In 2021, the Director of the Alliance Food Security Center of Excellence at the University of Pretoria's College of African Studies was appointed to the board of multinational food company Nestlé.
At the time, a group of more than 200 senior academics wrote an open letter about conflicts of interest. As Nestlé itself admits, over 60% of its food portfolio does not meet the definition of a health product.
The center announced in December last year that it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Nestlé. It signaled their intention to “build transformative partnerships” to shape “the future of food and nutrition research and education” and transform “Africa's food systems.”
This is not a special case.
At African universities, health-related research and education is funded by companies with products that are harmful to health.
For example, Nestlé is “sharing expertise” with “eight African universities.”
These include the Institute of Applied Science and Technology at the University of Ghana and the Swiss Center for Science and Technology in Ivory Coast.
Activities funded under agreements with universities include internships, seminars and training programs, as well as sponsorship of postgraduate research students.
In South Africa, Nestlé funded a pediatric award for final year medical students at the University of the Witwatersrand. It also funds his two-year pediatric gastroenterology fellowship at Stellenbosch University.
Prejudice – even if it’s unconscious
It is well known that financial ties between companies and academic institutions can lead to conflicts of interest.
A 2017 paper titled “Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcomes” found that “industry funding leads researchers to consciously or unconsciously support companies.”
Those advising governments and charities on dietary policy say that “current or past financial or personal relationships with stakeholders can lead to subtle unconscious biases and deliberately concealed inappropriateness.'' “It has become difficult to distinguish between acts.”
Another study found that of 168 industry-funded studies, 156 (93%) showed biased results, all favoring industry sponsors.
In 2018, approximately 13% of research papers published in the top 10 most cited nutrition journals were supported by and favorable to the food industry. Such corroboration is often hidden.
growing problem
The world is facing a pandemic of non-communicable diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, all of which are linked to the effects of malnutrition such as stunting and obesity.
The 2023 Lancet Commission reports that “just four industrial sectors already account for at least a third of the world's deaths,” one of which is unhealthy food. are doing.
These four industry sectors have expanded markets in Africa and other parts of the Global South, where the sale and marketing of unhealthy food, beverage, alcohol, tobacco, and agrochemical products is poorly regulated. This provides companies with opportunities for exploitation.
Where there is smoke…
The most well-known health hazards are tobacco-related products, which are now widely regulated to reduce harm.
The tobacco industry used many tactics to thwart regulation. They funded research and entire institutions to provide “evidence” to support the industry or sow doubts about the harmful effects of tobacco.
In 2019, public health scientists at the University of Cape Town in South Africa discovered that the Department of Psychiatry had accepted funding from the Philip Morris Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.
The agency subsequently canceled the contract. This followed outrage from the wider university community. In 2020, UCT Council adopted a policy prohibiting employees from receiving funds from the tobacco industry.
In another example, a scientific study published in 1967 suggested that saturated fat is a major cause of heart disease. In doing so, the role of sugar was downplayed. It took more than 40 years to discover that the research was funded by the sugar industry.
Declining research funding in South Africa means academics need to be particularly vigilant. We need to protect higher education institutions from research bias.
It is not enough to simply declare these interests and think that this eliminates the conflict of interest.
Instead, public health scientists need to develop more robust systems for managing conflicts of interest at all levels of academia.
University governance structures must have mechanisms to respond to efforts that are contrary to public health.
The University of Cape Town's School of Paediatrics and Child Health has called for infant formula companies to end their sponsorship of education, research and policy development.
Our online course and toolkit for research ethics committees on conflicts of interest in health research provides practical guidance.
These and other initiatives point the way forward for universities to be wary of the dangers of these “gift relationships” and better equipped to protect their integrity.
Child Gauge report editor Lori Lake also contributed to this article.
