Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving

Dr Folta and Dr Blair and the problem with industry funding

1 Comment


Photo: Coke de Plume by BFLV on flickr. Used under a Creative Commons Licence.

A couple of things happened in the scientific world in fairly short succession recently. I spent a lot of time waffling about whether or not I should write about them. Primarily because I don’t want to draw the ire of the pro-GMO community. I see a lot of rabid support for “science” on twitter and I fear being dismissed as anti-science. But this post isn’t about whether or not GMOs are great, or even whether or not they’re safe. It’s not about my opinions on genetic modification nor organic farming. “What is it about?” you ask. It’s about credibility and honesty in scientific research and dissemination of said research.

A few weeks ago the Internets got their collective panties in a twist because some scientists were revealed to have received money from Monsanto. In particular, one scientist received money to pay for his travel expenses in order to enable him to speak at events. Naturally, he was speaking in support of genetic modification, which aligns with Monsanto’s values. I’ve since seen his supporters claim that this information was freely available to anyone who was interested and that he had never failed to disclose his funding sources. I’ve also seen his detractors attribute quotes to him clearly stating that he did not receive money from Monsanto. I don’t know who to believe. It doesn’t really matter who I (or anyone) believes anyway. The important fact of the matter is that he received money from Monsanto to speak at conferences and events.

The following week the news broke that a number of scientists have been receiving funding from Coke (via a nonprofit organization) to support their research and other logistics. That research focusing on the import of exercise in weight management. Once again, the Internet was collectively outraged. Okay, I exaggerate. Nearly everyone I follow on twitter, and much of the mainstream media, were outraged. The researchers shrugged and said: what’s the problem, we’ve never hidden the fact that we received money from Coca Cola and that money had no influence on our research findings. Everyone rolled their eyes and said: um, bias, helllooo. 

Here we have two instances of scientific funding by organizations which have vested interests in the results. Here we have two groups of scientists saying that the funding doesn’t matter and that their findings would be the same no matter where the money was coming from. So, what’s the problem?

The problem is that by accepting financial support from organizations that have a vested interest in the results and the messages from theses scientists creates the perception of bias. Even if these scientists are completely impartial, and that’s being incredibly generous given the fact that the majority of industry funded research findings support the interests of the funders, it raises doubts about that impartiality. At worst, the scientists receiving the funding have a conflict of interest. At best, they have a perceived conflict of interest, and perception matters. It also makes for an uneven scientific playing field. If all of the players on one team are having their expenses covered by a benefactor then how can the other team hope to succeed. Even if they are better players, they can’t afford to go to out-of-town matches or find the time for extra practice.

If only the scientists with the pro-GMO message or the scientists with the pro-exercise message are given the platforms to share those messages how can we ever hope to find out the truth?

Author: Diana

I'm a registered dietitian from Nova Scotia, living and working in Ontario, Canada. My goal is to help people see food and nutrition from a different perspective and understand that nutrition and health are not necessarily a result of personal choice.

One thought on “Dr Folta and Dr Blair and the problem with industry funding

  1. The fact that Kevin Folta’s situation is on your radar speaks volumes to what is going on in internet circles. Kevin Folta received 25,000$ for expenses to do educational workshops. This is a small amount compared to his sizable research program which received no money from Monsanto. The 25,000$ did not pay any part of his salary or any honorarium to him. Contrast this with anti-gmo “educators”. Vandana Shiva gets a reported 40,000$ per speech. I assume that all goes directly to her as she also gets expenses. Charles Benbrook recently wrote an opinion piece for NEJM in which he stated he had no conflict of interest. His salary is paid by companies like Whole Foods, Stonyfield, Organic Valley and United Natural Foods. He received grants that paid his salary from organic food sector companies to research issues that are fundamental to their marketing strategy. http://gmopundit.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/conflicts-of-interest-denouement-at-new.html

    I am not sure anyone is totally unbiased, but I think it is time to be fair about slinging accusations about being biased. I think Mr Benbrook would have made a better example of the possibility of someone having a “vested interest in research results”. Our society is so quick to give anyone who is associated with pro gmo stance the shill label, while ignoring the financial ties of many in the anti-gmo movement. Why is Gary Ruskin’s organic organization USRTK not asking for FOIA info on Mr. Benbrook?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s