Conflicts of Interest: The Nutrition Debate’s Red Herring
Sir Humphrey’s guide on how to discredit a report:
Stage four: Discredit the man who produced the report... Say that he's harbouring a grudge against the Government or, better still, that he used to be a consultant to a multi-national company.
In science, facts should matter—not personalities. But facts can be inconvenient. They require effort to understand and discuss. Dismissing inconvenient facts is far easier if you discredit the person presenting them.
This approach is especially popular in nutrition and food science, where everyone seems to consider themselves an expert. Disagreeing with public sentiment often leads to accusations of nefarious motives. For example the British Medical Journal, a respected scientific journal after all, dedicated two articles to alleged conflicts of interests among nutritionists, including me.
Were these conflicts as egregious as claimed? Hardly. For example, membership in a learned society like the American Society for Nutrition—a standard affiliation for academics—was spun into evidence of bias because these societies receive sponsorship from industry.
Weaponising Conflicts of Interest
The real objective of these exposés is often to silence dissenting voices. For instance, one BMJ article targeted scientists who questioned health claims about “ultra-processed foods”, even though their positions aligned with mainstream research. The article gave ammunition to activists, who called for scientists with “conflicts” to be excluded from public discourse entirely.
What’s missing from these debates is a serious discussion of whether scientific research and opinions should really only be judged based on a very narrow definition of conflict of interest. There’s a wealth of literature on this topic, and the reality is far more nuanced than the simplistic claims of bias. However, instead of trying to find a solution to accommodate various interests - for which there are some very good tools - the focus has shifted to whether individuals with any industry ties should even be allowed to share their opinions publicly.
Industry Funding: Facts Over Fear
Most academics are encouraged to work with industry. Universities, government funders, and policymakers actively promote such collaborations because they often lead to impactful, applied research. Contracts are signed with universities, not individuals, and these funds are used for staffing, equipment, or consumables (which are often ridiculously expensive, e.g., olive oil for £500 per litre).
The benefits for individual researchers are limited—perhaps career advancement or an invitation to a conference. Few academics can enjoy the kinds of lucrative speaking fees (£20,000+) that some anti-industry activists appear to be offered.
The reader can judge whether this fundamentally corrupts an academic’s opinion. From my experience, it rarely does. For more on how funding works in practice, I recommend reading this detailed blog post.
Conflicts Go Beyond Industry
Focusing exclusively on industry funding creates a dangerous bias. Other funding sources—such as NGOs and philanthropic organisations—can also exert influence, yet they often escape scrutiny and are generally seen as “benign”. Interestingly, the BMJ Investigations Unit receives philanthropic funding while maintaining editorial independence, but does not extent this trust to academics.
It is worrying that organisations such as WHO Europe actively suppress information about non-commercial funding: the report on Commercial Determinants of Health did not include any interest statements and the WHO press office refused to provide any further information (even though one of the authors has received substantial funding from a philanthropic organisation).
Other interests, such as self-promotion and activism, also play a role - surely, these are interests worth considering?
A Better Approach to Evidence
In my lectures, I teach students how to evaluate evidence. I always start with this principle: focus on the message, not the messenger.
To evaluate research:
Start with the facts.
Examine the methods and the data.
Only then consider the person presenting the evidence.
Conflicts of interest must be disclosed, but they should not be a shortcut to dismissing valid science. Focusing solely on the messenger risks silencing critical voices and distorting public understanding.
Spot on. It baffles me how many are quick to automatically dismiss studies that have even some private-sector funding, regardless of the methodology of the studies. It's rather ironic that someone would focus more on the funding of a study than on the methodology or results. That suggests a bias right from the start. Not very consistent with any "scientific method".