But first, surely a revelation. Reading Marion's Food Policy in 2002, I started with my own journey to defend public health related to nutrition and in the years to come I had the great pleasure to meet her, both online and personal, and I appreciate the friendship and Counsel. I was also a little bit too obvious to know that I had a little bit of play to Marion's decision to write the inexhaustible truth, as he then says it was the report of the global energy balance network (in which I played a small role and where I refer to Ashley Truth) that caused her interest in writing. Therefore, there is a zero question that I am biased, personally and professionally, and I have no doubt that it will authorize me to disclose it before I look at her work, freely given to me by her publisher, who explores the many conflicts of interest between her food industry and nutrition professionals.
True Truth: How do food companies push the science of what we eat is Marion gets the way and why the food industry works with researchers and health professionals. It leads us to many different conflicts of interest excursions, from diet research as a whole, to sugar and candy, to meat and dairy,healthy food"Coca-Cola, Advisory Committees, American Society on Nutrition, Nutrition and Dietetic Societies.
In general, Marion sees the industry's response to criticizing her participation, following the playbook from the smoke that sees them:
"Think of science
Fund research to produce the desired results
Offer gifts and counseling
Use front groups
Promote personal responsibility
Use courts to challenge critical and adverse regulations "
And he complains about the fact that diet, unlike in medicine, does not seem to take serious conflicts of interest "
Decades ago, medical professionals recognized the distorted effects of drug companies' practices, said distortions and took action to address them. Medical journals required authors to reveal economic links with drug companies that could benefit from their study results. Medical schools banned drug companies from marketing students. In 201, Congress demanded from pharmaceutical companies to disclose payments to doctors. Nothing close to this level of concern, control or action is relevant to the efforts of food companies to involve nutritionists"
The goal of the food industry is self-evident and unpredictable. It's a profit. And there are many ways to invest in research and partnership to help with this. Referring to the work of Lisa Bero and her colleagues, she explains that when it comes to research, funding for the food industry can,
"focus on individual nutrients, ingredients or foods and not on interactions or general diets. They can compare the effects of individual foods by comparing diets that include diets lacking them. They can design tests without randomization, blindness or appropriate comparisons. They can focus on obvious or irrelevant results. And they can give a positive development to results that have no effect or do not publish unfavorable returns."
And then, with examples of each, it turns out to be anything other than the theoretical risks, including studies where, although the conclusions are valid, as for example in comparison with sucrose and when not consumed too much, the slightly larger quantity fructose in high fructose corn syrup are unlikely to make a big difference in health, they are designed to prove the deceptive conclusions that can rotate by their sponsors and are more appropriately classified as a marketing research from basic science.
Marion is also quick to note that,
"industry funding will not inevitably trigger a study, although it suggests that the research issue and interpretation require more than the usual level of control"
With regard to steering committees and dietetic organizations, the food industry is again represented in ways that require more than the usual level of control. In 2015, 10 of the 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Dietary Programs asked for their opinion or received subsidies from the food industry, while the food industry also provides direct sponsorship and support for other dietetic organizations' dietary and dietetic projects. And here the real question is "Why?", or maybe a little more special"is it really necessary?"For example, Marion reports her own papers noting that the cost of eliminating industry funding from their organization will cost only $ 17.17 per member per year.
Finally, Marion ends with some thoughts about what to do about this chaos and while covering various choices and initiatives, what he thinks best would be "a research program covered by a mandatory tax or levy"where all food and beverage companies with sales above a predetermined level will pay a fee in proportion to sales revenue which in turn will serve to fund research and food-related programs. such a system is "zero"and then encourages practitioners and health organizations at least to revise their policies and try to find some of these members and assurances, asking all of us to remain vigilant and to know that under no circumstances is self-evident enough.
Like all Marion's books, unacceptable truth is exciting and wherever you fall into the range of worries about food industry conflicts, it's worth reading.