An Updated Framework for Industry Funding of Food and Nutrition Research: Managing Financial Conflicts and Scientific Integrity

The Evolution of Science and Regulation of Dietary Supplements: Past, Present, and Future

Dietary supplement use in the United States is widespread and increasing, especially among certain population groups, such as older Americans. The science surrounding dietary supplements has evolved substantially over the last few decades since their formal regulation in 1994. Much has been learned about the mechanisms of action of many dietary supplement ingredients, but the evidence on their health effects is still building. As is true of much nutrition research, there are many studies that point to health effects, but not all are at the level of scientific evidence (e.g., randomized controlled interventions), rigor, or quality needed for definitive statements of efficacy regarding clinical end points. New technologies and approaches are being applied to the science of dietary supplements, including nutrigenomics and microbiome analysis, data science, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning-all of which can elevate the science behind dietary supplements. Products can contain an array of bioactive compounds derived from foods as well as from medicinal plants, which creates enormous challenges in data collection and management. Clinical applications, particularly those aimed at providing personalized nutrition options for patients, have become more sophisticated as dietary supplements are incorporated increasingly into clinical practice and self-care. The goals of this article are to provide historical context for the regulation and science of dietary supplements, identify research resources, and suggest some future directions for science in this field.

Principles of engagement on research and other collaborations between the brewing sector and research entities: the FACT Principles

Public-private partnerships are subject to intense scrutiny. This is specifically the case for sensitive health-related topics such as alcohol consumption. The brewing sector and representatives of the scientific community therefore stressed the need for specific principles for the proper and transparent governance of research and other collaborations between the brewing sector and research entities. At a 1-day seminar, a group of scientists and representatives from the brewing and food sector reached a consensus for such principles. They adhere to the following four fundamental conditions: Freedom of research, Accessibility, Contextualisation and Transparency. The points of focus in the FACT principles are open science, meaning that the methods and results are made accessible and reusable, and relationships are clearly disclosed. Actions to be taken for dissemination and implementation of the FACT Principles are, for instance, publishing them on public websites, including them in formal research agreements, and citing them in scientific publications. Scientific journals and (research) societies are encouraged to support the FACT Principles. In conclusion, the FACT Principles provide a framework for increased transparency and control of funding-related bias in research and other collaborations between the brewing sector and research entities. Monitoring their use and evaluating their impact will help to further refine and enforce the FACT Principles in the future.

Reply to Consavage Stanley, K.; Kraak, V.I. Comment on "Lau et al. Trends in Beef Intake in the United States: Analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001-2018. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2475"

We thank the authors [...].

Perspective: Examining Conflicts of Interest for Professional Service within the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee

Judgments and integrity uphold professionalism. Failure to manage professional conflicts of interest (COIs) may undermine trust in an individual, practitioner, or institution. This perspective article examines standards for nutrition researchers and practitioners to manage COIs for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) process. Thereafter, this article analyzes a study published by Mialon et al. that raised concerns about the expert advisory committee selection process and management of COIs for 20 professionals appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the USDA, who served on a federal government advisory committee to review evidence for the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) 2020 scientific report. The analysis found that Mialon et al. enumerated COIs for each DGAC member with industry, removed from the original context, which prevented readers from assessing the COI risk. Moreover, the USDA ethics office concluded that "the 20 committee members were in full compliance with the federal ethics rules applicable to special government employees." I conclude that Mialon et al. could use institutional mechanisms to encourage the USDA and HHS to strengthen future COI policies and procedures, aligned with the 2022 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report recommendations to improve the DGA 2025 to 2030 process.

A Meta-Epidemiological Study of Positive Results in Clinical Nutrition Research: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Statistically Significant Findings

Positive (statistically significant) findings are easily produced in nutrition research when specific aspects of the research design and analysis are not accounted for. To address this issue, recently, a pledge was made to reform nutrition research and improve scientific trust on the science, encompass research transparency and achieve reproducibility. The aim of the present meta-epidemiological study was to evaluate the statistical significance status of research items published in three academic journals, all with a focus on clinical nutrition science and assessing certain methodological/transparency issues. All research items were published between the years 2015 and 2019. Study design, primary and secondary findings, sample size and age group, funding sources, positivist findings, the existence of a published research protocol and the adjustment of nutrients/dietary indexes to the energy intake (EI) of participants, were extracted for each study. Out of 2127 studies in total, those with positive findings consisted of the majority, in all three journals. Most studies had a published research protocol, however, this was mainly due to the randomized controlled trials and not to the evidence-synthesis studies. No differences were found in the distribution of positive findings according to the existence/inexistence of a published research protocol. In the pooled sample of studies, positive findings differed according to study design and more significant findings were reported by researchers failing to report any funding source. The majority of items published in the three journals (65.9%) failed to account for the EI of participants. The present results indicate that there is still room for the improvement of nutrition research in terms of design, analyses and reporting.