Cassandra M Johnson

Christy Youens

J Lauren Butler

Leia Downs

Lindsey Menge

Ramona Salcedo Price

Sandy Roberts

Public Health Nutrition

Directory of Open Access Journals

Letter to the EditorConcerns about the ‘corporate capture’ of TheAcademy articleWe are writing in response to a research article publishedonline in Public Health Nutrition on 24October 2022, aboutthe corporate capture of The Academy of Nutrition andDietetics (or The Academy for short)(1). In their paper,Carriedo, Pinsky, Crosbie, et al. reported on an inductiveanalysis and triangulation of publicly available Academydocuments. The article concludes that The Academy andits Foundation have a symbiotic relationship with corpora-tions that conflicts with The Academy’s mission to improvehealth(1). In response to Carriedo et al.’s article, TheAcademy published a point-by-point rebuttal that identi-fied their concerns and described the article’s errors(2,3).While The Academy published a response and rebuttalimmediately(2,3), the amplified platform Carriedo et al.’spaper was given generated a highly visible source of mis-information(1), with negative implications for the field.For decades, Public Health Nutrition has been consid-ered a trusted journal by researchers, practitioners, andpolicymakers in the USA and around the world. In fact, thisjournal has published leading articles on complex and criti-cally important issues in Public Health Nutrition such asfood insecurity (exemplar articles(4–6)). My colleagues, bothregistered dietitians (RDs) and non-RDs in public healthnutrition strongly disagree with the decision to publishand categorise the Carriedo et al. manuscript as a researchpaper. It is further concerning that the peer review andpublication process did not find cause for rejection or sub-stantial revision. This letter formally documents our collec-tive concerns and asks the journal to take a stand againstethical power plays.First, the authors’ affiliations with the US Right to Knownon-profit organisation and connections to the OrganicConsumers Association(1) are noteworthy, particularlygiven the focus of the article on corporate relations.Moreover, as a qualitative research paper, the article doesnot meet minimum standards for design or research meth-odology foundational to qualitative inquiry. Specifically,authors were not forthcoming in describing how their livedexperience, training or roles influenced this research.There is no mention or description of their worldviewsor the theoretical or empirical foundations that shaped theirinquiry. Their description of data collection, analysis andinterpretation was inadequate to support validity andreliability. It is very likely that their findings would not bereproducible if another research team were to re-codedocuments, identify major and minor themes based onreading, coding, and discussion of findings, interpretthemes, and report their findings. Typically, a well-designed and well-written qualitative paper provides con-siderable detail regarding the research process. However,in this paper, the study design and methods were notappropriate to answer the research question, and the con-clusions were unsupported at best. Usually, a manuscriptthat has ‘fatal flaws’ would be rejected by peer reviewers.Additionally, the paper did not acknowledge contextto their rationale, nor did it consider contextual factors inthe analysis, or report of results. At best, this article byCarriedo et al.(1) represents a gross over-simplificationof complex dynamics between professional and tradesocieties, their corporate stakeholders, and professionalsin research, practice, and policy. Professional and tradesocieties must build relationships with industry and cor-porate partners. This is true for all professional societiesnot only The Academy. For example, the article’sacknowledgements section lists several donations tothe US Right to Know from advocacy groups and privatefunders including donations totalling $1 032 500 fromthe Organic Consumers Association and $397 600 fromthe Laura and John Arnold Foundation since 2014. Asthe Carriedo et al. paper mentioned(1), critics have iden-tified opportunities for The Academy to acknowledgeand address ethical issues. Perhaps The Academy anda named leader (Past President of The Academy) wereeasy targets. However, the paper failed to mention TheAcademy’s role in advocating for policy changes in nutri-tion, supporting workforce training in nutrition anddietetics, and providing critical guidance for RDs. Forexample, The Academy publishes the Nutrition CareManual needed for RDs to provide evidenced-basedmedical nutrition therapy to hospitalised patients(7).Publishing the paper by Carriedo et al. unequivocallydamages the field of nutrition-related public health withunsupported claims, such as an implication that TheAcademy and its Foundation use professionals and stu-dents, partnerships, and policies to assist the food andbeverage, pharmaceuticals, and agribusiness industries(see p. 3581 of paper(1)).In summary, this article did not report on rigorousor relevant research, which is not good science; theirmethods and reporting did not consider context, whichPublic Health Nutrition: 26(9), 1930–1931 doi:10.1017/S1368980023000551©TheAuthor(s), 2023. Published byCambridgeUniversity Press on behalf of TheNutrition Society. This is anOpenAccess article, distributed underthe terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distri-bution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023000551 Published online by Cambridge University Presscompromises validity; and did not present accurate or reli-able information, which generates an abundance of misin-formation. Based on our opinion, publishing this articlewas irresponsible. Per the journal’s website, the scope‘includesmulti-level determinants of dietary intake and pat-terns, anthropometry, food systems, and their effects onhealth-related outcomes(8)’. As a top journal, PublicHealth Nutrition has a responsibility to publish rigorousand relevant research that advances nutrition-related pub-lic health and minimises potential for harm. On behalf ofmy colleagues in Public Health Nutrition, we stronglyencourage you to review this manuscript against: (1) thestandards for qualitative research such as theConsolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies(COREQ) checklist(9), which is used by The Academy’sJournal(10), and (2) the recommendations for researchersto lead strategic sciencewith policy impact(11). Then, pleaseconsider which actions the journal can take to stand up forscience and our field. Some potential options include pub-lishing an erratum and requiring Carriedo et al. to revisetheir manuscript to meet publication standards (includingproviding a quality checklist for a qualitative study), revok-ing publication, or inviting other teams of qualitativeresearchers to repeat this ‘study’ and publish their findingsin Public Health Nutrition. Additional options the journalcould take include writing a statement or position paperon the importance of balancing rigour and ethics inresearch, soliciting manuscripts for a scholarly debateregarding achievements, situations, and problems relatedto corporate relations with professional nutrition societies(as mentioned on the Public Health Nutrition website(8)),or another not-yet-identified action that will promotescholarly dialogue in Public Health Nutrition. Thank youfor your attention to our concerns.AcknowledgementsFinancial support: There is no financial support associatedwith this letter. Conflict of interest: Authors declare no con-flicts of interest. Authorship: All authors jointly contributedto this letter, reviewed the letter and agreed to submission.Names are listed in alphabetical order. Ethics of humansubject participation: Not applicable.J Lauren Butler, Leia Downs, Cassandra M Johnson* ,Lindsey Menge, Ramona Salcedo Price, Sandy Roberts andChristy YouensNutrition and Foods Program, School of Family andConsumer Sciences, Texas State University,San Marcos, TX 78666, USA*Corresponding author: Email c_j216@txstate.eduReferences1. Carriedo A, Pinsky I, Crosbie E et al. (2022) The corporatecapture of the nutrition profession in the USA: the case ofthe Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Public HealthNutr. Published online: 24 October 2022. doi: 10.1017/S1368980022001835.2. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2022) AcademyResponds to Inaccurate, Misleading Report. https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/who-we-are/public-statements/academy-responds-to-inaccurate-misleading-report (accessedOctober 2022).3. Academy of Nutrition andDietetics (2022) Inaccuracies in USRight to Know Article. https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/who-we-are/public-statements/inaccuracies-in-us-right-to-know-article (accessed October 2022).4. Pereira M & Oliveira A (2020) Poverty and food insecuritymay increase as the threat of COVID-19 spreads. PublicHealth Nutr 23, 3236–3240.5. Willows ND, Veugelers P, Raine K et al. (2009) Prevalenceand sociodemographic risk factors related to household foodsecurity in Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Public Health Nutr12, 1150–1156.6. Radimer KL (2002) Measurement of household food securityin the USA and other industrialised countries. Public HealthNutr 5, 859–864.7. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2022) NCM NutritionCare Manual®. http://www.nutritioncaremanual.org(accessed November 2022).8. Cambridge University Press (2022) Public Health Nutrition.https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition (accessed November 2022).9. Tong A, Sainsbury P & Craig K (2007) Consolidated criteriafor reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item check-list for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care19, 349–357.10. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2022)Author Information. https://www.jandonline.org/content/authorinfo (accessed November 2022).11. Brownell KD & Roberto CA (2015) Strategic science withpolicy impact. Lancet 20, 2445–2446.Concerns about the ‘corporate capture’ of The Academy article 1931https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980023000551 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Concerns about the ‘corporate capture’ of The Academy article

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/E3AC4CA4DF349709A29857C40DEDAE78/S1368980023000551a.pdf/div-class-title-concerns-about-the-corporate-capture-of-the-academy-article-div.pdf

Concerns about the ‘corporate capture’ of The Academy article

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Directory of Open Access Journals