Industry-Funded Food Studies: Trust, Bias, and Better Paths Forward
The Trust Problem with Industry Science
Industry-funded nutrition research faces a credibility crisis. Studies show that about 55% of industry-involved studies either concluded that a food product had health benefits or undermined evidence a product was harmful, compared to less than 10% of articles without industry involvement. The statistics are stark: industry-funded articles are 7.3% more likely to be positive results, revealing systematic bias.
How to Secure Government Funding
NIH Grant Process: Organizations must navigate the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts system, submit applications through grants.gov, and undergo rigorous peer review. The process typically takes 9-18 months from submission to award. For food innovation startups, SBIR/STTR programs offer non-dilutive funding: Phase I provides $50,000-$275,000 for proof-of-concept over 6-12 months, while Phase II offers $750,000-$1.8 million over 24 months for technology development.
For Early-Stage Companies: USDA SBIR/STTR programs specifically target agriculturally-related innovations. NSF’s America’s Seed Fund awards $200+ million annually to 400 startups across technology areas, requiring no equity and allowing full IP retention.
The Core Problem: Research Agenda Manipulation
The greatest issue isn’t outright fraud—it’s agenda setting. Industry influences what research questions are asked, how studies are designed, how conclusions interpret data and whether unfavorable findings ever get published. Analysis shows 66.7% of food industry-funded studies focused on interventions involving manipulations of nutrients rather than foods or dietary patterns, allowing companies to make narrow health claims while avoiding whole-diet questions.
Industry Examples and Their Impact
Coca-Cola’s Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN) exemplifies this problem. GEBN promoted the idea that weight loss can be achieved by taking more exercise while maintaining the same level of consumption, effectively shifting blame from sugary drinks to lack of exercise. Internal emails revealed Coca-Cola sought to obscure its relationship with researchers and use them to promote industry-friendly messaging. The group disbanded in 2015 after public exposure.
When Research Hasn’t Been Done Yet
Pre-Competitive Research Consortiums: Companies should form industry-wide consortiums with 15-20 partners from food processing, academia, and funding agencies. The Sustainable Food Lab demonstrates this model, bringing together stakeholders across entire food sectors to solve complex systemic issues. These consortiums focus on common platform technology challenges where all members benefit from shared R&D.
Academic-Industry Partnership Models: Follow the Lambert Toolkit framework used successfully in UK collaborations. Create agreements where industry provides funding but academic institutions control study design, data analysis, and publication decisions. The “one-to-many” model allows one research institute to bring together multiple companies around core capabilities for pre-competitive research.
Government-Led Examples Work Better
NIH’s Nutrition for Precision Health program will develop algorithms that predict individual responses to food and dietary patterns using 10,000 diverse participants. The new FDA-NIH Nutrition Regulatory Science Program commits to ensuring all research is fair, independent and free of conflicts of interest.
Best Path Forward for Innovation
Phase 1: Establish Scientific Foundation
Apply for SBIR/STTR Phase I grants ($50K-275K) to develop proof-of-concept
Partner with academic institutions through structured research agreements
Pre-register all study protocols publicly before beginning research
Phase 2: Scale Through Consortiums
Form pre-competitive research networks with 15-20 industry partners
Create governance structures preventing any single funder from controlling >25% of budget
Mandate open data sharing and transparent peer review processes
Phase 3: Regulatory Translation
Leverage FDA-NIH Nutrition Regulatory Science Program partnerships
Conduct Phase II SBIR studies ($750K-1.8M) for technology development
Build evidence base through multiple independent validation studies
Why This Matters
Nearly a third of completed industry-funded trials were never published, with industry-funded trials more than two times as likely to be unpublished. This publication bias distorts the scientific record and undermines public health.
The Balanced Reality
Industry funding isn’t inherently evil—it can accelerate innovation when properly managed. Studies with “combined” funding sources were generally higher in quality than studies with single-source funding. The solution isn’t eliminating industry involvement but creating robust frameworks that separate funding from influence, ensuring that commercial interests serve rather than subvert public health.
Written by Justine Reichman
