[Crisis and the independence of public health policies. SESPAS report 2014]

[A critical assessment of the relation between the food industry and health research]

OBJECTIVE

To describe the influence of the food industry in health research, observing how funding influences health outcomes and the quality of the studies.

METHOD

We performed a systematic review in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Plus and Scopus using the MESH "Food Industry", "Food-Processing Industry", "Biomedical Research", "Research Support as Topic", and the keywords "Industry Sponsorship" and "Funding Source". The quality was assessed using the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

We revised 1,506 articles and 10 were included; two reviewed the relationship between funding-outcomes and quality-outcomes; six focused on the funding-outcomes relationship; and the other two focused on methodological quality. Six showed that funding from the food industry resulted in more favourable outcomes for their products. No differences in quality were found in relation to the funding source, but those which did not declare their funding had a worse quality.

CONCLUSION

Studies funded by the food industry showed favourable results for their products. However, this fact did not affect the quality of the studies.

Support of public-private partnerships in health promotion and conflicts of interest

OBJECTIVES

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are considered key elements in the development of effective health promotion. However, there is little research to back the enthusiasm for these partnerships. Our objective was to describe the diversity of visions on PPPs and to assess the links between the authors and corporations engaged in such ventures.

METHODS

We reviewed the scientific literature through PubMed in order to select all articles that expressed a position or recommendation on governments and industries engaging in PPPs for health promotion. We included any opinion paper that considered agreements between governments and corporations to develop health promotion. Papers that dealt with healthcare provision or clinical preventive services and those related to tobacco industries were excluded. We classified the articles according to the authors' position regarding PPPs: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree and strongly disagree. We related the type of recommendation to authors' features such as institution and conflicts of interest. We also recorded whether the recommendations were based on previous assessments.

RESULTS

Of 46 papers analysed, 21 articles (45.6%) stated that PPPs are helpful in promoting health, 1 was neutral and 24 (52.1%) were against such collaborations. 26 papers (57%) set out conditions to assure positive outcomes of the partnerships. Evidence for or against PPPs was mentioned in 11 papers that were critical or neutral (44%) but not in any of those that advocated collaboration. Where conflicts were declared (26 papers), absence of conflicts was more frequent in critics than in supporters (86% vs 17%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is a lack of evidence to support PPPs for health promotion, many authors endorse this approach. The prevalence of ideas encouraging PPPs can affect the intellectual environment and influence policy decisions. Public health researchers and professionals must make a contribution in properly framing the PPP issue.