Table of Contents
- Introduction
- The Hosts
- Timestamps
- Related Resources
- Premium Content
- Detailed Study Notes
- Transcript
Listen Here:
For a full list of apps, go here. Or simply search “Sigma Nutrition” in your app of choice.
Or listen directly on the Sigma website here.
Introduction
Nutrition science plays a pivotal role in shaping public health advice, but the influence of industry funding on research has become a pressing concern. In this episode we want to examine whether we can trust nutrition studies funded by food and beverage companies, and how you can discern study credibility.
The discussion is highly relevant in today’s landscape, where conflicts of interest and bias in research are under scrutiny amidst debates on sugar, processed foods, and diet recommendations. By exploring how industry sponsorship might skew results or interpretations, this episode speaks to broader issues of scientific trustworthiness and evidence-based policy in nutrition and public health.
In this episode, we take a look at some recent publications that showed how study results and reporting differed significantly depending on if industry had funded the study or not. We delve into how this happens. As most often it is not a case of data fabrication or corruption, but rather how bias leads to studies being designed and reported differently.
We walk through some examples, as well as highlighting some industry-funded studies that didn’t provide a “pro-industry” result and conclusion.
The hope is that the episode allows you to understand why this is a problem, how to spot it, and how to know if you can trust the results of an industry-funded study.
The Hosts
Dr. Alan Flanagan has a PhD in nutrition from the University of Surrey, where his doctoral research focused on circadian rhythms, feeding, and chrononutrition.
This work was based on human intervention trials. He also has a Masters in Nutritional Medicine from the same institution.
Dr. Flanagan is a regular co-host of Sigma Nutrition Radio. He also produces written content for Sigma Nutrition, as part of his role as Research Communication Officer.
Danny Lennon has a master’s degree (MSc.) in Nutritional Sciences from University College Cork, and he is the founder of Sigma Nutrition.
Danny is currently a member of the Advisory Board of the Sports Nutrition Association, the global regulatory body responsible for the standardisation of best practice in the sports nutrition profession.
Timestamps
- [00:36] Alan’s upcoming study
- [04:47] Discussion on industry funding in nutrition research
- [15:06] Case study: industry influence on red meat research
- [30:43] Case study: artificial sweeteners and industry influence
- [36:37] Case study: sugar industry’s role in research
- [38:06] Critical appraisal of industry-funded studies
- [51:58] Case study: when industry-funded study results can be trusted
- [01:01:51] Guidelines for assessing research quality
- [01:07:14] Key ideas segment (premium-only)
Related Resources
- Join the Sigma email newsletter for free
- Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium
- Enroll in the next cohort of our Applied Nutrition Literacy course
- Recommended episode: #472: Compared To What? – Understanding Food Substitution Analysis & Adjustment Models
- Studies mentioned:
- López-Moreno et al., Am J Clin Nutr. 2025 Jun;121(6):1246-1257
- Tobias, 2025 – You are what you don’t eat
- Mandrioli D, Kearns CE, Bero LA (2016) PLOS ONE 15(3): e0230469
- Schillinger et al., Ann Intern Med. 2016 Nov 1;165(12):895–897
- Schmidt et al., 2021 – The impact of diets rich in low-fat or\ full-fat dairy on glucose tolerance and its determinants: a randomized controlled trial
- Schmidt et al., 2021 – Impact of low-fat and full-fat dairy foods on fasting lipid profile and blood pressure: exploratory endpoints of a randomized controlled trial
Premium Content
Not a Premium subscriber? Subscribe here!
Comments
Hi Danny! Thank you for addressing this important topic. I appreciate your emphasis on the importance of study comparators and research design, but I’d like to respectfully challenge your characterization of the industry-funded red meat studies (and I don’t eat red meat, so I’m not trying to defend red meat here). You suggest these studies may underestimate the health impact of reducing red meat consumption, but I would argue they’re not underestimating anything – they are addressing a fundamentally different research question. Comparing red meat to other animal proteins and comparing it to plant-based alternatives are two separate and equally valid scientific inquiries, each with distinct implications for our understanding of nutrition and health.
I also disagree with your assertion that industry-funded studies deliberately selected comparators to yield favorable results. If researchers exclusively compared red meat to plant proteins, we would lose the ability to determine whether red meat poses unique health risks or whether the concerns extend to animal proteins more broadly. Given that most individuals reducing red meat consumption typically substitute it with other animal proteins rather than plant-based alternatives, understanding the comparative health effects between different animal protein sources is highly relevant.
Thank you, again! I appreciate your work!