A nutrition researcher has come under fire for not disclosing his connection and funding from the beef industry after he published research in support of red meat consumption. The research had said that there was no evidence that proved red and processed meat was bad for people’s health.
Well established dietary research into health implications of red meats and other food products that contains saturated fats was challenged by a controversial researcher, known for going against well-established theories of healthy eating.
Nutrition researcher controversy
Bradley Johnston, an epidemiologist published his high profile review on Annals of Internal Medicine, a well established scientific journal. The research concluded that it was safe to continue eating red and processed meat, contrary to what nutritionists recommend. The research was highly criticized by nutritional experts, who called into question his research methodology and findings.
What Johnston didn’t reveal was that his research was funded by the beef industry, and he did not disclose the information when publishing his research. The nutrition researcher was outed by the Annals of Internal Medicine, the journal he had used to publish his findings.
The Annals of Internal Medicine established that the industry-linked money was offered as a grant to specifically study saturated and polyunsaturated fats. A total of $76,863 was given to him and his former employer, the Dalhousie University, to do a meta-analysis on saturated fats.
The grant money was offered by AgriLife Research, a research agency that received $2 million of funding from the beef industry in 2019. The research co-author Patrick Stover is also vice-chancellor and dean of AgriLife.
Funding controversy
The revelations raised questions on whether Johnston had an agenda when he published the research. People started questioning his partisanship with the beef industry, having written research that favored more consumption of products from the same companies that funded his research, and ignoring years of research from other scientists.
This was also not the first time that the nutrition researcher had angered the dietary experts. In 2016, he also did research on the intake of sugars and concluded that the current recommendations for people to reduce intake of sugars were based on weak scientific evidence.
The same scenario played out in 2016 when Johnston was found to have been funded by International Life Sciences Institute, a shadowy food industry trade group that represented groups such as Coca-Cola, and McDonald’s.
Featured image by Pixabay
