Suppressing science? Coca-Cola contracts probe alleges “critical health information” quashed

10 May 2019 --- Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded health research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? This is the question posed by University of Cambridge (UoC) researchers in a long-term investigation using soft drinks giant Coca-Cola as an example. A new study of Freedom of Information (FOI) documents uncovered provisions that could allow the beverage player to suppress findings from health science it funds at North American universities. Researchers argue that Coca-Cola’s contracts run counter to their public declarations of openness. However, Coca-Cola points out “these claims and documents refer to research carried out before 2016” and that it has not independently funded research on issues related to health and wellbeing.

The UoC study – “Always read the small print”: a case study of commercial research funding, disclosure and agreements with Coca-Cola – explains how it explored the drinks giants’ research agreements in a bid to better understand influence. 

FOI requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the US and Canada, assessing whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence.

According to UoC, certain provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over study data, the disclosure of results and acknowledgment of Coca-Cola funding.

“Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers’ final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavorable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received,” says the UoC abstract into its study.

However, in a statement sent to NutritionInsight, a Coca-Cola spokesperson says: “Since 2016, The Coca-Cola Company has not independently funded research on issues related to health and wellbeing in keeping with research guiding principles that have been posted publicly on our website since that time,” the spokesperson says. “We adopted these guidelines to address questions that can arise when we are the sole funder of this type of research.” 

“Additionally, a list of health and wellbeing research funded by The Coca-Cola Company dating back to 2010 has been disclosed on our transparency website for nearly four years. Research funded by The Coca-Cola Company and disclosed on our site is expected to be conducted in accordance with our publicly stated approach to funding scientific research, including the fact that we do not have the right to prevent the publication of research results nor do we provide funding conditioned on the outcome of the research.”

Published in the Journal of Public Health Policy, the study identified several clauses in legal documents that give the company early sight of any findings, combined with the right to “terminate without reason” and walk away with the data and intellectual property.

When considered together, these clauses could suppress “critical health information,” according to the study’s authors who also argue that the “clauses contravene Coca-Cola’s commitments to transparent and “unrestricted” support for science.” Coca-Cola, alongside many other major food and beverage corporations, has come under fire for the opaque way they can fund health research. 

However, Coco-Cola says that in no event does it have the right to prevent the publication of research results. “Nor does The Coca-Cola Company provide funding conditioned on the outcome of the research.”

Calls for more transparency
Researchers from the UoC, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of Bocconi, and US Right to Know (a non-profit consumer and public health research group), call on corporate funders to publish lists of terminated studies. They say scientists should publish agreements with industry to reassure the public that findings are free from influence. 

“It is certainly true that the contracts we have found allow for unfavorable developments or findings to be quashed prior to publication,” says lead author Dr. Sarah Steele, a policy researcher from Cambridge’s Department of Politics and International Studies.

“Coca-Cola has declared themselves at the forefront of transparency when it comes to food and beverage giants funding health research. In fact, our study suggests that important research might never see the light of day and we would never know about it,” explains Dr. Steele.

“We are already hearing accusations from experts in nutrition that the food industry is copying tactics from big tobacco’s playbook. Corporate social responsibility has to be more than just shiny websites stating progressive policies that get ignored,” she adds.

Coca-Cola has been repositioning itself as a beverage company with a wide variety of low and no-sugar options as well as expanding its portfolio to include waters, teas and other high-growth “healthy” categories that move it away from its traditional sugar-laden image. 

It continues to evolve to keep pace with changing consumer preferences and includes heavy-duty promotions on its company websites that often reference health, exercise, hydration, nutrition and wellbeing. 

It has successfully rebranded Coca-Cola Zero, continues to add new flavors to its portfolio and unveiled its first-ever energy drink, Coca-Cola Energy in Spain and Hungary last month. The new product contains caffeine from naturally-derived sources, guarana extracts, B vitamins and no taurine.

The Coca-Cola spokesperson also stresses how the company’s full approach to funding scientific research, is as follows;

- For all the health and wellbeing research funding disclosed, the researchers: are expected to conduct research that is factual, transparent, and designed objectively;

- are expected to generate an appropriately phrased hypothesis and to conduct research that will answer the relevant questions, rather than favor a particular outcome;

- have full control of the study design, the execution, and the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data;

- are encouraged to publish; and

- are expected to disclose their funding sources in all publications and public presentations of the data. In no event does The Coca-Cola Company have the right to prevent the publication of research results. Nor does The Coca-Cola Company provide funding conditioned on the outcome of the research.

Long-term probe
US Right to Know submitted 129 FOI requests between 2015 and 2018 relating to academics at North American institutions who received Coca-Cola funding.

The research team combed through the vast tranche of resulting documents and discovered five research agreements made with four universities: Louisiana State University, University of South Carolina, University of Toronto and the University of Washington.

The funded work includes “energy flux and balance” studies and research on beverage intake during exercise. Coca-Cola’s own transparency website declares that scientists retain full control over their research and the company has no right to prevent publication of results, according to UoC. 

However, while contracts show Coca-Cola does not control day-to-day conduct, the company retains various rights throughout the process. These include the right to receive updates and comment on findings prior to research publication and the power to terminate studies early without reason.

The documents yielded by the FOI requests contained no firm examples of Coca-Cola suppressing unfavorable research. However, the study authors say “what is important is that the provision exists.” All documents relating to the contracts are now accessible on the US Right to Know website. 

Emails show one scientist expressing uncertainty over his study termination (“…they have not communicated with us in several months”) and concern over intellectual property. Another scientist is seen arguing that his contract is “very restrictive for an ‘unrestricted grant,’” notes UoC.

“These contracts suggest that Coke wanted the power to bury research it funded that might detract from its image or profits,” says Gary Ruskin, Co-Director of US Right to Know. “With the power to trumpet positive findings and bury negative ones, Coca-Cola-funded science seems more like an exercise in public relations.”

The researchers acknowledge that the food and beverage industry may be updating research contracts in line with new public commitments, but without seeing those contracts it is hard to know.

“Journals should require authors of funded research to upload the research agreements for studies as appendices to any peer-reviewed publication,” adds Dr. Steele.

“The lack of robust information on input by industry and on studies terminated before results are published makes it impossible to know how much of the research entering the public domain reflects industry positions,” she notes.

By Gaynor Selby