This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.

Industry-funded research not likely to associate sugary drinks with diabetes, obesity

Compared with independently funded research, studies that received financial support from the sugar-sweetened beverage industry were substantially less likely to associate consumption of sugary drinks with metabolic outcomes such as diabetes and obesity, according to a recent systematic review published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“The outcomes of recent regulatory initiatives, tax measures, and federal nutritional guidance designed to curb sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption have hinged on the question of whether SSBs are a proven cause of obesity and/or diabetes,” Dean Schillinger, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues wrote. “The SSB industry has opposed such initiatives, characterizing the case for causation as highly scientifically controversial.”

Schillinger and colleagues searched the PubMed database for experimental studies conducted between January 2001 and July 2016 that evaluated the influence of SSB consumption on obesity- and diabetes-related outcomes. They identified 60 studies, including 23 trials and 32 systematic reviews/meta-analyses. They analyzed the studies to determine if funding by the SSB industry impacted results. Observational studies and studies funded by SSB competitors such as companies in the bottled-water or dairy industry were excluded.

Studies were classified as having an association between SSB and metabolic outcomes (positive studies) or as having no association (negative studies). The researchers also documented whether a study was funded independently or funded by, or had author(s) that had financial ties with, the SSB industry.

The researchers found that 26 studies resulted in no associations, while 34 resulted in positive associations. Overall, industry-funded studies were significantly more likely not to report an association between SSB and metabolic outcomes than independently funded studies. All negative studies (n = 26) were identified as having received funding from the SSB industry, whereas only one of the positive studies (2.9%) had similar funding (RR = 34; 95% CI, 4.93-234.47).

“Clinical trials and systematic reviews of such trials in which the conduct of research or incomes of investigators were supported by the SSB industry, when compared to those that were independently-funded, were much more likely to find no association between their products and metabolic outcomes,” Schillinger and colleagues concluded. “The SSB industry appears to be manipulating contemporary scientific processes to create controversy and advance their business interests at the expense of the public’s health.” – by Alaina Tedesco

Disclosure: Schillinger reports serving as a paid scientific expert in defending a law requiring health warnings on billboard advertisements for sugar-sweetened beverages for the City and County of San Francisco in 2015. Please see the full study for complete list of authors’ relevant financial disclosures.