| Statement 2.15 –Decline to give a presentation at events sponsored by the food industry |
| Researchers (46% agreement) |
Stakeholders (29% agreement) |
A blanket ban on giving presentations is probably unhelpful. I think one should have the opportunity to give presentations that challenge the industry during industry events. On the other hand; giving presentations that align with industry interests may inflict reputational damage on the researcher; so one should think very carefully about accepting presentation invitations. (Researcher 64: Monitoring nutritional status & food environments, food/nutrition policy interventions, Malta) This is a really tricky one. I think it needs to be assessed on a case by case basis. I would definitely not accept funding to present; but if I self-funded to go and I thought it a really crucial event; I might consider it (although generally wouldn’t do it). (Researcher 12: Monitoring food environments, behavioural change interventions & reformulation, Australia) Some food companies are doing, or trying to do well by the public health. Even within the companies who are considered malevolent, there are often good people trying to do well by the public. The food industry should be approached as a potential partner in promoting the public’s health: e.g. getting McDonalds to make a healthier hamburger or other offerings can affect the 52 million meals they serve every day: what an impact on the public’s health (Researcher 138: Nutritional epidemiology, behavioural change interventions, USA) |
Researchers shouldn’t give personally sponsored talks; but an event that takes sponsorship may occasionally be an important place to get the message across. Communicating only with other researchers and public health professionals is not always good enough. (Funder 12, UK) Difficult decision; many professional events for example professional events are sponsored by food industry; e.g. International Conference of Nutrition some years back was sponsored by Danone and Coca Cola. As long as you are independent; it maybe ok. (Policy officer 46, India) Without adequate funding from other sources, this is unrealistic. There is great value in dissemination of results across all sectors. (Policy influencer 80, USA) |
| Statement 2.16 –Decline funding (e.g. travel costs or honorarium) from the food industry to present research findings at an event |
| Researchers (63% agreement) |
Stakeholders (56% agreement) |
Depends on the company and the healthfulness orientation of their products; as well as whether you are free to be critical even of items which would be similar to those they have in their portfolio. (Researcher: food/nutrition policy interventions + understanding food systems, Malta) Depends; but would be very careful. Very important to consider your reputation by doing that. (Researcher 23: Monitoring food environments + food/nutrition policy, Australia) This is simply impractical: academics have very limited budgets (I get £700 per year) and if we could not accept travel costs we simply could not attend. My expectation is that all costs are covered when giving an invited talk. (Researcher 93: Behavioural change interventions, food reformulation, UK) |
Travel and accommodation; especially if not international and in standard class seem not unreasonable. Honoraria create an appearance of compromise. (Funder 14, UK) I’m really conflicted about this action. The reality is that covering travel costs is an enabler for PH researchers to get their information out there. But honorarium steps into a conflicted zone for me. (Policy influencer 22, Australia) Honorarium should be an industry standard amount and not an amount that would be used to influence the researcher. (Policy influencer 81, USA) |
