Objectives. This study examined the association between authors’ published positions on the safety and efficacy in assisting with weight loss of the Procter & Gamble (P&G) fat substitute olestra and their financial relationships with the food and beverage industry.Methods. Journal articles about olestra, and their authors, were classified as supportive, critical, or neutral with respect to its use. Authors not known to have industry affiliations were surveyed about their financial relationships.Results. Supportive authors were significantly more likely than critical or neutral authors to have financial relationships with P&G (80% vs 11% and 21%, respectively; P < .0001). All authors disclosing an affiliation with P&G were supportive.Conclusions. Because authors’ published opinions were associated with their financial relationships, obtaining noncommercial funding may be more essential to maintaining objectivity than disclosing personal financial interests.
展开▼
机译：目标。这项研究调查了作者发表的有关协助宝洁（P＆G）脂肪替代品olestra减肥的安全性和功效及其与食品和饮料行业的财务关系之间的关系。关于olestra及其作者的期刊文章就其使用而言被分类为支持，批评或中立。调查了不具行业隶属关系的作者的财务关系。结果。支持作者比宝洁或中立作者更可能与宝洁有财务关系（分别为80％比11％和21％； P <.0001）。所有公开与宝洁有从属关系的作者均表示支持。由于作者发表的意见与他们的财务关系有关，因此获得非商业性资金对于保持客观性可能比披露个人财务利益更为重要。
展开▼
