Misleading and biased: How credible is food and nutrition science research? 【foodaily】

"
comply with Cochrane Collaboration's standards for food fillers and external coatings.
,"
lead researcher
Daniele Mandrioli
said.
©
iStock/Bigredcurlyguythe international sweetener association
ISA
recently challenged the conclusions of a review. The review notes that industry-wide investment research into artificial sweeteners can disturb the entire flavoring industry, and that the study isfull of misleading and biased
"
.years, the sugar industry has been accused of trying to weaken the relationship between sugar and coronary heart disease. A week ago, the sugar industry dropped its case. Now, the sweetener industry finds itself in a similar situation.a review published in
Plos One
analyzed

studies of artificial sweeteners from
to

, 1978It was found that
,
of the scientists in the study did not have a conflict of interest, and that the study concluded that sweeteners were good for the food industry, and
,
scientists on the study declared a conflict of interest, and that the study also found that sweeteners were good for the food industry.team led by

Daniele Mandrioli
and
Cristin E Kearns
, from the Ramazzini
Society in Italy, who published a study on sugar in
JAMA
, believe that industry-sponsored research will be questioned to a great extent.focused sweetenersThe sweeteners involved in the study included potassium acetyl sulfonamide (
E950
), asparta sweetener (
E951
), and aspartose
-
Ansemi salt (
E962
), new sweet (
E961
), saccharin (
E954
), sucralose (
E955
).research is funded by the International Society for Life Sciences (
ILSI
), the Japanese Company of Flavors, and the International Sweeteners Association.is
is
statement challenging the study's conclusions, saying it is grossly biased and that systematic evaluation is limited. For example, only a small number of studies were selected, and doubts were expressed about the quality of the selected studies and the accuracy of the results."
review is based on studies with highly uneven samples, including quantitative summaries of data (using meta-analysis methods) and some studies that only conduct qualitative analysis.
” “
Two of the four industry-sponsored studies, which chose metaanalytical data processing methods, were completely biased based on the comparison of systematic evaluations between industry-supported and non-industry-supported studies.
”Dr daniele
that the study was wrong.
"
in our view, we follow high standards of systematic evaluation, including
PRISMA
guidelines, and we follow Cochrane Collaboration's standards for food fillers and external coatings.
” An imperfect system
Jack Winkler
, professor of nutrition policy at
Metropolitan
University in London, says the biased results from industry-sponsored research institutes are

completely credible

. "
there is no doubt that companies rely on research results, not just about fame, but also about how much money companies can make. So it's understandable that they want results that support the sale of their own products. Distort research design, select data that supports results, write biased explanations, and hide unsent results.
” Professor Jack Winkler
, he says the problems are well beyond the control of scientists in the industry. "
many research that is not industry sponsored is also tendentious. Professionals are not angels. What's more, some of them can rent it out to the company to help it get the research they want. Some scientists have a very firm and faithful belief in nutrients, which builds their scientific careers, then designs experiments to support them, and tarnishes studies that are contrary to their own. Others are opportunists who focus on hot issues and then draw conclusions about '
to gain attention, sponsorship, and even promotion. Objections can be a smart way to promote your career.
” Peer-reviewed journals have limitations, and experts judge other people's research, but there is no way to avoid personal bias. In addition, the magazine also focuses on published articles. Journals tend to publish strong, very positive results, and studies that are not well-documented can't find journals that can be published, even if their findings are very relevant. Winkler
that explaining the conclusions of nutrition and public health science to consumers has become a mine zone. Consumers often face headlines in the tabloids by

, as well as scientific discoveries of " published by scientists over and over again
"
means that we often see complaints from the public that
'
they will never be able to figure out their own way of thinking, so we can safely avoid the nutrition science
'
. When we do public opinion polls, trust in scientists has been declining.
” It is also becoming increasingly difficult for government departments and public bodies to come up with national dietary recommendations, which has led to a number of different dietary guidelines in a country. The source of this
is
Food Network, if reproduced please indicate the source, violators must be investigated.