“In the largest study of its kind, researchers evaluated the impact of consuming an avocado a day for six months (…). “Daily consumption of avocado reduced cholesterol and improved diet quality.” This is how the press release sent by an association to the magazine begins Today’s Dietitian. Some statements that seemed to be hopeful for the health of the population. But it’s not gold everything that reduces.
We in the media rub our hands when a new study emerges that releases relevant conclusions for society, especially if they have to do with improving health thanks to some almost magical remedy. But after a very striking headline the small print is usually hiddenwhich in food research has a dangerous protagonist, the industry, the lobbies and large companies.
The most obvious example that illustrates this problem comes from the hand of Avocado Nutrition Centerwhich is part of the association Hass Avocado Board. The HAB is defined as “the only avocado organization that equips the entire global industry for success, gathering, concentrating and distributing investments to maintain and expand demand for avocados in the United States.” Despite promoting research and disseminating information about the benefits of consuming this fruit, its commercial interests They are obvious. Like those of any company.
And since the objective of a company will always be to act in pursuit of its profits, it is advisable to analyze carefully skepticism any message or statement they cheerfully throw out to the public or share with the media.
Why we should question studies with conflicts of interest
Any scientific study or paper academic, let’s say, serious, published in a specialized journal must indicate the authors of the same, the possible conflicts of interest declared by them, and also who financespromotes or collaborates in the preparation of said study.
If the headline that echoes the conclusions of some work seems too striking, encouraging or revolutionary, there will almost certainly be reasons to dude. Not only because the media often ignores the warnings or limitations of the results that researchers often include, but also because these studies can be directed from the beginning towards a concrete conclusion.
There are plenty of examples, such as those who shamelessly spread the supposed benefits of drinking beer or wine or the alleged healthy properties of foods such as torreznos or fruit juices. Behind these jobs, almost always, there are companies or associations that only give attention to the data that interests you. Logically, they will never voluntarily disseminate negative conclusions for what they sell.
How avocado turned the tables
And we come to a very curious recent case because it presents a situation different from the usual one. He echoed it Marion Nestlebiochemist and one of the most internationally recognized experts on food policy and nutrition and author of numerous very influential publications on these subjects.
Every day, Nestle receives studies and publications sent to it from all over the world related to food and nutritional research, rarely with positive conclusions. Thus, recently he shared in Food Politics the peculiar case of the avocado that we have already mentioned, since was out of the normand not for the better.
The expert delves into the study, leaving aside the results published by the avocado association, to analyze the methodology, the authors, their exact conclusions and who is behind the financing of the same.
Published as Effect of Incorporating 1 Avocado Per Day Versus Habitual Diet on Visceral Adiposity: A Randomized Trial (“Effect of incorporating one avocado a day compared to the usual diet on visceral adiposity: a randomized trial”), conclusions of its authors are clear:
“In conclusion, in this multicenter parallel randomized controlled trial, the addition of one avocado per day to the usual diet for six months in individuals with visceral adiposity did not reduce abdominal visceral tissue and had a minimal effect on risk factors associated with cardiometabolic disorders.”
That is, the study, funded by the Avocado Nutrition Center, found no positive results. They say it clear and crystal clear as water. And yet, the association did not hesitate to disseminate this work, turning the results in its favor, launching its own conclusions, which are of interest to merchants.
As Nestle itself points out, this case exemplifies the risk that studies are funded by commercial associations with direct interests in the results obtained. Here the researchers they have no control on the way in which the sponsor interprets or disseminates those results, even if they may lead to confusion among the population or the media that publishes the press release.
The food industry influences and directly affects numerous scientific works, not because that science is “done badly,” but because of how it is done. direct premeditated the studies with their previous design, or by how or they interpret the results.
We have no choice but dude and always look for the full publication of each particular study to know all the details behind it. scientific articles they can’t lie; Another issue will be whether relevant conclusions can be drawn or what specific data they decide to communicate.
Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat
*Some prices may have changed since the last review
Photos | DCStudio – Freepik – jcomp
In DAP | No, spelled is not healthier than common wheat, according to a study by the University of Córdoba
In DAP | Water is not the most hydrating drink. This study discovered it