be up for a vote next week.
[to top of second column] |
"I don’t care if there is a tax or not a tax," Schillinger said. "I
don’t benefit from that, but what I care about is that all my
patients in clinic today had diabetes."
The results of the new analysis confirm what previous research
found, said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard Professor of
Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University in
New York City.
"Big surprise, they found what everybody else has found," said
Nestle, who is also the author of Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda
(and Winning). She wasn't involved in the new analysis.
Nestle told Reuters Health that research from other industries shows
the act of giving a gift can influence researchers and doctors. The
influence may not even be noticed by the recipient.
Schillinger's team writes that there may be many sources of bias in
industry-funded studies, including how studies are designed and what
other health and lifestyle factors researchers choose to consider
when assessing the effects of sweetened drinks.
Schillinger said they don't know if bias in the included studies
would be easy to find or impossible.
"I suspect - based on my preliminary review - that there were
particular designs that were selected," he said.
For the public, he said it's important to know the source of the
message and who paid the messenger.
"If an industry is paying for it or a food company is paying for it,
it’s reason for skepticism," Nestle said. Hopefully those results
will be replicated by someone without a vested interest, she said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/2efWIam Annals of Internal Medicine, online
October 31, 2016.
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
