Table 1.
Principles for preventing or managing conflicts of interest identified from published sources
| Themes, Subthemes, and Statements | Sources |
|---|---|
| 1.Funding | |
| 1.1 A pool of funding from the food industry that is independently administered by a publically accountable third party should be created | 13, 42, 43 |
| 1.2 A system where industry provides funding to research institutions, not individual researchers or research units, should be created | 10, 42, 44 |
| 1.3 Researchers should not accept funds from the food industry | 7, 14, 45, 46, 47 |
| 1.4 Researchers should not accept funds from processed food companies | 7, 14, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 |
| 1.5 Researchers should not accept funds from any commercial organization | 45, 46 |
| For those who accept funding from the food industry | |
| 1.6 Researchers should have no commercial interest in the product being researched | 42 |
| 1.7 Funding from industry should reflect the full cost of the research (eg, using a standard academic costing framework) and not more than this amount | 42 |
| 1.8 Industry funding should be nondesignated | 51 |
| 1.9 There should be no involvement of the food industry funder in any aspect of a research project | 27 |
| 1.10 There should be limited involvement of the funder in any aspect of the project | 52 |
| 2. Undertake thorough risk assessment | |
| Risk assessment of potential partner(s) | |
| 2.1 Have a clearly identified system to identify and assess interests of potential partners | 12, 13, 14, 17, 34, 35, 36, 43, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 |
| 2.2 A partnership should only be initiated if it will help advance the public health goal | 4, 14, 15, 17, 54, 58 |
| 2.3 Only enlist partners who are committed to long term funding and engagement |
15, 16
Opposite sentiment: 35 |
| 2.4 Only enlist partners who are committed to sharing of research data arising from the research project | 15, 16 |
| 2.5 Only enlist partners who operate in an ethical manner and uphold the human rights of women, men, and children | 14, 34, 35, 48, 51, 53, 59 |
| 2.6 Ensure the organizational values and overarching goals of the partners are compatible | 4, 14, 17, 34, 35, 36, 54, 60, 61, 62 |
| 2.7 Ensure all partners have shared objectives and a shared approach to the research question and activities | 15, 58, 60, 63 |
| 2.8 Avoid companies whose objectives and/or goals are related to the increased production, supply or demand of “unhealthy food” products and/or to the promotion of unhealthy and unsustainable ways of eating and producing food | 35, 42, 48, 49 |
| 2.9 Assess whether the partnership could undermine the integrity or trustworthiness of my institution | 17, 35, 36, 54, 55, 62 |
| Risk assessment of type of engagement | |
| 2.10 Consider whether the proposed engagement would be acceptable across institutions and national borders | 4, 61 |
| 2.11 Be guided by generic international protocols and frameworks (eg, World Health Organization) on appropriate types of engagement | 14, 51 |
| Ensure public benefit is at centre of agreement | |
| 2.12 Consider whether the partnership provides maximum benefit to society | 12, 16, 36, 50, 54 |
| 2.13 Consider what the public would think about this arrangement | 17, 27, 46, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65 |
| Consider possibility of reputational damage and loss of trust | |
| 2.14 Consider what my colleagues would think about this arrangement | 64 |
| 2.15 Decline to give industry sponsored presentations | 34 |
| 2.16 Do not “ghost write” publications for the private sector | 34, 64 |
| 2.17 Do not accept gifts or hospitality if it compromises or appears to compromise objectivity | 64, 65 |
| 2.18 Do not participate in undisclosed paid authorship arrangements in industry‐sponsored publications or presentations | 39 |
| 2.19 Do not allow the commercial partner to co‐brand (eg, use their logo) on the research project or related material | 4, 43, 51 |
| 3. Research governance | |
| 3.1 Clearly state and agree goals, objectives, roles, and responsibilities and accountability before work commences | 4, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 27, 34, 38, 43, 54, 58, 59, 60, 66 |
| 3.2 Plan research so it is designed objectively and is scientifically sound in its approach | 37, 39, 41, 44, 67 |
| 3.3 Establish upfront control and ownership of the data by the researcher/s but provide accessibility to data and analyses to the industry funder | 37, 40, 67, 68 |
| 3.4 Data analysis should be done by statisticians independent of the researcher/s who designed and conducted the study | 8, 42 |
| 3.5 Undertake random audits of data provided by food companies for research projects | 10 |
| 3.6 Secure oversight of the research by a nonconflicted third party | 10, 12, 13, 16, 34, 41, 60 |
| 3.7 Require all trials or other studies in dietary public health to be registered at time of initiation of the study | 8, 45 |
| Ensure partners have equal power | |
| 3.8 Along with the private sector, include members of civil society (eg, foundations, NGOs, and consumers) as partners | 10, 15, 16, 17, 54, 60 |
| 3.9 Ensure diversity of partners to avoid undue influence of any one partner | 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 43, 51, 52, 69 |
| 3.10 The research institution must be able to independently criticize a commercial‐sector entity for issues unrelated to the partnership | 34 |
| Ensure public benefit is at centre of agreement | |
| 3.11 Engage independent members of the public in the process of defining research problems and subjecting research projects to ongoing critical scrutiny | 15, 39, 43, |
| Management of conflict(s) of interest | |
| 3.12 Have a clearly identified system to identify, assess, and manage the interests of all stakeholders | 12, 13, 14, 34, 36, 43, 51, 54, 55, 56, 59 |
| 3.13 Recuse stakeholders from committee (or similar) decision making where there may be an actual or perceived conflict | 13, 16, 34, 59, 68, 70 |
| 3.14 Continuously monitor for conflicts of interest | 13, 17, 39, 43, 51, 55 |
| Consequences | |
| 3.15 Establish clearly stated exit mechanisms for partners | 16, 17, 34, 36, 43, 54 |
| 3.16 Establish sanctions with effective enforcement for violation of conflict of interest including reprimands, fines, and dismissal | 13, 43, 45 |
| 4. Transparency | |
| 4.1 Explicitly report funding, governance structures, research frameworks, and findings and ensure it is publically available | 10, 13, 14, 27, 69, 71 |
| 4.2 All individuals involved in a research partnership should undertake full disclosure including financial, personal, and professional interests over the past 5 years | 7, 13, 14, 16, 24, 34, 37, 39, 45, 51, 52, 53, 56, 59, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73 5 years specifically: 8, 69 |
| 4.3 All individuals involved in research partnership should disclose interests of their spouse/partner, minor children, employer, and business partners | 13, 64 |
| 4.4 Ensure all presentations and media releases from an industry partner, regarding any research project to which they have contributed direct or in‐kind funding, are endorsed by the research partner | 64, 67, 69 |
| 4.5 Require full disclosure of funding sources and financial interests in research media releases | 67, 74 |
| 4.6 Require a declaration of interests slide in all presentations and a written statement on any poster presentations | 39, 40, 52, 56, 67, 70, 74 |
| 4.7 Establish a public database of conflicts of interests in dietary public health research | 8 |
| 5. Publication | |
| 5.1 Academic researchers should include all potential conflict of interests including full affiliation as well as disclosure of industry funding and/or industry affiliation in research publications | 37, 39, 40, 67, 68, 70, 73 |
| 5.2 Ensure research partner retains full rights to publish all results, including those unfavourable to the funder | 27, 37, 40, 42, 52, 67, 68, 69 |
| 5.3 Ensure the research partner has control over the preparation and approval of peer‐reviewed manuscript | 67, 68 |
| 5.4 Establish clear definitions around sponsorships and author affiliations to be used in publications, such as: industry funded, non–industry funded, and unknown/unclear sponsorship | 75 |