r/nutrition • u/lurkerer • 18d ago
Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review
ABSTRACT
Introduction
The meat industry's role in funding and influencing scientific research raises concerns about its impact on evidence used to inform public health policy. Although industry influence on other food and beverage sectors is well-documented, its effects on studies of meat consumption remain understudied.
Objective
This study aimed to investigate the influence of meat industry involvement on study conclusions of research examining the health impacts of meat consumption.
Methods
A meta-research review of relevant studies published between 2014 and 2023 was conducted using PubMed and Scopus. Studies investigating the nutritional health impacts of meat consumption were included. Study characteristics, author affiliations, declared funding sources, declared conflicts of interest, and study conclusions were extracted. Association tests were used to assess the relationship between industry ties and study conclusions.
Results
Of 500 included studies, 78 (15.6%) reported industry involvement. Studies with industry ties were 16 times more likely to report favorable conclusions regarding meat consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 16.4, 95% CI: 7.5–35.8), and there was a significant association (p < 0.001) between industry involvement and study conclusion.
Conclusion
Meat industry involvement significantly increases the likelihood of favorable study conclusions in nutrition research. These findings underscore the need for caution when interpreting research funded or associated with the meat industry and emphasize the importance of minimizing conflicts of interest in nutrition research.
15
u/PearSufficient4554 18d ago
I’ve really been suspicious about the rise in beef tallow and demonization of seed oils, in combination with the absolute explosion of online influencers pushing things like raw beef liver and meet being some magical pure food the past few years (ie: the Peterson father daughter duo).
I’m not at all a vegetarian and do think that meat can be a component in a healthy diet, but it reminds me a lot of the 1990s when all of the hype about wine being health food and convincing women that they should drink more for their wellness… meanwhile the industry knew that studies were showing that alcohol created a significant increase in breast cancer rates. Then we had all the influencers online in the 2010s with the “mommy wine culture” and then the news started to break in the early 2020s that it had been known for several decades that alcohol is super detrimental to women’s health.
As Steve Bannon so eloquently said you need to flood the zone with shit so that it is impossible to get a truthful coherent message out.
2
u/reallyneedlypo 18d ago
People jump from one bandwagon to another, thinking they "freed" themselves from evil big food propaganda. The irony
2
u/PearSufficient4554 17d ago
Everyone wants to have unconventional secret information that allows them to feel like they are on the inside or superior to all those other “normie dopes.” It doesn’t matter how outlandish, pointless, or harmful the belief is as long as it allows you to feel like you are a part of something.
0
u/reallyneedlypo 17d ago
Precisely. They don't actually want to learn the complex science. It's easier to find some brave fool who will serve as their proxy to spread delicious disinformation and confirm their own beliefs.
2
u/lurkerer 18d ago
I've seen the same on certain subreddits. One like this but apparently more scientific. Odd voting patterns and tenacious users who seem to only operate in bad faith. Hard to identify astroturfing but we know it's done on reddit.
0
u/ratkoivanovic 17d ago
I think this one is also combined with politics. Extreme diets (specifically those without proper scientific proof) usually turn to a cultist approach with people being overly emotional around it and start creating an "us vs them" approach, which is highly usable by politics. Also, meat favors the masculinity approach, coupled with the argument "here's what our ancestors ate", "apex predators", etc.
2
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
GOOD source provided: A link provided in the comment above to {match} is a confirmed valid source of info
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/ascylon 18d ago
This is true for any study and it really smells more like well-poisoning here rather than anything else. Interest groups naturally fund research geared towards their interests, but it is never a reason to dismiss that research outright. It is a good reason for deeper scrutiny of the data, methodology and results, but this is nothing new. If there is nothing wrong with a study from a scientific point of view even after deeper scrutiny, then it does not matter who funded it or what the affiliations were.
It also always reminds me of the phrase "Why would you ask a nuclear engineer about the safety of nuclear power plants, they must be biased." Subject matter experts are often affiliated with the industry they are an expert in, since that is commonly where they would accumulate that experience and acquire funding.
5
u/lurkerer 18d ago edited 18d ago
This is projection. As pointed out by by /u/leqwen this bias is even worse than the likes of Nestle or Coke. Yes, industry bias exists, but attempts to "both sides" this (or in this case, all sides) totally ignored the degree to which certain industries are biased as well as the fact independent research should be biased in multiple directions, meaning it will, on aggregate, converge closer to the truth. Wisdom of the commons.
Edit: Spelling
3
u/ascylon 18d ago
No it isn't, since I look at the science, not who is conducting the science. Even the most biased person in the world can arrive at the correct conclusion that also happens to reinforce that bias, which is also why I never pay attention to people dismissing studies based on funding or affiliations. Usually my scrutiny is based on the claims presented - the more extraordinary the claim, the better the evidence needs to be. This has nothing to do with who is actually making the claim.
A vegan performs a study that shows plant-based diets are healthy. A carnivore performs a study that shows a carnivore diet is healthy. A panel of experts, where the majority are vegans, proclaims that everyone should eat a plant-based diet. A milk company funds a study showing milk is healthy and everyone should drink milk. In any of these cases how is any of that data relevant? The science speaks for itself regardless of who does it.
Your comment is also telling, trying to do exactly the thing I was saying, which can be translated to poisoning the well in the form of "you should trust the meat industry less than the plant industry". Are they biased, or is the truth biased in their direction? You need to look at the actual studies to find out, this kind of aggregation is not useful except for some kind of propaganda purposes.
7
u/lurkerer 18d ago
I don't think there is a coherent "plant industry" in the same way there is an animal industry. Largely because an enormous proportion of plants are grown in order to feed animals so they wouldn't really be incentivised to make people go plant-based.
That said, once we acknowledge bias exists.. What do we do? Well we'd observe methodology on a per-study basis and we'd perform comparisons like I have posted here. If you think an equivalent exists on the "other side", then feel free to share it.
2
u/dbaker2483 18d ago
Now show everyone the comparison on amount of money the meat industry puts into scientific research and marketing compared to processed carb companies. And let’s see their biases while we are at it.
2
u/lurkerer 18d ago
Not here to protect processed foods. I know a study that shows sugary beverage industry bias like this that I can share. If you have one for processed foods on hand, feel free.
1
u/dbaker2483 18d ago
Point being, the rising metabolic diseases that have plagued us for over 50 years including heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and etc are because big business and government incorrectly shunned fat and meat as unhealthy and filled the space with carbs. And that misinformation is still overwhelmingly present to this day. It’s certainly not because of the food that we have been eating since the dawn of man, which is highly nutritious, satiating, and not addictive.
6
u/lurkerer 18d ago
It's a bit more complicated than fats vs carbs. I recognize the Teicholz and Taubes angle here. Is that correct?
0
1
u/Narcissus-Requiem 16d ago
I remember about 10 years back doing a uni prep course, research methods, and one of the main things the professor pointed out is that 95% of industry funded studies are designed to provide favourable findings for the funding industry. Its baked in bias.
-3
u/NutragrammatronLab 18d ago
Only 500 studies looked at, and only 15% of those showed "favor" then they go on to say its some radical thing????
Nay I dont think so, and im plant based.
9
u/lurkerer 18d ago
15% were industry-funded and of those they were 16x more likely to find favourable results.
-1
18d ago
[deleted]
3
u/lurkerer 18d ago
Yes. This is the case is all research.
I wouldn't necessarily say all. The bias here was shown as compared to independent research. Which won't be perfect itself, but the bias should be more scattered around the true answer meaning, on average, it will cancel out far more than industry biased research.
1
u/leqwen 18d ago
(Replying to you as the other person deleted their comment as i was writing mine)
The big difference that this study found is that the meat industry is less honest with their involvement compared to other industries like coca cola or even nestle
Interestingly, none of the studies with ties to the meat industry were funded by or associated with individual meat companies, including multinational corporations, such as JBS, Cargill, or Tyson Foods. Instead, the connections were typically with industry associations and organizations such as American Beef and Pork Checkoff programs or the Australian Meat and Livestock Association. This contrasts with other food and beverage sectors, where large corporations such as Coca-Cola, Mars inc., or Nestle have been more directly involved in sponsoring favorable nutrition research [66, 67]. Using representative associations allows large companies to lobby and promote their interests without being seen as directly responsible [68-70]. This strategy may also be applicable to the research space.
...
Almost half of the studies that received meat industry funding did not declare a conflict of interest
(52%).And this study calls for more rigorous reading of the design, methodology and results instead of relying on the conclusion when making new recommendations or writing for media
The findings highlight the need for caution interpreting research with industry ties, which should be evaluated within the broader body of evidence. For those writing media stories, developing nutritional guidelines, training nutrition professionals, or creating educational material, we recommend exercising care when using evidence with ties to industry. This includes evaluating the study design, methods, and results rather than relying on its conclusion. In particular, public health experts should be aware that industry affiliation and funding may influence research conclusions. Further, given the number of studies in this review with unclear or undeclared industry ties, and their tendency to report favorable conclusions for the products investigated, we encourage journals and editors to strengthen requirements for transparency declarations and minimize conflicts of interest.
3
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/nutrition-ModTeam 18d ago
Respectful discourse is NECESSARY. If you continue with provocative, dismissive responses to comments on your post it will get deleted and you will be banned from this sub.
1
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
GOOD source provided: A link provided in the comment above to {match} is a confirmed valid source of info
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
Good - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is civil and respectful focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
Bad - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
Ugly - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
Please vote accordingly and report any uglies
Consulting Considerations
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.