Two high-profile Sydney University scientists have been cleared of misconduct in excess of a controversial analysis paper challenging the thought that sugar is a exclusive contributor to Australia’s obesity epidemic.
But an independent investigator did uncover some difficulties with the essential argument of Jennie Brand-Miller and Alan Barclay that Australian sugar consumption has declined above the previous three decades.
Following a six-month investigation by Robert Clark, chair of energy strategy and policy at the University of New South Wales, the two nutritionists have been asked to compose yet another paper “in consultation with the faculty, that particularly addresses and clarifies the key factual problems examined in this inquiry”.
Clark located that the allegations of sugar’s decline in consumption had been unsubstantiated, but mentioned the saga highlighted a amount of “lessons discovered”.
Barclay and Brand-Miller, who is recognized as “GI Jennie” for her function pioneering the glycaemic index, faced what they named a “trial by web” above their 2011 paper, the Australian Paradox, which argued that Australia’s weight problems fee had sharply improved over the past three decades in spite of a “considerable and constant decline” in refined sugar consumption per individual.
The examine has formed component of the food industry’s argument against public wellness initiatives aimed at curbing sugar consumption, this kind of as a sugar tax or ban on additional-large soft drinks.
An ABC radio investigation in February highlighted many alleged errors with the paper raised by the economist and anti-sugar crusader, Rory Robertson.
Amongst his criticisms was that the surveys relied on by Brand-Miller and Barclay to demonstrate a decline in sugar consumption were incomplete and has been abandoned by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In a strident on the web campaign, Robertson also claimed that the two renowned nutritionists had shut back links with the sugar business, and that Barclay in specific had taken cash from Coca-Cola to current his analysis.
Clark discovered that the information showing that Australian sugar consumption had declined more than the previous 3 decades was discontinued by the ABS in 1999 due to “an emerging reliability issue [that] could presumably impact the dependability of data factors in many years approaching this cessation level”.
But nevertheless, he said, the extended-term trend did display a persistent decline, and it had been realistic for the two nutritionists to depend on the data, which they had sourced from the United Nations’ Meals and Agriculture Organisation.
With no wading into the raging debate about the position of sugar in triggering obesity, Clark mentioned that the paper should not be seen as”exonerating sugar per se”. He speculated that even though national intake of the sweetener appeared to have declined, its consumption amongst individuals sections of the community hardest hit by weight problems might properly have gone up.
He found that neither nutritionist had a conflict of interest, in spite of taking cash from the food industry for some of their operate, however Barclay’s acceptance of payment from Coca-Cola to give a presentation about sugar “might not have demonstrated very good judgment”.
Though the Australia Paradox contained “mistakes of a straightforward arithmetic nature”, Clark mentioned it had been anonymously peer-reviewed and he could see no evidence of “any wilful try … to act deceptively to misrepresent the science”.
Brand-Miller and Barclay stated they welcomed the outcomes of the inquiry. “This is a win for science and a loss for individuals who reject the scientific approach,” they said in a statement.
They mentioned Clark’s report showed them to be “open, honest and effectively-intentioned academics” and vindicated their findings that sugar consumption was in decline.
“[We] are getting ready a paper for a key journal that updates the Australian Paradox, and specifically addresses the issues raised in the inquiry so that the misunderstandings of the unique paper are avoided,” the scientists stated.
Robertson, nevertheless, remained defiant, saying the final result of the inquiry was “a massive, excess fat fail” and “shredded the credibility” of the paper.
“…The investigator has advised that the authors be required to rewrite … [their paper] underneath proper supervision,” he stated.
“I encourage public scrutiny of the paper, I motivate anybody who’s interested to carefully go through the investigator’s report,” he said.
“There is no way any reasonable individual can seem at the data and conclude, as the authors did, that there is an inverse partnership in between sugar consumption and weight problems.”
Whilst Barclay and Brand-Miller agree refined sugars are a important supply of undesired kilojoules, they have argued that “simplistic tips like ‘quit sugar’ may possibly inadvertently boost the intake of refined starches and maltodextrins, high glycaemic index carbohydrates, energy, saturated body fat and salt, which could in reality have adverse well being consequences”.
Researchers cleared of misconduct in row above sugar hyperlink to obesity
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder