Authors' financial relationships with the food and beverage industry and their published positions on the fat substitute olestra.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

This study examined the association between authors' published positions on the safety and efficacy in assisting with weight loss of the Procter & Gamble (P&G) fat substitute olestra and their financial relationships with the food and beverage industry.

METHODS:

Journal articles about olestra, and their authors, were classified as supportive, critical, or neutral with respect to its use. Authors not known to have industry affiliations were surveyed about their financial relationships.

RESULTS:

Supportive authors were significantly more likely than critical or neutral authors to have financial relationships with P&G (80% vs 11% and 21%, respectively; P <.0001). All authors disclosing an affiliation with P&G were supportive.

CONCLUSIONS:

Because authors' published opinions were associated with their financial relationships, obtaining noncommercial funding may be more essential to maintaining objectivity than disclosing personal financial interests.

• Authors: Jane Levine, Joan Dye Gussow, Diane Hastings, Amy Eccher
• Journal: American journal of public health (Am J Public Health) Vol. 93 Issue 4 Pg. 664-9 (Apr 2003) ISSN: 0090-0036 [Print] United States
• PMID: 12660215 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)

Chemical References

• Fat Substitutes
• Fatty Acids
• Sucrose
• sucrose polyester

Topics

• Bibliometrics
• Conflict of Interest
• Disclosure
• Fat Substitutes (adverse effects, classification)
• Fatty Acids (adverse effects, classification)
• Financial Support (ethics)
• Food Industry (economics)
• Humans
• Marketing
• Nutritional Physiological Phenomena
• Research Support as Topic
• Risk Assessment (ethics)
• Scientific Misconduct
• Sucrose (adverse effects, analogs & derivatives, classification)
• Surveys and Questionnaires
• United States