Why I Started AllNutrition.info: Science, Signal, and the Battle Against Noise

The "Black Box" of Nutrition Science

For a long time, I viewed the science of nutrition as a black box.

My assumption was simple: if a study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, it was reliable. If it was later proven wrong, that was just the natural evolution of science — new evidence replacing old.

But over time, that view started to break down.

As I read more — including the work of Michael Greger — I realized the issue isn't just that science evolves.

It's that the direction of that evolution can be influenced.

Not always. Not everywhere.

But enough to matter.

---

Advertising Disguised as Science

If this were just a theoretical concern, it wouldn't justify strong action.

But it's not.

There are clear, documented cases where industry funding shaped scientific conclusions in ways that benefited the funder.

In the 1960s, the Sugar Research Foundation paid researchers at Harvard University to publish a review in the New England Journal of Medicine. That paper downplayed the role of sugar in heart disease and shifted the focus toward saturated fat — without disclosing the funding. This wasn't uncovered until 2016, when UCSF researchers obtained internal industry documents and published their findings in JAMA Internal Medicine. [1]

This wasn't fringe science. It was elite, peer-reviewed research.

And it helped shape decades of dietary guidance.

That is what advertising disguised as science looks like.

It's not an isolated case.

A systematic review published in JAMA Internal Medicine found that industry-sponsored nutrition studies were significantly more likely to report favorable conclusions for the sponsor's products compared to independently funded studies. [2]

The mechanism isn't usually fraud.

It's subtler:

• Which questions get asked
• Which outcomes are measured
• How results are framed
• Which limitations are emphasized

You don't need bad actors to get biased outcomes. You just need incentives.

---

The Pattern Continues — Right Up to the Present

In 2015, the New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola had secretly funded and helped establish the Global Energy Balance Network — an academic organization that published research downplaying the role of sugary drinks in obesity and pushing the narrative that lack of exercise, not diet, was the real problem. When the funding came to light, the organization dissolved within months. [3]

A systematic review in PLOS Medicine examined industry-funded studies on sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity and found that those with financial conflicts of interest were five times more likely to find no association — flipping the conclusion compared to independent research asking the exact same question. [4]

The International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), funded by companies including Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and Unilever, has also faced sustained criticism — documented in a peer-reviewed study by Steele, Ruskin, and Stuckler using Freedom of Information requests — for embedding itself in public health policy discussions globally, exploiting the credibility of academics to promote industry positions and marginalise unfavourable research. [5]

Again, not necessarily false.

But not neutral.

---

Why This Matters More Than Ever

We are not debating this in isolation.

The numbers are stark — and they have been moving in the wrong direction for decades.

US adult obesity has nearly tripled since 1960 — from about 13% (1960–1962) to about 41% in the latest NHANES cycle with national exam data (August 2021–August 2023), after age-adjusted estimates in the high 30s to low 40s throughout the 2010s and roughly 43% in 2017–2018. The long-run rise is steep; recent cycles show uneven year-to-year movement and a slower pace of increase, not a return to normal.

Diabetes has followed the same trajectory. Diagnosed diabetes among US adults was 3.7% in 1980. By 2021 it had reached 10.1% — nearly tripled in one generation. A further 115 million Americans now have prediabetes.

Despite spending more on healthcare than any country on earth — nearly $15,000 per person per year — Americans live shorter lives than citizens of almost every other wealthy nation. The US trails the OECD average by nearly four years.

And then there is this: only 7.4% of Americans eat enough of both fruits and vegetables daily. Not roughly 1 in 10 — fewer than 1 in 13. And it is getting worse, not better: the figure was 9.6% in 2017, 8.0% in 2019, 7.4% in 2021. A decade of public health campaigns, dietary guidelines, and school lunch reforms — and the number is falling.

Whatever we've been doing —

it has not been enough.

And in many ways, things have gotten worse.

We have more information than ever before.

But we do not have clearer answers.

---

Conflict of Interest: Why Take the Risk?

A conflict of interest does not automatically invalidate a study.

But it introduces risk.

And when we are making decisions about lifelong health — for ourselves, for our families — why would we accept that risk at all?

Why rely on:

• Industry-funded trials
• Subtle but systematic framing effects
• Research agendas influenced by commercial incentives

...when the stakes are this high?

---

The Question We Should Be Asking

We live in a world with:

• Massive public research funding
• Institutions like the National Institutes of Health
• Advanced data infrastructure and analytical tools

So why are we still so dependent on research that carries financial conflicts?

Why aren't we prioritizing:

• Large-scale, long-term randomized trials
• Fully independent funding
• Radical transparency

Is it because we can't?

Or because we haven't made it a priority?

---

Why I'm Building AllNutrition.info

Because the current system — however well-intentioned — is not producing a clear signal.

And when the signal isn't clear, people don't follow it.

They can't.

So they fall back on:

• Marketing
• Trends
• Convenience

And the result is exactly what we see around us.

Worse health. Not better.

---

A Call to Act

We don't have the luxury of waiting for this to fix itself.

If there is even a meaningful chance that:

• Funding bias distorts outcomes
• Conflicts of interest shape conclusions
• "Science" is sometimes functioning as marketing

...then we have a responsibility to confront it.

Directly.

Urgently.

Because whatever we've been doing so far —

it isn't working.

---

Sources

1. Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(11):1680–1685. doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394

2. Chartres N, Fabbri A, Bero LA. Association of Industry Sponsorship with Outcomes of Nutrition Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(12):1769–1777. doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6721

3. O'Connor A. Coca-Cola Funds Scientists Who Shift Blame for Obesity Away From Bad Diets. The New York Times. August 9, 2015. nytimes.com

4. Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA. Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. PLOS Medicine. 2013;10(12):e1001578. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578

5. Steele S, Ruskin G, Stuckler D. Pushing partnerships: corporate influence on research and policy via the International Life Sciences Institute. Public Health Nutrition. 2020;23(11):2032–2040. doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019005184