An unexpected new study challenged decades of nutrition advice and gave consumers the green light to eat more red and processed meat. But the study didn’t disclose that the lead author has past ties to the global meat and food industry.
Dalhousie University’s Bradley Johnston said Saturday that he followed the disclosure rules of the Annals of Internal Medicine, which published the work. They require him to reveal outside funding received within three years.
Johnston indicated on a disclosure form that he did not have any conflicts of interest to report during the past three years.
RELATED STORY:
But as recently as December 2016, he was the senior author on a similar study that tried to discredit international health guidelines advising people to eat less sugar.
That study, which also appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, or ILSI, an industry trade group largely supported by agribusiness, food and pharmaceutical companies and whose members have included McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Cargill, one of the largest beef processors in North America.
The industry group, founded by a top Coca-Cola executive four decades ago, has long been accused by the World Health Organization and others of trying to undermine public health recommendations to advance the interests of its corporate members.
RELATED STORY:
In an interview, Johnston said his past relationship with ILSI had no influence on the current research on meat recommendations. He said he did not report his past relationship with ILSI because the disclosure form asked only about potential conflicts within the past three years. Although the ILSI-funded study publication falls within the three-year window, he said the money from ILSI arrived in 2015, and he was not required to report it for the meat study disclosure. Johnston told the New York Times:
“That money was from 2015 so it was outside of the three-year period for disclosing competing interests. I have no relationship with them whatsoever.”
The team of 14 scientists in the red meat study concluded evidence that links this food to cancer, heart disease and other bad health outcomes is weak. They wrote that if there is a health benefit to giving up meat products, it’s small.
RELATED STORY:
The journal article was examining previously reported data that a reduction of three red meat servings per week offered seven fewer cancer deaths per 1,000 people.
Critics of the findings say that while Johnston may have technically complied with the letter of the disclosure rules, he did not comply with the spirit of financial disclosure. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University who studies conflicts of interest in nutrition research, said:
“Journals require disclosure, and it is always better to disclose fully, if for no other reason than to stay out of trouble when the undisclosed conflicts are exposed. Behind the scenes, ILSI works diligently on behalf of the food industry; it is a classic front group. Even if ILSI had nothing to do with the meat papers — and there is no evidence of which I am aware that it did — the previous paper suggests that Johnston is making a career of tearing down conventional nutrition wisdom.”1
