Skip to main content

Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda: analysis of cohort studies examining the association between nutrition and obesity

  • Alice Fabbri (a1) (a2), Nicholas Chartres (a2) and Lisa A Bero (a2)

To categorize the research topics covered by a sample of cohort studies exploring the association between nutrition and obesity; to describe their funding sources; and to explore the association between funding sources and research topics.


Cross-sectional study.


Cohort studies retrieved from MEDLINE and PubMed published between 2010 and 2016.


One hundred and twenty-one studies were included. Funding source and conflicts of interest were disclosed in 95·0 and 90·1 % of the studies, respectively. Food industry sponsorship was disclosed in 8·3 % of the studies. Half of the studies analysed the consumption of a single food or food groups, 18·2 % included an analysis of dietary patterns and 17·4 % focused on specific nutrients. Highly processed foods were considered in 48·8 % of the studies and 27·3 % considered dietary behaviours (e.g. eating away from home). No statistically significant differences in research topics were observed between industry- and non-industry-funded studies.


Cohort studies focused on more complex exposures (e.g. food or dietary patterns) rather than single nutrients. No significant differences in the research agenda by funding sources were observed. The analysis was limited by the low proportion of studies with disclosed food industry sponsorship.

Corresponding author
* Corresponding author: Email
Hide All
1. Kearns, CE, Schmidt, L & Glantz, SA (2016) Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research a historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Intern Med 176, 16801685.
2. Bero, LA (2005) Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Rep 120, 200208.
3. Barnes, DE & Bero, LA (1996) Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: an analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the Center for Indoor Air Research. J Health Polit Policy Law 21, 515542.
4. Chartres, N, Fabbri, A & Bero, LA (2016) Association of industry sponsorship with outcomes of nutrition studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 176, 17691777.
5. Kearns, CE, Glantz, SA & Schmidt, LA (2015) Sugar industry influence on the scientific agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: a historical analysis of internal documents. PLOS Med 12, e1001798.
6. O’Connor, A (2015) Coca-Cola funds scientists who shift blame for obesity away from bad diets. The New York Times, 9 August. (accessed May 2017).
7. Fabbri, A, Chartres, N & Scrinis, G et al. (2017) Study sponsorship and the nutrition research agenda: analysis of randomized controlled trials included in systematic reviews of nutrition interventions to address obesity. Public Health Nutr 20, 13061313.
8. Scrinis, G (2013) Nutritionism. New York: Columbia University Press.
9. Brannon, PM, Taylor, CL & Coates, PM (2014) Use and applications of systematic reviews in public health nutrition. Annu Rev Nutr 34, 401419.
10. Maki, KC, Slavin, JL, Rains, TM et al. (2014) Limitations of observational evidence: implications for evidence-based dietary recommendations. Adv Nutr 5, 715.
11. Patro-Golab, B & Szajewska, H (2013) Strengths and weaknesses of observational nutritional studies. World Rev Nutr Diet 108, 1117.
12. Ortiz-Moncada, R, Gonzalez-Zapata, L, Ruiz-Cantero, MT et al. (2011) Priority issues, study designs and geographical distribution in nutrition journals. Nutr Hosp 26, 784791.
13. Australian Government, National Health and Research Council, Department of Health and Ageing (2013) Eat for Health. Australian Dietary Guidelines. Providing the scientific evidence for healthier Australian diets. (accessed April 2017).
14. Mann, CJ (2003) Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case–control studies. Emerg Med J 20, 5460.
15. Committee on Publication Ethics (2011) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. (accessed May 2017).
16. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2013) Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. (accessed May 2017).
17. Bosch, X, Pericas, JM, Hernandez, C et al. (2013) Financial, nonfinancial and editors’ conflicts of interest in high-impact biomedical journals. Eur J Clin Invest 43, 660667.
18. Monteiro, C (2011) The big issue is ultra-processing. There is no such thing as a healthy ultra-processed product. World Nutr 2, 333349.
19. Ruff, K (2015) Scientific journals and conflict of interest disclosure: what progress has been made? Environ Health 14, 45.
20. Dunn, AG, Coiera, E, Mandl, KD et al. (2016) Conflict of interest disclosure in biomedical research: a review of current practices, biases, and the role of public registries in improving transparency. Res Integr Peer Rev 1, 1.
21. Moodie, R, Stuckler, D, Monteiro, C et al. (2013) Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet 381, 670679.
22. Monteiro, CA, Levy, RB, Claro, RM et al. (2010) A new classification of foods based on the extent and purpose of their processing. Cad Saude Publica 26, 20392049.
23. Monteiro, CA, Cannon, G, Moubarac, JC et al. (2017) The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. Public Health Nutr (Epublication ahead of print version).
24. Ministry of Health of Brazil (2015) Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population. (accessed April 2017).
25. Jacobs, DR & Tapsell, LC (2013) Food synergy: the key to a healthy diet. Proc Nutr Soc 72, 200206.
26. Jacobs, DR & Steffen, LM (2003) Nutrients, foods, and dietary patterns as exposures in research: a framework for food synergy. Am J Clin Nutr 78, 3 Suppl., 508S513S.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Public Health Nutrition
  • ISSN: 1368-9800
  • EISSN: 1475-2727
  • URL: /core/journals/public-health-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Fabbri et al supplementary material
Fabbri et al supplementary material 1

 Word (13 KB)
13 KB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 12
Total number of PDF views: 92 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1161 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 30th August 2017 - 24th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.