JAMA Op-Ed Calls for Activism Transparency in Food Research
In a JAMA Viewpoint article, researchers from Stanford University have argued that nutrition studies should be transparent about their authors’ financial and non-financial conflicts of interest, including their dietary preferences and activism work.
Noting that “the puritanical view that accepting funding from the food industry ipso facto automatically biases the results is outdated,” the authors briefly call for a financial disclosure registry before shifting to focus on non-financial conflicts of interest. “Advocacy and activism have become larger aspects of the work done by many nutrition researchers, and also should be viewed as conflicts of interest that need to be disclosed,” they assert.
“Therefore, it is important for nutrition researchers to disclose their advocacy or activist work as well as their dietary preferences if any are relevant to what is presented and discussed in their articles,” the researchers argue. “This is even more important for dietary preferences that are specific, circumscribed, and adhered to strongly. For example, readers should know if an author is strongly adherent to a vegan diet, the Atkins diet, a gluten-free diet, a high animal protein diet, specific brands of supplements, and so forth if these dietary choices are discussed in an article.”
“As a general rule, if an author’s living example could be reasonably expected to influence how some readers perceive an article, disclosure should be encouraged,” the article concludes. “Authors who have strong beliefs and make highly committed choices for diet or other behaviors should not hesitate to disclose them. Doing so may help everyone understand who is promoting what and why.”
