Brewing up a storm
Beer-makers accused of manipulating health study
THE company behind Aussie beers such as Victoria Bitter, 4 Pines and Carlton Draught has been caught out funding health research rigged to find beer good for the heart.
The US government last week shut down a $100 million health study, funded by international brewers, after it discovered the research was being manipulated.
One of the companies funding the research was AnheuserBusch InBev, which bought Australia’s Carlton Breweries in 2016.
The US National Institutes of Health investigated after allegations surfaced that scientists from its own National Institute of Alcohol Abuse courted the alcohol industry to provide $67 million in return for a study that would only publish positive results.
Investigators found dozens of email exchanges between researchers and alcohol executives United discussing the study.
In a damning memo, staff said “the study is not powered to identify negative health effects”. Researchers also vowed not to publish links between cancer and alcohol.
NIH director Francis Collins said the study had been manipulated to ensure a favourable result for sponsors.
“Many (NIH staff) who have seen the working group report were frankly shocked to see so many lines were crossed,” Dr Collins said.
The study was set to track 7800 participants over 10 years but only 105 had signed up when it was shut down last week.
The group of brewing sponsors also included Carlsberg Group, Diageo, Heineken and Pernod Ricard.
Despite no research having been undertaken, more than $11.8 million of those funds had already been spent. The investigation also uncovered emails showing lead scientists consulted alcohol executives about the terms of the study.
“As for the Carlsberg recommendations, I do like the idea of including Chinese and Danish sites, but I worry about Russia with past experience on access and data sharing,” one researcher wrote in 2014.
“Further, the Russian drinking norms are so different that it could pose problems.”
Investigators said sponsors should have had no role in shaping the study.
Another email shows scientists saying they would not publish negative results.
“The study outcomes are focused on whether or not there is a benefit,” one scientist wrote in April 2016. “The study is not powered to identify negative health effects.”
Other memos showed research staff pretending to go on holidays to meet alcohol executives without breaking the rules.