IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i5p1624-d327716.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Food Industry Donations to Academic Programs: A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Extent of Publicly Available Data

Author

Listed:
  • Marie A. Bragg

    (Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA
    Department of Nutrition, New York University School of Global Public Health, New York, NY 10012, USA)

  • Brian Elbel

    (Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA
    New York University Wagner School of Public Policy, New York, NY 10021, USA)

  • Marion Nestle

    (Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, New York University Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, New York, NY 10003, USA)

Abstract

No studies have documented the prevalence of the food industry’s funding of academic programs, which is problematic because such funding can create conflicts of interest in research and clinical practice. We aimed to quantify the publicly available information on the food industry’s donations to academic programs by documenting the amount of donations given over time, categorizing the types of academic programs that receive food industry donations, cataloguing the source of the donation information, and identifying any stated reasons for donations. Researchers cataloged online data from publicly available sources (e.g., official press releases, news articles, tax documents) on the food industry’s donations to academic programs from 2000 to 2016. Companies included 26 food and beverage corporations from the 2016 Fortune 500 list in the United States. Researchers recorded the: (1) monetary value of the donations; (2) years the donations were distributed; (3) the name and type of recipient; (4) source of donation information; and (5) reasons for donations. Adjusting for inflation, we identified $366 million in food industry donations (N = 3274) to academic programs. Universities received 45.2% ( n = 1480) of donations but accounted for 67.9% of total dollars given in the sample. Community colleges, schools (i.e., preschool, elementary, middle, and high schools), and academic nonprofits, institutes, foundations, and research hospitals collectively received 54.8% of the donations, but made up less than one-third of the monetary value of donations. Half of the donations (49.0%) did not include a stated reason for the donation. In our sample, donations grew from $3 million in 2000 to $24 million in 2016. Food companies in our sample donated millions of dollars to universities and other academic programs but disclosed little information on the purpose of the donations. Achieving transparency in donation practices may only be possible if federal policies begin to require disclosures or if companies voluntarily disclose information.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie A. Bragg & Brian Elbel & Marion Nestle, 2020. "Food Industry Donations to Academic Programs: A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Extent of Publicly Available Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:5:p:1624-:d:327716
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1624/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/5/1624/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shelley, D. & Ogedegbe, G. & Elbel, B., 2014. "Same strategy different industry: Corporate influence on public policy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 104(4), pages 9-11.
    2. World Health Organization, 2009. "Tobacco Industry Interference with Tobacco Control," University of California at San Francisco, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education qt98w687x5, Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, UC San Francisco.
    3. Farrelly, M.C. & Davis, K.C. & Haviland, M.L. & Messeri, P. & Healton, C.G., 2005. "Evidence of a dose-response relationship between "truth" antismoking ads and youth smoking prevalence," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(3), pages 425-431.
    4. Diels, Johan & Cunha, Mario & Manaia, Célia & Sabugosa-Madeira, Bernardo & Silva, Margarida, 2011. "Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 197-203, April.
    5. Maira Bes-Rastrollo & Matthias B Schulze & Miguel Ruiz-Canela & Miguel A Martinez-Gonzalez, 2013. "Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Alexander Chernev & Sean Blair, 2015. "Doing Well by Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(6), pages 1412-1425.
    7. Lenard I Lesser & Cara B Ebbeling & Merrill Goozner & David Wypij & David S Ludwig, 2007. "Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(1), pages 1-6, January.
    8. Daniele Mandrioli & Cristin E Kearns & Lisa A Bero, 2016. "Relationship between Research Outcomes and Risk of Bias, Study Sponsorship, and Author Financial Conflicts of Interest in Reviews of the Effects of Artificially Sweetened Beverages on Weight Outcomes:," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alysa Miller & Omni Cassidy & Tenay Greene & Josh Arshonsky & Stephanie L. Albert & Marie A. Bragg, 2021. "A Qualitative Analysis of Black and White Adolescents’ Perceptions of and Responses to Racially Targeted Food and Drink Commercials on Television," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-15, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Béné, Christophe, 2022. "Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen – A deep-dive into our food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    2. Scott, C. & Hawkins, B. & Knai, C., 2017. "Food and beverage product reformulation as a corporate political strategy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 37-45.
    3. Gary Sacks & Devorah Riesenberg & Melissa Mialon & Sarah Dean & Adrian J Cameron, 2020. "The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Campbell, Norah & Mialon, Melissa & Reilly, Kathryn & Browne, Sarah & Finucane, Francis M., 2020. "How are frames generated? Insights from the industry lobby against the sugar tax in Ireland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    5. Golder, Su & McCambridge, Jim, 2021. "Alcohol, cardiovascular disease and industry funding: A co-authorship network analysis of systematic reviews," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    6. Thomas Guillemaud & Eric Lombaert & Denis Bourguet, 2016. "Conflicts of Interest in GM Bt Crop Efficacy and Durability Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Chris Hydock & Neeru Paharia & T. J. Weber, 2019. "The Consumer Response to Corporate Political Advocacy: a Review and Future Directions," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 6(3), pages 76-83, December.
    8. Carter, Kealy & Jayachandran, Satish & Murdock, Mitchel R., 2021. "Building A Sustainable Shelf: The Role of Firm Sustainability Reputation," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 97(4), pages 507-522.
    9. Ariana Chang & Tian‐Shyug Lee & Hsiu‐Mei Lee, 2024. "Applying sustainable development goals in financial forecasting using machine learning techniques," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 2277-2289, May.
    10. David Silvera & FRANK R. KARDES & BRUCE E. PFEIFFER & ASHLEY R. ARSENA & R. JUSTIN GOSS, 2013. "Getting consumers to generate their own ad content: The impact of imagine instructions on persuasion," Working Papers 0202mkt, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    11. Jun Hyun Hwang & Dong-Hee Ryu & Soon-Woo Park, 2020. "Influence of School-Based Smoking Prevention Education on Reducing Gap in Exposure to Anti-Tobacco Media Message among Korean Adolescents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-10, November.
    12. Yusen Dong & Senhua Chen & Yixue Wu, 2023. "Keeping up with the Joneses: The role of investee peers corporate environmental responsibility," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 1841-1855, July.
    13. Saeed Janani & Ranjit M. Christopher & Atanas Nik Nikolov & Michael A. Wiles, 2022. "Marketing experience of CEOs and corporate social performance," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 460-481, May.
    14. John C. Boik, 2016. "Optimality of Social Choice Systems: Complexity, Wisdom, and Wellbeing Centrality," Working Paper 0005, Principled Societies Project, revised Mar 2017.
    15. Alhouti, Sarah & Wright, Scott A. & Baker, Thomas L., 2021. "Customers need to relate: The conditional warm glow effect of CSR on negative customer experiences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 240-253.
    16. Rabl, Vincent A. & Basso, Frédéric, 2021. "When bad becomes worse: unethical corporate behavior may hamper consumer acceptance of cultured meat," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 110789, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Daniel M Cook & Elizabeth A Boyd & Claudia Grossmann & Lisa A Bero, 2007. "Reporting Science and Conflicts of Interest in the Lay Press," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(12), pages 1-5, December.
    18. Anat Toder‐Alon & Eyal Rosenstreich & Tali Te'eni Harari, 2019. "Give or take? Consumers' ambivalent perspectives on the relationship between a firm's corporate social responsibility engagement and its responsible tax payments," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 872-884, July.
    19. Morvinski, Coby & Shani, Yaniv, 2022. "Misaligned mindsets between borrowers and lenders of small interpersonal loans," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    20. Jean-Pierre Thomassen & Marijke C. Leliveld & Kees Ahaus & Steven Walle, 2020. "Prosocial Compensation Following a Service Failure: Fulfilling an Organization’s Ethical and Philanthropic Responsibilities," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 123-147, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:5:p:1624-:d:327716. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.