New York University Professor Marion Nestle has penned an opinion article in the January 2016 edition of JAMA Internal Medicine criticizing industry-backed food studies. Pointing to research reviews posted on her Food Politics blog, Nestle alleges that 70 out of 76 industry-funded studies published between March and October 2015 “reported results favorable to the sponsor’s interest.”

“In the studies I collected, companies or trade associations promoting soft drinks, dairy foods, eggs, breakfast cereals, pork, beef, soy products,dietary supplements, juices, cranberries, nuts, and chocolates supported the study itself, the investigators, or both,” she said in the commentary. “These studies all found significant health benefits or lack of harm from consuming the foods investigated, results that can be useful for deflecting criticism of a company or promoting its products.”

Based on her findings, Nestle urges journals to consider whether submitted work promotes public health or food marketing. “Journal editors should ensure that editors and members of editorial boards are free of industry conflicts, require peer reviewers to note food-industry funding in manuscript evaluations, and be wary of accepting industryfunded publications with evident commercial implications,” she said. “If food companies and trade associations want to fund research, they should consider pooling resources and setting up an independent foundation to administer the grants.”