Weekend Argus (Saturday Edition)
Science versus profits
What can we believe about food choices?
CONFUSED about what to eat and drink to protect your health? I’m not surprised.
For example, after decades of research-supported dietary advice to reduce saturated fats to minimise the risk of heart disease and stroke, along comes a new observational study of 136 384 people in 21 countries linking consumption of full-fat (read saturated) dairy foods to a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease.
But without dissecting each study included in this meta-analysis, it is not possible to say what might be behind this surprising result and whether you should now resume putting cream in your coffee and whole milk in your cereal bowl.
The study may simply mean that consuming the equivalent of three servings of dairy products a day is healthful, not saturated fat per se.
Caution is in order, especially since another new study, this one a randomly assigned clinical trial, found that three weeks on a diet rich in saturated fat caused liver fat and insulin resistance to rise far higher than diets high in sugar or unsaturated fat.
Or maybe you bought into the hype about pomegranate juice as an antioxidant superfood, only to learn from an illuminating new book that the health-promoting evidence for this expensive fruit drink derives mainly from $20 million (R146m) of company-sponsored research.
In the book, Unsavory Truth:
How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat, Marion Nestle, emeritus professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, points out that “pomegranates might have high antioxidant activity”, then asks “compared to what?” Are they more healthful than (much cheaper) grapes?
Here’s how the company POM Wonderful responded to Nestle’s challenge: “Comparing the health benefits of our product to other juices is not a key objective of our extensive research programme.” To which I would ask, “If you’re selling ‘health’, why wouldn’t it be?”
The answer, as Nestle’s extensive research shows, is that the unstated goal of most company-sponsored studies is to increase the bottom line.
“It’s marketing research, not science,” she said in an interview. It matters not whether the food in question is considered healthy, like wild blueberries and avocados, or if it’s laden with health-robbing calories from fats, sugars and refined starches.
Noting that nutrition research, especially that funded by industry, “requires careful interpretation”, she suggests an approach that all consumers would be wise to follow: “Whenever I see studies claiming benefits for a single food, I want to know three things: whether the results are biologically plausible; whether the study controlled for other dietary, behavioural or lifestyle factors that could have influenced its result; and who sponsored it.”
Consider the studies sponsored by the soft-drink industry, in which Coca-Cola has led an effort to undermine the contribution of sugar-laden carbonated water to the US’s obesity epidemic. For example, the company funded a study of childhood obesity that, without looking for a possible link between overweight and sugary soft drinks, concluded that low physical activity, inadequate sleep and lots of television watching were most important.
To make such conclusions appear valid, Coca-Cola enlisted the participation of university-based scientists all of whom stood, directly or indirectly, to profit financially from their association with the research.
The “who sponsored it” issue forms the crux of Nestle’s book. It is a critically important question to ask, not just with regard to foods, but also for drugs, supplements, exercise regimens, skin creams, mattresses and any other product or service that may – or may not – impact the health of consumers.
Consumers who are not scientifically savvy can be easily misled by the findings of studies, especially when they emanate from a prestigious institution or professional association. Nestle says such organisations need to pay closer attention to both blatant and potential conflicts of interest lest they be caught touting sloppy science.