If you didn’t see my post yesterday, you can find it under the Research Tab. I asked if you had any comments after reading the article and today I am dissecting it more closely!
I enjoyed this article as it paints a clear picture of the domino effect happening with research. The motivation behind research has a direct influence on methods and, unfortunately, sometimes outcome. The ‘story’ that research tells us is what consumers are looking to for reliable answers. Through reading this article, I have furthered my opinion about sources of information and researchers/authors. Yes, anyone can write. But, that doesn’t mean we should count what he or she as an author/researcher says 100% reliable information.
An example of what I’m trying to say is shown by Gary Taubes. 
Taubes is an “author of the case against sugar.” He is not a nutrition professional. He is a Journalist. Should consumers be solely relying on the information he is giving? No. Consumers ought to seek out unbiased nutrition research from professionals in the field for answers to topics like sugar consumption. A topic can be a simple topic with straightforward answers sourced from unbiased nutrition and health research findings.
The thing is, I don’t believe it’s possible to have “influence-free” research; especially with human research. However, I do think there should be something done to reduce and limit the number of influences on research that can create biases. Or, perhaps research for industry could be ‘loudly’ labeled in a way that consumers could identify it. This source is where I began brainstorming these ideas: jamanetwork-com.pearl.stkate.. This article discusses the big topic of conflict of interest in food industry nutrition research. It’s a good read and relatively up to date (May 2017).
I agree with this week’s article. We need and DESERVE answers on nutrition. Funding is a large part of that problem. But, I do believe we need better answers.
tabletalk.blog 