Doctor sees bias in soda studies

SAN FRANCISCO — Of the 60 scientific studies conducted since 2001 to determine whether drinking sugar-sweetened beverages contributes to obesity or diabetes, 26 of them found no link. All 26 of those had something in common: They were funded by the sugar-sweetened-beverage industry or conducted by people who have financial ties to the industry.

Of the 34 studies that did find a link between sugary drinks and developing diabetes or becoming obese, just one was funded by the beverage industry. The rest were conducted independently.

These are the findings of Dr. Dean Schillinger, a

professor of medicine and chief of the University of California at San Francisco division of general internal medicine, whose report will be published Tuesday in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Schillinger, a strong supporter of the soda taxes on the San Francisco ballot next week, called his findings “a smoking gun” in the longtime question of whether bias exists in industry-funded scientific studies.

“They’ve got the gun in their hand, it’s smoking and the patient is dead,” Schillinger said.

Paid expert for city

Schillinger was a paid expert for the city of San Francisco in a lawsuit defending an ordinance mandating health warnings on soda advertisements. The city paid him to write a report on what is known about the association between sugar-sweetened drinks and diabetes and obesity, and his new study stems from that work.

The American Beverage Association, which has so far has spent $21.3 million in San Francisco to defeat Proposition V, released a statement calling it ironic for Schillinger, the city’s paid expert, to charge the soda industry with bias.

“This paper is the latest in a trend of pro-tax forces writing speculative opinion papers to influence voters a week before a vote on several ballot initiatives to tax beverages,” the statement read.

The statement also said that the beverage industry has a right to engage in scientific research and that the research is sound.

'Highest standards'

“The research we fund adheres to the highest standards of integrity for scientific inquiry based on recognized standards by prominent research institutions,” the statement reads.

Schillinger’s study is just the latest to knock industry groups for trying to sway the outcomes of scientific studies.

In September, UCSF researchers revealed the sugar industry in the 1960s paid two Harvard scientists to conduct a literature review showing eating a low-fat diet, rather than a low-sugar diet, would reduce cholesterol and prevent heart disease.

Last year, an article in the New York Times reported that Coca-Cola was providing millions in funding to scientists who sought to downplay the link between sugary drinks and obesity

As a result of those reports, Coca-Cola, the world’s largest sugary drink producer, announced that it would pull back from its funding of health experts and obesity research as part of an effort to be more transparent.

For his study, Schillinger searched the PubMed database, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, to find all soda-related studies published in English-language journals from January 2001 to this July.

He excluded studies funded by competitors of the soda industry, including bottled water companies and the dairy industry.