David Katz: Junk Food’s Slyest Defender


Big Sugar’s paid expert witness, David Katz.

Yale University’s David Katz writes frequently on sugar and health-related conflicts without disclosing his apparent myriad conflicts of interest. Katz has managed to become one of the foremost nutrition researchers in America. He is founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, current President of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, writes for US News and World Report, and has over a half-million followers on social media. Greatist named him the 13th most influential person in health and fitness.

Yet Katz did not reach fame through any particular scientific breakthroughs, nor through prominent achievement in public health. Rather, Katz owes his fame to frequent quotes by journalists and prolific blogging. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that neither Katz nor the journalists regularly fulfill their ethical duties and inform readers of Katz’s lucrative ties to Big Soda, Big Sugar, and other junk food companies. One site even described Katz as “not being on the take from industry.”

Katz is the junk food industry’s subtlest paid advocate. He has developed a strategy that allows him to introduce junk food industry talking points without coming across as a shill. First, Katz concedes a minor point to the public health crowd in order to establish his bona fides and come across as a credible source. Then he comes across with a sweeping claim that defends the junk food industry and its paid research.

Katz’s one-two strategy, combined with journalistic negligence, has allowed him to escape serious scrutiny. But no longer–it’s time to correct the record.

David Katz and Chobani’s Sugary Yogurt

This 2012 ABC News piece mentioned a lawsuit against the yogurt company Chobani for calling sugar “evaporated cane juice.” The lawsuit alleged that Chobani used “evaporated cane juice” to disguise its excessive added sugar content. Hey, juice is healthy, right?

In the ABC News article, Katz conceded that the junk food industry may deceive consumers, but then rejects the comparison between Big Tobacco and the junk food industry, saying,

“With tobacco the product is just bad and we can eradicate it. No one needs to smoke. But we’re not going to eradicate food,”

To be sure, no one needs cigarettes, but does anyone need Chobani Yogurt, with 36% more sugar than protein, either? Katz’s misleading contrast between tobacco and junk food prompted the ABC journalist to argue in favor of collaborating with the junk food industry rather than confronting it for damaging public health. Eight months later, Katz revealed that Chobani paid him $3,500 an hour to serve as an expert witness in the same sugar lawsuit the 2012 ABC News piece covered. It’s not clear if Chobani hired Katz before ABC ran its article or afterwards.

As Chobani’s expert witness, Katz attacked the opposing side’s expert, Dr. Robert Lustig of UC San Francisco. Katz alleged that Lustig “inaccurately vilifies sugar.” His statement mentioned diabetes just once: to allege that yogurt might protect against it (Surely this does not apply to Chobani yogurt, overflowing with added sugar).

Katz rested his defense of the junk food company Chobani on the claim that, “any distinction as to the source of sugars … is immaterial.” Thus he implied that the sugar in fresh oranges affects the body just the same as the added sugar in Coca-Cola, ignoring the fact that the sugar in fruit comes in lower concentrations and is accompanied by fiber, polyphenols, and vitamins that affect the metabolic response to sugar. In his Chobani expert report, Katz favorably cited the FDA’s decision not to distinguish between added and naturally-occurring sugars.

Three years later, Katz contradicted his previous position on sugar and publicly agreed with Dr. Lustig’s distinction between added and natural sugars. He even attacked the FDA’s regulations for NOT addressing added sugar. What changed? Well, Katz developed a new source of food industry funding, for one. KIND Bars hired him as their “Senior Nutrition Advisor,” and Kind Bars was confronting FDA scrutiny for its claim to be healthy. Katz began by defending the bars’ added fat content as well as attacking the FDA’s inaction on added sugar. Yes, this is the same FDA inaction he had once defended for Chobani (The FDA has since decided to begin labeling added sugars). 

Distinguishing Coca-Cola from oranges made no sense when Chobani paid Katz, but it made perfect sense when Kind Bars funded him.

NPR and NIH Ignore David Katz’s Hershey’s Funding

Sugar-sweetened yogurt is just the beginning of Katz’s apparent conflicts. The Hershey’s Company has paid Katz over $731,000 for research. Unsurprisingly, the Centers for Disease Control partnered with Hershey’s chocolate in funding Katz’s research on the supposed health benefits of cocoa, just as the CDC has partnered in Katz’s Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.

Katz has escaped scrutiny for his candy funding, even among the government regulators and left-leaning media. For example, the NIH’s Clinical Trials database failed to mention Katz’s Hershey’s funding for one of his chocolate studies, an inexplicable omission given the conflict of interest. And NPR’s Allison Aubrey quoted David Katz on the health benefits of chocolate. In NPR, Katz defended the Mars Inc./Pfizer/Harvard study on cocoa we covered earlier on this blog. Neither the NPR reporter nor Katz himself mentioned the nearly three-quarters of a million dollars Hershey’s has paid him. This is an especially harmful omission for NPR to make–he is the article’s sole expert.

Could you imagine an NPR reporter covering the supposed health benefits of whiskey and exclusively citing Jack Daniels’ research and Jim Beam’s paid scientist?

Criticizing and Working for Coca-Cola Proxies, at the Same Time

When Anahad O’Connor exposed Coca-Cola’s Global Energy Balance Network last year in the New York Times, Katz swiftly stepped in to defend industry-funded research. Katz employed his usual one-two strategy. First he conceded that the GEBN was “a scandalous betrayal of public health.” Yet he then warned against drawing conclusions beyond this particular case, claiming that,

“An expansive disparagement of ‘industry funded’ research, for instance, is not justified”

To support his point, Katz cited his industry-funded research on walnuts. Katz protected his walnut research against his own bias, he averred. Yet he neglected to mention his work for candy and added sugar purveyors. It gets worse.

Katz concluded his article by claiming that the GEBN,

“is mired in conflict and cannot be what it purported to be. The scientists running it cannot serve public health, and their funder- for the two are at odds.”

And Katz went on to claim that Coca-Cola should not fund any projects related to food and health since,

“Coca-Cola is not merely biased on the topic of energy balance; they are conflicted. If the truth about energy balance inveighs against their product, as it does, they will work against the interests of public health and attempt to conceal that reality- as they have. They have no business funding a campaign about calories and truth, because the truth about calories is not in their interest.”

This makes sense, but Katz neglected to mention his own ties to a Coca-Cola proxy, as did Time Magazine when it quoted him while covering the GEBN fallout. Let us employ the principle of charity and assume Katz forgot. In that case, here is a reminder that he has maintained a long-term relationship with a Coca-Cola-funded health initiative.

Katz became President-elect of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine in 2012. Later that year, the ACLM chose The Coca-Cola Company as the “Platinum Sponsor” of its 2012 Lifestyle Medicine Conference.

Screen Shot 2015-09-29 at 12.36.59 PM.png

From research by Noor Greene. Image available here.

Coca-Cola’s transparency database fails to mention its payments to the ACLM. And the soda proxy has kept its site clean of any reference to its Coca-Cola funding. Katz even wrote an ACLM “President’s Report” criticizing the Global Energy Balance Network, advocating for “carefully vetted” funding sources and promising that ACLM is “proceeding accordingly.” As usual, Katz’s ACLM report failed to mention ACLM’s own Coca-Cola relationship, despite his prior admonition that “funding sources and conflicts of interest (real or potential) should be reported and entirely transparent.”

If Coca-Cola money presented an inherently corrupting conflict for the GEBN, Katz must explain why it was perfectly acceptable for his own organization, of which he is now President, to accept Coke’s dollars. Furthermore, if Katz really thinks the GEBN was a “scandalous betrayal of public health,” why does his organization continue to employ GEBN founder, Steven Blair, on its Board of Advisors?

David Katz’s PepsiCo Relationship

David Katz has maintained a relationship with PepsiCo through its Quaker Oats brand. Quaker Oats has paid Katz at least $633,000 for research over the course of his career. PepsiCo completed its acquisition of Quaker Oats in August 2001.

Katz’s Quaker relationship continued after the PepsiCo merger, meaning that it morphed into a relationship between Katz and PepsiCo. In September 2001, Katz published this “Scientific Review of the Health Benefits of Oats” for what was then PepsiCo’s Quaker Oats brand. He also spoke on cardiovascular health at a PepsiCo/Quaker conference in 2002. In 2004, he published a Quaker Oats-funded study on oatmeal that found “no significant differences” in endothelial function between the intervention and control groups, but nonetheless managed to draw conclusions about the “suggested effects of oats” by pooling the data together.

Big Sugar Hired David Katz as Expert Witness

Refinery 29 quoted David Katz to defend sugar in its January 2015 article, “Quitting Sugar is Not the Answer.” He first denied that sugar is anything like a toxin or addictive drug, but then added that sugar,

“does have addictive elements … If you’re used to eating lots of sugar, you’re going to crave it more.”

But Katz would not have you conclude from this fact that sugar is an addictive drug that you should eliminate from your diet. He instead stated that cutting out sugar is “just not necessary” and recommended that people include sweets in as part of a healthy diet. Refinery 29’s Kelsey Miller failed to mention that Big Sugar hired Katz as an expert witness on the metabolic effects of sugar in the lawsuit Western Sugar Cooperative, et al. vs. Archer-Daniels-Midland, Inc., et al. His previous Chobani contract would suggest that Big Sugar’s paying Katz roughly $3,500 an hour.

Similarly, Yahoo published “How to Eliminate Sugar From Your Diet in 21 Days” by Jacqueline Andriakos. There Katz recommended that people trying to eliminate sugar add a “low-sugar Kind Bar” to their bag. That’s right–Katz recommended that people trying to cut out sugar eat sugar. A search for a “low sugar” Kind bar yields one that contains a teaspoon of added sugar per bar. The only way to make sense of this is to remember that Kind Bar has paid Katz over $154,000. Andriakos did not mention Katz’s financial relationships with Kind Bar, nor did she mention his ties to the Western Sugar Cooperative, PepsiCo, and Coca-Cola.


David Katz recommends people trying to cut out sugar eat sugar-sweetened Kind Bars, his sponsor’s product.

Journalists, before you interview David Katz, remember the words of Shawn Carter: “Type it in, Google’s your friend bruh.” It is one thing to quote Katz as junk food’s paid advocate, but it’s quite another to present him as an independent and objective source of credible information.

Public Health Advocate / Junk Food Defender: David Katz’s Double Life

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 2.03.50 PM.png

David Katz covertly reviewed a book he wrote under a pseudonym.


When he was not advocating for junk food, Katz wrote a novel under the pseudonym Samhu Iyyam. We are told Iyyam is female. This information may seem strange, but at least it is ethically neutral. That neutrality ended when Katz reviewed his female alter ego’s work in the Huffington Post. The review may go down in history as the foremost example of self-reverence. Without revealing that he wrote the book, Katz exclaimed that he found the writing,

“as enthralling as the story was riveting. In reVision, Colleen McCullough meets John Milton. Yeats meets Yourcenar. In the blend of rollicking adventure with utopian aspiration, J.K. Rowling meets Gene Roddenberry. Where characters are vividly rendered and complex ideas distilled to stunningly simple clarities, Dickens meets Dawkins. As a clash of other worlds illuminates the better ways our world might be, Plato’s Republic meets Lord of the Rings. Where lyrically beautiful writing and deep currents of humanism traverse expanses of law and folklore, science and faith, passion and politics — the Bible, Bill of Rights and Bhagavad Gita commingle.”

Fred Brown, the Society of Professional Journalists’ spokesman rebuked Katz’s review as unethical, explaining, “You should not review something without revealing you wrote it.” When this scandal broke, Huffington Post removed Katz’s covert self-reviews, though he claims to remain on a HuffPo editorial board. Yet, as strange as Katz’s career as a novelist has been, it pales in comparison to what Katz has pulled off with nutrition.

Katz has managed to live two lives, one as a paid junk-food apologist, the other as an independent source for public health information. But what makes his story more remarkable is that he successfully played both roles under a single name. And the media and government failed to adequately vet him for conflicts of interest, all the while promoting his work to the unknowing public. Thanks to the CDC, US taxpayers provided the “core funds” for Katz’s research.

Logically and physically, only one Dr. David Katz can exist. His public health persona may be a facade, but the million-plus he has accepted from junk food companies remains a matter of fact.


  1. David and I have exchanged many emails over the years and I always sensed that there was more to his story than he let on. Of course I thought his NuVal food rating system was a bad joke. I usually sent him copies of my blog posts that typically trashed one aspect or another of the Food Industrial Complex and David would respond stating that my ideas certainly weren’t “mainstream”. It now looks like David’s ideas are “Payolastream”. Katz makes Professor Haub of Twinkie diet fame look like Mother Teresa. It’s always good to expose a shill and now David Katz has no place to hide.

  2. As someone living with sugar addiction, I am not surprised by this article. I used Weight Watchers tools and some guidelines for managing sugar addiction to learn how to regain control of my impulses (and lose a lot of weight). I could not go to the Weight Watchers meetings at first because of the influence of sugar there (products sold on commission and insistence that nothing was off limits). When I went to the meetings to claim lifetime benefits, I was asked to downplay my sugar addiction when I told my success story. After I published my story, they insisted that there was no scientific evidence or research proving sugar addiction. Perhaps Mr Katz is one of their sources.
    The only reason I continue with Weight Watchers is because I use their tracking tools and online community support.
    I have to rely on my own personal data–how I feel, mentally and physically, when I eat. Greatly reducing and then eliminating processed sugar (cane, date, maple syrup, agave, etc.) has made a huge difference to my quality of life. I have lost, and kept off over seventy-five. And that’s just a side effect of just paying attention to how I feel.
    Good article. (I trust your facts are checked!)

    • I agree completely with your perspective. This clown has been viewed as an “dietary expert” by the media and medical profession for years. Now it looks like he would have to improve to become a prostitute!

  3. I had his number when we had a conversation in the comments on one of his HuffPo pieces and he started deleting my politely reasoned replies. If there remains any doubt that he is nothing more than a narcissistic wanker, the book review fiasco alone should be enough evidence to the contrary.

    • In 2006 he made this comment to my friend Jimmy Moore: “The fact that you’ve lost weight does not make you a nutrition expert,” he wrote to me in an e-mail in 2006. “I have driven over suspension bridges–doesn’t make me an engineer.” What a complete jerk!

  4. Pingback: Candy For Diabetes? Blue Cross Blue Shield Defends Itself | THE RUSSELLS

  5. ninat12

    My comment was also deleted from the Huffington Post–twice. Did you know that the medical editor of the Huffpo is none other than Dean Ornish? Ornish and Katz are involved in a quite a few ventures, it turns out. And the Huffpo is less than transparent about its lack of objective editorship.

  6. puddleg58

    In this recent article, the egregious Dr seems to be saying that type 2 diabetes and obesity can be reversed by the elimination of meat. However, the question of whether one eats meat, or instead eats eggs, dairy, nuts, fish or whatever with one’s non-starchy vegetables and low-sugar fruits is irrelevant to the question of whether carbohydrate restriction is an effective therapy.
    He and his co-author are also conflating the question of what causes diabetes with the question of what is a sufficiently effective treatment – these are not identical questions.

  7. Pingback: Censorship and Science | Shooting the Messenger

  8. Pingback: Shadows of Denial | Shooting the Messenger

  9. Dr. Katz has also made lots of hay by denigrating leaders in the field who have NO financial conflicts, like Dr. Robert Lustig. He has written at least 8 articles making disparaging comments about Dr. Lustig and questioning his motives. I don’t have a problem with debating the science, nor does Dr. Lustig, but the personal attacks are really low. Decency and ethics should prohibit a true professional from attacking leaders in the field on a personal basis. Civilized and rigorous academic debate is most welcome however.

  10. I am not a sugar person at all, and Katz is obviously bought off. But a Chobani yogurt is an excellent alternative to donuts, bagels, and the other junk most people eat. It (and others) is also responsible for the destruction of Yoplait, which had up to 30mg of sugar.

    The Kind Bar with 5 mg of sugars blows away all the other bars when it comes to sugar.

    So let’s not get carried away here. We are not fat and sick because of Chobani yogurt and Kind bars.

  11. What the heck is Crossfit turning into? This entire article is misinformation. THIS ISN’T NEW. He talks about this! Katz has articles about some of these cases with iffy funding and connections:

    Researchers have interests, but that doesn’t mean they have conflicts of interest. He is not paid to promote the products but to do research on them. All the connections this article makes are not all there.

    He has written about not enjoying the tedious work of being a legal witness as it is a very long process, etc but he agrees to it when he already agrees with the side engaging him and when his is compensated (as most if not all people would.) Chobani was being sued for labeling. While he agreed that Chobani may have been contributing to the problem, they were better than most products and health cases and singling them out was not right.

    He does not compare the nutritional value of Coke and Fruit, he compares the sugar content in the context of Nutritional Labeling, and how in the labeling, “sugar is sugar” and they are both harmful in excess no matter what they are labled.

    KIND Bars are mostly nuts and dried fruit and even then there are many non industry-funded studies about nuts. He says KIND Bars are good for snacking and are better than most of what the public is snaking on.

    One of the cocoa studies, Katz wasn’t involved in the interpretation of the study.
    One of the cocoa studies wasn’t even done by Katz, and the actual author regularlly researches cocoa.

    The Hershey’s studies are strictly about Cocoa, there are tons of benefits from raw cocoa. ALL of his quotes and studies on chocolate are on non sweeted no sugar added cocoa! He talks about DARK CHOCOLATE…not milk chocolate, not cocoa added with sugar. There are many non industry-funded studies on dark chocolate and cocoa.

    If there are benefits to nuts is it not right for those who sells nuts to use those claims? If there are benefits to dark chocolate is it not okay for that company to promote their dark chocolate based on those studies? Just like how there are studies done on Crossfit and HITT training?

    The ACLM made strict efforts to only show the health brands Coca-Cola company has such as Smart Water. They recognize how this looks and have changed their sponsors. Coca-Cola has stopped sponsoring such assosiations.

    When these other blogs and articles quote him, it is taken out of context. Katz doesn’t have a direct relationship with PepsiCo, he was doing research on Oats, which did help Quaker but PepsiCo owns many brands. They own water bottle companies, should we stop drinking bottled water? There is no actual connection about him promoting Pesi!

    Katz again was taken out of context for sugar. What he says isn’t necessary is NEVER touching sugar again in our lives, we can have it on special occasions like birthdays and holidays, etc. That was his idea and many others, that a lifestyle approach should be taken not hard to follow restricting rules. As well as getting rid of all sugar is not the quick fix to all problems.

    Again, KIND Bars are 5 grams of sugar which is “low sugar”!! Better than the Kill Cliff endurance drinks which are 24 grams.

    As for his book reviews, we all make mistakes. Just like how Crossfit’s conference speaker was under investigation and has now been officially silenced from talking about nutrition!

    Let’s get this straight. As Katz talks about, having an interest is NOT the same as conflict of interest: “[Drug companies] fund studies hoping to show their drugs work well. The public shares an interest in drugs that work well. The motivation is transparent, and unconflicted. If the drug companies were funding studies designed to refute the notion that drugs can be harmful in any way, while the public was interested in exposing those harms, there would be a conflict.”

    “The same applies to any other funder. The idea that research can be entirely unbiased in its objectives is naïve. No researcher wastes time conducting studies without an “interest” in the outcome. That interest constitutes a bias, and it is generally shared by the funder.”

    “But biased hopes are not the same as biased methods, and bias is not the same as conflict. Robust research methods are specifically those that protect researcher, and funder alike, from their own biased motivations.”

    “[Where it becomes a problem is when industries and authors] engage in a marketing campaign to refute or discredit the weight of evidence. [If they did] they would no longer constitute a respectable research funder, for they would be conflicted.”

    “Bias does not discredit research funding, but conflict does. When we are connecting dots to see the big picture, this distinction is important.”

    “Coca-Cola is not merely biased on the topic of energy balance; they are conflicted. They have no business funding a campaign about calories and truth, because the truth about calories is not in their interest.”

    Some researchers want nothing to do with industry but Katz proposes “that industry-funded research is not the problem; conflict of interest is the problem.”

    At least Dr. David Katz is not as bad as the silenced, unqalified low carb promoters like Dr. Gary Fettke who spoke at your conference.

    There is a difference in HOPING for an outcome, and influencing that outcome.
    Interest is not the same as conflict of interest.

    When Paleo and Low Carb fad diets form your biases and obstruct your critical thinking and transparency, dishonest conflicts and collisions show through.


    When the amount of money is at play, the extreme costs of the research have to be taken into consideration. That is not an attempt to justify the funding, but a reason for studies costing thousands of dollars. Salaries, operation costs and equipment have to be dealt with, there’s a budget like in anything. The longer the study, the more expensive it will be. Some being millions of dollars. And grant is not a salary. So no, $731,000 is not going directly into Dr. Katz’s bank account. A researcher might laugh at that idea.

    In these studies, Katz is the Principal Investigator. “A Principal Investigator is the primary individual responsible for the preparation, conduct, and administration of a research grant.” “The principal investigator (the PI) usually writes and submits the grant application” Dr. David Katz receives the grant…which goes towards conducting the research trial.

    Where it becomes a bigger problem that we are missing here is if the food is considered healthy in the world of evidence-based nutrition. Funded by industry is not ideal, though there are many groups that will fund and carry out research. Such as “ICAR-Indian Institute Of Vegetable Research”, “VegFund”, “World Vegetable Center”, “Michigan Vegetable Council”, “Hass Avocado Board”, “California Avocado Commission.” Then there’s health research in oil, technology, etc. This is where the “interest” part comes in.

    The misinformation and manipulation that is in this blog article with words like “candy funding.” As said above, dark chocolate or unsweetened cocoa is not the same as the candy bars. That is a fact Katz (and many many others) recognize.

    It falsely says “Katz defended the Mars Inc./Pfizer/Harvard study on cocoa” – that is not true if you read the whole story!! “Researchers are recruiting volunteers to participate in a four-year study trial of cocoa extract [conducted by Dr. JoAnn Manson.]” Yes the funding was from Mars Inc. and Pfizer Inc. BUT… “not everyone is jazzed about the idea of turning chocolate into a nutritional supplement. “One of the beautiful things about chocolate is that it’s a source of great pleasure,” Katz told me. Katz was savoring a vegan creme au chocolate recipe made with dates.” Katz explained if there was some benefit to cocoa extract then extracting those compounds may have some benefit. There are extracts from many different foods and there’s even cocoa supplements already produced. Katz does not promote candy bars, but is open to the idea if cocoa extract had benefit, then it could be useful. That’s what research is all about…asking questions, testing, and the process goes on. Cocoa doesn’t mean candy.

    Again as said above with Katz’s Coca-Cola connection and him talking about industry funding. He isn’t talking about all industry-funded research, he is talking about ones with conflicts of interest. He isn’t bragging about the Walnut Commision funded study, he is using it as an example (and being way more transparent than most) of how these things can be done poorly or properly. How a study should get “published however it turns out. Talk about the weight of evidence, rather than working to refute it.” This goes back to “what does the evidence say?” – “The weight of evidence is in favor of health benefit from walnut consumption.” If the study showed that walnuts were unhealthy and they kept funding research and created some campaign to promote walnuts…then thats a conflict of interest. “Bias does not discredit research funding, but conflict does. When we are connecting dots to see the big picture, this distinction is important.”

    The ACLM partnership with Coca-Cola’s “health brands” was maybe a bad choice, though this was maybe selfish as it was for their annual conference. ACLM has since grown and improved. IF ACLM had promoted the sugary soda Coke THEN it would have been a conflict! In Katz’s Presidental Report he explains how GEBN’s work on “calories out” was funded by Coca-Cola…but was an effort to “emphasize calories out as the easy remedy for any number of calories in”, thus GEBN was not making a big deal about food or soda consumption. It highlights that there was clear conflict and influence. For Katz there is interest as a researcher and scientist, but that doesn’t mean there’s conflict or influence.

    Quaker did not directly pay Katz. The blog article says “Katz’s Quaker relationship continued after the PepsiCo merger, meaning that it morphed into a relationship between Katz and PepsiCo.” – That’s not a direct relationship, and if it is he is still doing research for Quaker Oats, NOT Pepsi. The Quaker study “does not confirm a beneficial influence of oat ingestion on endothelial function” and that further study is needed. They added “suggests”…true…this was considering short term and sustained treatment but there was no influence from Quaker on the conclusion.

    He talks about even publishing industry-funded studies with negative results the funder did not love – Natural chromium supplementation does not help with diabetes. But it was funded by “National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3118091/

    Again with “Big Sugar”: Katz’s testimony using studies that were excluded by the defendant! Most likely because the “defendants are manufacturers and trade groups and associations active in the corn and HFCS industry.” Katz is not even mentioned in the legal document. He was not infavor of sugar either!! He said “there is no good reason to differentiate high-fructose corn syrup from table sugar. This is a case where sugar is sugar, and our problem is excess. The dose makes the poison, of either variety…sugar is sugar. We eat too much of it.” http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?s=CA&d=85060

    Click to access archer-daniels-midland.authcheckdam.pdf


    Once again, we know that KIND Bar’s are only 5 grams of sugar and are much better than traditional unhealthy snacks. More importantly Katz was not paid “over $154,000” because this was a research grant.

    “Use of the word “conflict” has become an almost reflexive disparagement of industry funded research; a meme, of sorts, invoked presumably to highlight one’s own virtue.” – however this can be dealt with thoughtfully and has been viewed as maybe renaming it to a “Confluence” or “merging”, and not an automatic conflict of interest.

    Again, while I am guilty of only looking at funding sources too, they are not the whole story. Biased preference will happen, always. “Biased methods, in contrast, are avoidable- or nearly so. Methods, then, and safeguards against bias in the study protocol, are the more robust measure of a study’s merits than the funding source, or the native preferences of funder or investigators.”

    What might be more important is “the pockets of some funders, namely those who deal routinely in patents, are much deeper than those of others.” Nobody is paying millions for big broccoli.

    While questioning all of this, perhaps we need to question Crossfit and the article itself…

    When I am able to go that indepth, analyze it and pick it apart peice by peice it is clear to anybody that there is more to the story…but people don’t want to do that much digging into the TRUTH. There is no causal relationship, no actual harmful conflicts involving Dr. David Katz and very weak evidence to assert such claims.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: