Where is the self-reflection in nutritional science?

How critical and free is nutritional science? And does it make a difference whether the research is publicly funded or by companies? Note that the Dutch Dairy Organization wanted to know this and paid the news and discussion platform Foodlog to investigate. The NZO represents an industry that funds a lot of research but at the same time has to deal with the stigma that it would only publish research that confirms that dairy is healthy. Could nutritional research really be that bad?

Foodlog conducted ‘exploratory’ research, as they call it. An exploration in the form of interviews with thirty nutrition researchers, from professors to PhD students, most from universities, four from the business community.

The assumption was that researchers would experience more influence in privately funded research, due to the interests of companies. But that was not apparent from the interviews. The agreements and procedures are often stricter in private research – perhaps precisely to avoid the appearance of influence – but because there is often more money than for public research, there is more room for creativity within the preset frameworks, for example by asking additional questions. and investigate hypotheses.

Fixed thinking frameworks

The interviewees see limitations in all forms of research, whether public, private or a combination thereof. The fixed conceptual frameworks in which researchers are stuck and the consensus in the field about what should be researched, hinder innovation. What is also bothersome: the tendency not to publish studies that show no effect and the fact that renowned journals seem more interested in excitement, in what deviates, than in solid (boring) research. Or else the endless exploitation of databases: dredging until something mediagenic emerges.

There is also irritation about ‘material thinking’, detailed research into nutrients that offers little insight into the bigger picture of nutrition and health. While there is far too little money for long-term epidemiological research or large clinical intervention studies with control groups. At the same time, dietary patterns are a ‘moving target’ to investigate. “By the time we start investigating diet culture, the hype is already over,” says one of the anonymous professors.

Also read
Nutritional research mainly produces confusion

The Foodlog research does not lead to definitive conclusions, but it does provide a picture of a research field where there is little room for critical reflection and where important questions are not asked. As Jaap Seidell (VU professor) asked at a meeting at the end of December in Wageningen: “For example, when are we going to take a good look at the influence of ultra-processed food on public health?”

It is science that produces an excess of ‘quick and dirty’ research, but ‘the media’ is blamed for the decline of the authority of science. Their “exaggerations” and “lack of nuance” bring confusion and uncertainty. And the consumer? A professor: “He has heard so much by now that it doesn’t matter to him anymore and he just goes his own way.”

To share





Email the editor