The sugar industry seems to have learned well from the tactics of the tobacco industry. If you want to head off regulation of your products despite evidence of links to ill health, muddy the waters by creating the impression that there is a scientific controversy where none exists.
This approach is highlighted by new US research suggesting the that casts doubt on the connection between sugary drinks, obesity and diabetes. .
Of 60 studies analysed, all 26 that failed to find a link between sugar-sweetened drinks and obesity or diabetes had connections to industry. In stark contrast, just one of the 34 that found a link was industry-backed.
Advertisement
This comes on the heels of other reports that bring the issue to light. In September, a paper in JAMA claimed that the sugar industry 鈥渟ponsored a research program in the 1960s and 1970s that successfully cast doubt about the hazards of sucrose while promoting fat as the dietary culprit in CHD [coronary heart disease]鈥�.
Earlier studies confirm the influence of industry funding on science and .
Wider concern
But it鈥檚 not just the sugar industry. There is an emerging and wide-ranging literature on the extent to which industry funding biases science in general 鈥� including in , considered the gold standard in medical research.
In the world of corporations whose products can have a negative impact on public health, managing science is simply one part of wider strategies to influence government policies that might hit profits. Manufacturing scientific controversy is, in other words, part of lobbying.
A soon-to-be-published book that I co-authored, (Oxford University Press), shows how science is viewed as a lobbying resource by the alcohol, tobacco and sugar industries.
For example, corporations go to great lengths to establish or fund seemingly independent 鈥渟cientific鈥� bodies to manage the way in which their products are regulated or debated. One reason they do so is to help them gain influence with scientists who might be appointed to government advisory positions or regulatory bodies.
Taking off the wrapper
As with lobbying in general, there is a pressing need for more transparency in relations between scientists and corporations. Although this is easy to agree in principle, it is not necessarily easy to enact.
Among the most advanced existing guidelines are those maintained by the , which contains admirably clear guidance on the disclosure and, crucially, management of conflicts of interest.
The difficulty with such policies and codes is that they tend to lack sufficient resources to ensure compliance or investigate breaches. In the case of scientific journals, recent failures to disclose relevant industry funding have come to light.
At government level, whether national or international, there is a general reluctance to adequately monitor conflicts of interest, and little appetite for managing them outside the system. That needs to change.
To avoid the manipulation of science and the manufacture of uncertainty over the public health harms of some products, we need better, more effective independent regulatory institutions with budgets big enough to monitor and enforce ethical norms and transparency.
Journal reference: Annals of Internal Medicine, DOI:
Declaration of interests: some of the research on which this article was based received funding from the European Commission as part of the
