US Diet Panel adds another researcher with ties to the alcohol industry
Shortly after the firing of two Harvard scientists with financial conflicts of interest, the national organization that is assembling a committee to review the evidence on drinking and health has chosen four new panelists, including another Harvard professor who also has financial ties to the alcohol industry .
The committee’s work, under the auspices of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, will be used to update the federal government’s dietary guidelines, which advise Americans on nutrition and diet, including how much they should or should not drink.
Scientists at universities across North America are studying the health effects of alcohol, and many are not accepting industry funding. The National Academies instead chose two Harvard colleagues who have also published research strongly suggesting that drinking in moderation is good for you, critics say.
“How could they appoint someone with a history of alcohol funding after removing the other two for alcohol funding?” said Dr. Michael B. Siegel, professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts University School of Medicine. Dr. Siegel has been a longtime critic of industry-funded research on alcohol.
Many of the remaining twelve provisional members of the committee are experts in biostatistics and data analysis, whose research does not primarily focus on alcohol and health. (One studies the impact of alcohol on prenatal health.) As such, the Harvard researchers will likely influence the committee, said Dr. Siegel.
While it’s undeniable that heavy drinking is bad for your health, some studies have found cardiovascular benefits from moderate drinking. But in recent years, critics have questioned the methodology used in some of these studies, many of which were conducted by scientists who have received funding from groups funded by the alcohol industry.
The World Heart Federation released a report last year saying this even small amounts of alcohol can increase the risk of cancer, injuries and heart disease, including coronary disease, stroke and heart failure.
In 2020, when the US Dietary Guidelines were last updated, the government rejected the advice of its scientific advisers to recommend lower alcohol consumption. The guidelines now recommend the consumption of one drink per day for women, and two for men.
“There used to be a consensus that moderate drinking had health benefits. Now there is no consensus anymore – there is a controversy,” says Tim Stockwell, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, whose own work challenges the idea that there are benefits to moderate drinking.
“But if controversy arises, make sure there is one expert from each side,” he added. Several organizations and individuals had suggested Mr Stockwell for the committee, but he said he was never approached.
Canadian health officials last year radically revised their alcohol consumption guidelines, saying no amount of alcohol consumption is healthy and urging people to cut back as much as possible.
“I think they’re worried that U.S. dietary guidelines will follow Canada’s lead,” said Dr. Stockwell on the sector.
Among the four new nominees is Dr. Luc Djousse, associate professor at Harvard’s TH Chan School of Public Health, who has studied the effects of moderate alcohol consumption on cardiovascular disease.
Although he has received grants from the National Institutes of Health for his work, he has done just that funded by the Alcoholic Beverage Medical Research Foundation, an industry group. Recently he was a featured speaker at a Symposium Beer and Health set up by beer makers.
Dr. Djousse is also a member of the International Scientific Forum on Alcohol Research, an organization once closely associated with the alcohol industry, and he signed a letter written on behalf of the organization and published in a medical journal. The group says it no longer receives money from the alcohol industry.
He, together with Dr. Kenneth Mukamal and Dr. Eric Rimm, the Harvard researchers whose nominations were disregarded last month, wrote several articles.
Dr. Djousse did not respond to requests for comment; nor did Todd Datz, chief communications officer at the TH Chan School of Public Health.
Dana Korsen, director of media relations at the National Academies, said the committee’s selection remained preliminary during a public comment period that ends Thursday. The committee’s first meeting is scheduled for the next day.
Ms. Korsen did not immediately respond to questions about Dr.’s financing. Djousse by the alcohol industry. “As with all study committees, the first meeting will include a discussion about compliance with our conflict of interest and disclosure policies,” she said in an email.
She declined to provide the names of National Academies officials directly involved in the nominations and declined requests for interviews with them.
A lack of transparency “raises the question of whether the National Academies have been co-opted again,” said Diane Riibe, co-founder of the American Alcohol Policy Alliance, which translates alcohol policy research into public health practice.
Dr. Djousse, together with Dr. Mukamal has written a number of articles on moderate alcohol consumption and its alleged benefits. He led a $100 million clinical trial on moderate alcohol consumption, which aimed to resolve questions about its benefits or harms.
In 2018, the National Institutes of Health canceled the trial after The New York Times reported that Dr. Mukamal and officials from the NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism had sought $68 million from alcohol and beer companies to fund the research, a conflict of interest and a violation of federal policy.
“Dr. Djousse is a close colleague of Dr. Mukamal,” wrote Dr. Siegel in a recent blog post. “Having him on the panel is the best thing there is to having Dr. Mukamal himself.”
The other Harvard nominee is Dr. Carlos Camargo, professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology, who has also studied moderate alcohol consumption and chaired the alcohol committee for the 2005 USDA Dietary Guidelines.
He also worked with Dr. Mukamal wrote numerous articles in which he discovered the benefits of light drinking. He declined a request for comment and referred a reporter to the National Academies.
The two other new nominees are Dr. Bruce N. Calonge, associate dean for public health practice at the Colorado School of Public Health and chief medical officer of the Colorado State Department of Public Health and Environment, who was tentatively selected to lead the committee; and Linda Snetselaar, professor of epidemiology and director of the nutrition center at the University of Iowa College of Public Health, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
Members of the The public has until Thursday afternoon to comment on the nominations. Ms. Korsen, of the National Academies, did not answer questions about how the organization will review public comments received less than 24 hours before the committee’s first meeting.
The committee’s job is to review the cumulative evidence on the relationship between drinking and a wide range of health problems, including obesity, cancer, heart disease, cognitive health and all-cause mortality.
Research will also be conducted into the effects of drinking while breastfeeding, including the impact on postpartum weight loss, the composition and quantity of the milk, and child development.
Although moderate drinking, especially of red wine, has long enjoyed a health halo, rigorous research in recent years and concerns about industry funding have raised doubts.
Even light drinking can slightly increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer and a common form of esophageal cancer. Heavy drinking is associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer of the mouth and throat, cancer of the larynx, liver cancer and, to a lesser extent, colorectal cancer.
The National Academies has never been involved in updating the dietary guidelines, but was allocated $1.3 million by Congress to do the work. Dr. Siegel has called for an investigation into the formation of the panel now that researchers with ties to industry have been nominated twice.