Bias in Nutrition Research (JAMA article)

[VLC.MD]

Disclosures in Nutrition Research: Why It Is Different
John P. A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc1; John F. Trepanowski, PhD 2,3
JAMA. Published online December 7, 2017. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.18571
December 7, 2017
…

Nutrition research is among the most contentious fields of science. Although the totality of an individual’s diet has important effects on health, most nutrients and foods individually have ambiguously tiny (or nonexistent) effects.1 Substantial reliance on observational data for which causal inference is notoriously difficult also limits the clarifying ability of nutrition science. When the data are not clear, opinions and conflicts of interest both financial and nonfinancial may influence research articles, editorials, guidelines, and laws.2 Therefore, disclosure policies are an important safeguard to help identify potential bias. In this Viewpoint, we contend that current norms for disclosure in nutrition science are inadequate and propose that greater transparency is needed, including a broader definition of what constitutes disclosure-worthy information.

…

… some lifestyle behaviors have substantially stronger (and concomitantly less contested) effects than consumption of most nutrients and foods. For example, smoking increases the risk of many cancers approximately 10- to 20-fold, but red meat intake may increase the risk of colorectal cancer 1.02-fold (or may have no effect), and intake of fruits or vegetables may decrease the risk of cancer 1.002-fold per serving (or may have no effect). Second, no other lifestyle behavior has the ubiquity of food consumption. Third, nutrition has widespread public interest so distortion of evidence (originating or echoed) in widely read books and popular media 7 has the potential to cause greater public harm. Fourth, extreme and committed behavioral stances that originate from family, culture, or religion are more common with diet.

More at …

source - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2666008

[Berengal]

we contend that current norms for disclosure in nutrition science are inadequate and propose that greater transparency is needed, including a broader definition of what constitutes disclosure-worthy information.

This is what I think is the most important part. I honestly don’t care too much about financial conflicts of interest compared to other conflicts of interest, because I think scientists and doctors would be able to get comparable compensation regardless of their opinion. If you can write a low-fat diet book you could also write a low-carb diet book, or some other book, and the fact that you’re going to be earning money doing that becomes irrelevant to your opinion. Nobody are paying scientists to change their opinion, they’re paying scientists to promote the opinion they already have and further the research in the direction they want. How they get to that opinion depends of course on the science, but also personal matters. If someone has based their career on promoting one theory they’re naturally going to oppose conflicting evidence. If someone’s moral worldview is that the correct way to live is a puritanical vegetarian lifestyle they’re going to be much more sceptical of science that doesn’t conform to that view than science that does.

When it comes to the politics of it, that’s when I feel money becomes much more important.