The funding of research projects, laboratories, and entire academic centers by the food and pharmaceutical industries is now a fact of life in modern medical research, which is why many journals require that their authors declare potential conflicts of interest. But it raises important questions, just the same. When Science dedicated special issues to obesity research in 1998 and again in 2003, James Hill from the University of Colorado was selected both times to write the review article on diet and lifestyle factors that influence weight gain. In those articles Hill argued that passive overeating and sedentary behavior were the causes of obesity, and he recommended reducing fat in the diet. Hill had long been a defender of the role of carbohydrates and particularly sugar in weight regulation. He even wrote an article, paid for by the Sugar Association, promoting the use of sugar in weight-loss diets, under the assumption that a high-carbohydrate diet, even if loaded with sugar, would “reduce the likelihood of overeating, rather than increasing it, as some popular diet theories purport.” (“The theory that dietary sugar equals high insulin levels equals excess fat deposits is unproven and makes little biological sense,” Hill wrote.) Over the years, as Hill has acknowledged in his conflict-of-interest statements, he has also received consulting fees from Coca-Cola, Kraft Foods, and Mars (makers of Snickers, M&M’s and Mars Bars), companies that would stand to suffer significant setbacks if the notion of the fattening carbohydrate was institutionalized as a fact of science. He has also received over $2 million in what are technically termed “gifts” to his laboratory from Procter & Gamble, the maker of the fat substitute olestra, which has been described in the press as potentially a “dieter’s dream.” Olestra’s only reason for existence is that it will allegedly help us manage our weight by replacing fat in the diet and making it easier for us to consume a low-fat, low-calorie diet. If carbohydrates are the fattening nutrients in human diets rather than fat or all calories, as Atkins suggested, then these diets have no role in weight loss or weight regulation, and olestra’s rationale vanishes.

If the study of weight regulation were a legal issue, rather than a medical and scientific one, the support from Procter & Gamble would have been considered reason enough for Hill to recuse himself from any discussions of the dietary treatment of obesity or participation in any dietary trials that might directly influence Procter & Gamble’s profitability, and thus perhaps Hill’s interests.