IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0243144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018

Author

Listed:
  • Gary Sacks
  • Devorah Riesenberg
  • Melissa Mialon
  • Sarah Dean
  • Adrian J Cameron

Abstract

Introduction: There is emerging evidence that food industry involvement in nutrition research may bias research findings and/or research agendas. However, the extent of food industry involvement in nutrition research has not been systematically explored. This study aimed to identify the extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed articles from a sample of leading nutrition-related journals, and to examine the extent to which findings from research involving the food industry support industry interests. Methods: All original research articles published in 2018 in the top 10 most-cited nutrition- and dietetics-related journals were analysed. We evaluated the proportion of articles that disclosed involvement from the food industry, including through author affiliations, funding sources, declarations of interest or other acknowledgments. Principal research findings from articles with food industry involvement, and a random sample of articles without food industry involvement, were categorised according to the extent to which they supported relevant food industry interests. Results: 196/1,461 (13.4%) articles reported food industry involvement. The extent of food industry involvement varied by journal, with The Journal of Nutrition (28.3%) having the highest and Paediatric Obesity (3.8%) having the lowest proportion of industry involvement. Processed food manufacturers were involved in the most articles (77/196, 39.3%). Of articles with food industry involvement, 55.6% reported findings favourable to relevant food industry interests, compared to 9.7% of articles without food industry involvement. Conclusion: Food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research in leading nutrition-related journals is commonplace. In line with previous literature, this study has shown that a greater proportion of peer-reviewed studies involving the food industry have results that favour relevant food industry interests than peer-reviewed studies without food industry involvement. Given the potential competing interests of the food industry, it is important to explore mechanisms that can safeguard the integrity and public relevance of nutrition research.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243144
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243144
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243144
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243144&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0243144?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Katherine E Smith & Gary Fooks & Jeff Collin & Heide Weishaar & Sema Mandal & Anna B Gilmore, 2010. "“Working the System”—British American Tobacco's Influence on the European Union Treaty and Its Implications for Policy: An Analysis of Internal Tobacco Industry Documents," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Selda Ulucanlar & Gary J Fooks & Anna B Gilmore, 2016. "The Policy Dystopia Model: An Interpretive Analysis of Tobacco Industry Political Activity," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Vartanian, L.R. & Schwartz, M.B. & Brownell, K.D., 2007. "Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: A systematic review and meta-analysis," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(4), pages 667-675.
    5. 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.
    6. Emily Savell & Anna B Gilmore & Gary Fooks, 2014. "How Does the Tobacco Industry Attempt to Influence Marketing Regulations? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, February.
    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. Susan L. Prescott & Alan C. Logan & Christopher R. D’Adamo & Kathleen F. Holton & Christopher A. Lowry & John Marks & Rob Moodie & Blake Poland, 2024. "Nutritional Criminology: Why the Emerging Research on Ultra-Processed Food Matters to Health and Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(2), pages 1-25, January.

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Tess Legg & Jenny Hatchard & Anna B Gilmore, 2021. "The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-24, June.
    4. Valente, Thomas W. & Pitts, Stephanie & Wipfli, Heather & Vega Yon, George G., 2019. "Network influences on policy implementation: Evidence from a global health treaty," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 188-197.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Jenny L Hatchard & Joao Quariguasi Frota Neto & Christos Vasilakis & Karen A Evans-Reeves, 2019. "Tweeting about public health policy: Social media response to the UK Government’s announcement of a Parliamentary vote on draft standardised packaging regulations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Patricia A McDaniel & Ruth E Malone, 2020. "Tobacco industry and public health responses to state and local efforts to end tobacco sales from 1969-2020," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-25, May.
    9. Qing Xu & Joshua Yang & Michael R. Haupt & Mingxiang Cai & Matthew C. Nali & Tim K. Mackey, 2021. "Digital Surveillance to Identify California Alternative and Emerging Tobacco Industry Policy Influence and Mobilization on Facebook," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-12, October.
    10. Barrios, John & Lancieri, Filippo Maria & Levy, Joshua & Singh, Shashank & Valletti, Tommaso M. & Zingales, Luigi, 2024. "The conflict-of-interest discount in the marketplace of ideas," Working Papers 348, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    11. Colantuoni, Francesca & Rojas, Christian, 2013. "Heterogeneous behavior, obesity and storability in soft drink consumption: A dynamic demand model," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 257244, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Bo Yang & Xin Huang & Qin Liu & Shenglan Tang & Mary Story & Yiwen Chen & Maigeng Zhou, 2020. "Child Nutrition Trends Over the Past Two Decades and Challenges for Achieving Nutrition SDGs and National Targets in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-12, February.
    13. Linda Hancock & Natalie Ralph & Florentine Petronella Martino, 2018. "Applying Corporate Political Activity (CPA) analysis to Australian gambling industry submissions against regulation of television sports betting advertising," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, October.
    14. Laura C. Leviton, 2008. "Children's Healthy Weight and the School Environment," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 615(1), pages 38-55, January.
    15. Vivek Pandey & Natalia Vidal & Rajat Panwar & Lubna Nafees, 2019. "Characterization of Sustainability Leaders and Laggards in the Global Food Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-14, September.
    16. Ivan Parise & Penelope Abbott & Steven Trankle, 2021. "Drivers to Obesity—A Study of the Association between Time Spent Commuting Daily and Obesity in the Nepean Blue Mountains Area," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, December.
    17. Piontak, Joy Rayanne & Russell, Michael A. & Danese, Andrea & Copeland, William E. & Hoyle, Rick H. & Odgers, Candice L., 2017. "Violence exposure and adolescents' same-day obesogenic behaviors: New findings and a replication," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 145-151.
    18. John C. Boik, 2016. "Optimality of Social Choice Systems: Complexity, Wisdom, and Wellbeing Centrality," Working Paper 0005, Principled Societies Project, revised Mar 2017.
    19. Alsukait, Reem & Wilde, Parke & Bleich, Sara N. & Singh, Gitanjali & Folta, Sara C., 2020. "Evaluating Saudi Arabia’s 50% carbonated drink excise tax: Changes in prices and volume sales," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0243144. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.