隴山隴西郡
寧靜純我心 感得事物人 寫樸實清新. 閑書閑話養閑心,閑筆閑寫記閑人;人生無虞懂珍惜，以沫相濡字字真。
Susan Greenhal描述了可口可樂公司如何在中國主導肥胖政策: 對科學誠信的威脅, conflict of interest
然而，有跡象表明態度正在發生變化。最近，食品公司Mars退出了ILSI，並指出其對“倡導主導研究”的關注“主要是出於正當理由而受到批評。”15菲利普莫裏斯新資助的無煙世界基金會引起了很多不利評論16，許多大學和公共衛生協會表示他們不會接受來自它的資助。美國國立衛生研究院已退出酒精行業資助的中度飲酒項目，並為此類合作夥伴關係發布了新指南.17英國慈善委員會正在質疑一些最積極支持敘述的智庫的地位。公司18但拒絕公布其資助者的詳細信息.19然而，最近英國公共衛生部與酒精行業資助慈善機構Drinkaware合作的嚴厲批評決定顯示，這條消息並未傳達給大家.20
Banning commercial-funded research gives benefits that far outweigh any minor side effects of no-commercially-funded research ever seen? any big data?
_______________ Resources____________________
Features
Mao Zedong famously said that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”1 As he was someone who looked to the Russian Revolution for inspiration while engaged in a war to liberate his country from Japanese occupation, his view was understandable. Yet power can be exerted in different ways and can be most effective when it is hidden, with decisions made behind closed doors, or even invisible, so that the decisions one person makes are influenced by another without them realising it.2
The growing literature on what are termed “the commercial determinants of health” pays particular attention to the hidden and invisible forms of power, whereby large corporations use various methods to shape thinking about what are appropriate responses to the health consequences of their products.3 In the accompanying article, Susan Greenhalgh describes how the Coca-Cola Company came to dominate obesity policy in China even though its influence was obscured behind the public face of intermediaries (doi:10.1136/bmj.k5050).4
毛澤東著名地說“政治權力從槍管中長出來。”1由於他是一個在為了解放日本占領國家而進行戰爭期間向俄羅斯革命尋求靈感的人，他的觀點是可以理解的。然而，權力可以以不同的方式發揮作用，並且在隱藏時可以最有效，決策是在閉門造車，甚至是不可見的，這樣一個人做出的決定就會受到另一個人的影響而沒有他們意識到。
關於被稱為“健康的商業決定因素”的越來越多的文獻特別關注隱藏和不可見的權力形式，大公司使用各種方法來思考什麽是對其產品的健康後果的適當反應.3在隨後的文章Susan Greenhal描述了可口可樂公司如何在中國主導肥胖政策，盡管它的影響力在中間人的公眾麵前被掩蓋了（doi：10.1136 / bmj.k5050）.4
Changing the conversation
In the late 1970s, Coca-Cola took advantage of the opening of Chinese society to the international community, exploiting the then extremely limited opportunities for Chinese researchers to access funds to undertake studies or to develop links with Western counterparts. It was not, however, Coca-Cola that made the approaches to Chinese researchers. Instead it was an organisation called the International Life Sciences Institute—a name that combined ideas of health, academia, and international links while also forming a memorable acronym, ILSI. Yet ILSI was established by a Coca-Cola executive with substantial funding from the company.
As Greenhalgh describes, the ILSI “Focal Point in China” (ILSI-China) has been able to exert remarkable influence on development of obesity policy by promoting a narrative that all foods and drinks, including those produced by Coca-Cola, could be part of a healthy diet. What matters, it claims, is that individuals expend the calories they ingest by taking sufficient exercise. This was also the core message of the Global Energy Balance Network, also set up by Coca-Cola and with members well represented at the Chinese conferences supported by ILSI. Coca-Cola had viewed the network as a “weapon” to “change the conversation” about obesity to one that diverted attention from their products in what it portrayed as a “war between the public health community and private industry.”5
We now know that corporations make extensive use of third parties such as ILSI to create a dominant narrative that frames how issues are viewed and sets the boundaries within which responses are seen as “reasonable,” while excluding the most effective measures—especially those that harm the interests of the corporations—from the agenda. Some have specific goals, such as the Center for Indoor Air Research, which sought to undermine the evidence on the dangers of secondhand smoke.6 Others use a broad based approach that includes promotion of individual choice over collective action, supporting often ineffective educational campaigns rather than the legal or regulatory measures that tackle price, availability, and marketing of their products.7 This is exemplified in the use of the term “nanny state” to attack many of the most effective public health measures.8 Their approach also emphasises the “complexity” of public health problems, implying that little can be done to tackle them, applying the same language to issues as diverse as junk food, gambling, and asbestos.9
This approach also downplays potential conflicts of interest. Industry funded reports contend that everyone is in some way conflicted—for example, in holding certain political views—and that as long as funding is declared any conflicts are easily managed. If everyone is conflicted, there is no cause for concern.10 Yet a wealth of evidence shows that industry funded studies tend to reach conclusions favourable to their sponsors11 and that disclosure of funding alone is inadequate, as researchers may exaggerate their findings and reviewers discount the potential for bias.12
ILSI’s activities in China are similar to those it pursues elsewhere, which have long raised concerns. In 2001 a World Health Organization report condemned its links to the tobacco industry.13 A 2002 paper described ILSI’s involvement in research partnerships as a “threat to scientific integrity.”14 Yet, despite this information being freely available, ILSI’s 18 constituent bodies continue to be influential around the world.
Changing attitudes
There are, however, signs that attitudes are changing. Recently, the food company Mars pulled out of ILSI, noting concern about its “advocacy led studies” that “mostly for the right reasons, have been criticized.”15 The new Philip Morris funded Foundation for a Smoke Free World has attracted much adverse comment,16 and many universities and public health associations have stated that they will not accept funding from it. The US National Institutes of Health has withdrawn from an alcohol industry funded project on moderate drinking and issued new guidelines for such partnerships.17 The UK Charity Commission is questioning the status of some of the think tanks that have been most active in supporting the narrative of corporations18 but refuse to publish details of their funders.19 Yet, as the recent heavily criticised decision by Public Health England to partner with the alcohol industry funded charity Drinkaware shows, this message has not got through to everyone.20
