Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Publications such as the British Medical Journal are now - rightly, in my opinion - asking that contributers declare any financial interests in what they write about. Holford has recently had an (online) rapid response published on the BMJ website. Unfortunately, no competing interests are listed: either Holford failed to acknowledge his competing interests when he submitted his letter to the BMJ, or they failed to publish these interests on their website.

Holford apparently does have what the BMJ would class as ‘competing interests’ in the area of nutrition: as well as actively writing and researching about nutrition, Holford has reportedly acknowledged that

any product, be it a publication, seminar, food or supplement, that is authored/invented by me has my name on it and earns me a royalty/payment. That is how I live and fund my research.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing (we all need to earn a living, and those of us doing research do need to find the way to pay for our research and eat at the same time). However, when writing to and for the BMJ, such interests need to be declared - in order to maintain transparency. Others working in the field of nutrition - Dr John Briffa, for example - have declared their competing interests when submitting letters to the BMJ.

Especially as Holford has complained that issues around funding and profitably have limited medical research, one would expend him to see transparency about competing interests as especially important. I therefore hope that Holford writes to the BMJ ASAP - to get them to correct the omission of his competing interests.