Ag Weekly Online: Twin Falls, Idaho

Industry-sponsored studies that report extraordinary health effects from ordinary beverages should be viewed with skepticism, a team of Harvard researchers warned after finding biases in research involving milk, juices and soft drinks.

In recent years, beverage-industry research has produced scientific papers suggesting that tomato juice can prevent cancer, milk can lower blood pressure and orange juice can bolster the immune system.

Writing in the journal Public Library of Science, Dr. David Ludwig and colleagues put popular drink studies on the hot seat to determine whether research was more likely to be financially advantageous to industry when corporate dollars supported the analysis. For years, favorable outcomes have occurred in drug studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, and they have raised red flags about ethics.

Medications are taken only by a segment of the population, Ludwig underscored, but everyone eats and drinks. He narrowed his focus to beverages because of the marketing impact beverages have on children.

“It’s widely recognized when drug companies sponsor research the results are likely to be favorable to the company. But this had never been studied with respect to nutrition,” said Ludwig, a director of the Optimal Weight for Life program at Children’s Hospital in Boston.

“Conflicts of interest could produce fundamental bias in the scientific literature, and this bias could have a pervasive impact on public health,” he said.

His team evaluated 111 beverage studies published between Jan. 1, 1999, and Dec. 31, 2003.

New York University nutritionist Marion Nestle applauded the analysis. “These kinds of studies are designed to be used in advertising,” Nestle, author of the book “What to Eat,” said Tuesday. “Their purpose is marketing. There’s no reason for a food company to sponsor research unless the information can be used in marketing.”

Ludwig said his aim was not to single out companies in his beverage research. But of the 22 studies entirely funded by an industry organization or company, three found unfavorable results for the beverage under study. By comparison, 38 percent of beverage studies conducted independently found negative results.

Industry organizations say their sponsorship of scientific studies is forthright. In a statement released by the American Beverage Association, Susan K. Neely, president and chief executive, said Ludwig failed to examine the merits of the science in the studies.

“This is yet another attack on industry by activists who demonstrate their own biases,” she said.

Brenda Beltram, spokeswoman for the American Dairy Association and Dairy Council, said, “With dairy, a lot of claims have been supported by the science.”

She added that the dairy industry usually sponsored research only after a positive connection between dairy consumption and a health effect was found. Sponsoring scientific research, she said, provided validation.

Distributed by the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service

Comments »

Comment on this story

Comments will be approved within 48 hours