Britons rate 'independent' health foods research higher than industry studies
of life is seen as important by Britons but they are skeptical
about collaborations between industry and universities, finds a new
survey.
The study, carried out by MORI over the summer, was commissioned by the research organisation BBSRC to gain feedback on their current research projects and shape future work.
But it also reveals how the public views research on diet in general and shows that most Brtions are not aware of how science works or how research should be judged.
Nevertheless, the opinions gathered during two workshops and a large-scale survey of more than 2,000 adults across the UK, suggest that most people view research on protection against disease, fighting obesity and the nutritional quality of food as worthwhile areas for government funding.
Health education and health promotion are also felt to be a valuable outcome of research.
"There is very clear support among the public for ongoing research into diet and heath, even if the likelihood of a breakthrough or big leap forward is low," noted the report, available on the BBSRC website.
In contrast, research into improving the taste and colour and appearance of food is considered of low priority, and should be funded by food makers, according to those surveyed.
The study revealed some significant concerns in the area of diet and health. Those frequently cited were healthy eating, particularly among young people, the impact of the work-life balance on diet and health (felt strongly by those aged 35-54 years), effects of diet and exercise on the risks from life-threatening health conditions, such as cancer, heart disease and obesity, and excessive drinking.
But there is generally good awareness of the idea that different foods and drinks may have beneficial or harmful effects on human health, thanks partly to the influence of the media and programmes like 'Supersize me'.
Among examples of foods that can have benefits, the public cited red wine, antioxidants for preventing heart disease, fish oil and omega 3 fatty acids. But they are concerned by risks from food additives/E-numbers, red meat and its association with bowel cancer, and the impact of soya on fertility.
Britons recognise that research is needed for providing information on nutrition to consumers, and felt that this improved their freedom of choice.
"People want to be provided with important information on diet and health - that is relevant for them - and choose theirdiet for themselves," notes the report.
This was further underlined when several groups highlighted consistency of information on diet and health as a problem, with research findings and advice seen to change and conflict.
Moreover, trust in research is significantly higher if it is 'independent', which is defined as not being paid for by manufacturers, and research that is fully and accurately reported.
The workshops showed wide opposition to the use of public funding for research being used for commercial purposes/'profit-led' research, such as improving the taste of food, or assisting with the manufacturing process.
By comparison, research proposals where the potential public benefits are clear were viewed much more favourably, even if the timescales and possibility of a breakthrough are uncertain.
And the contribution to UK prosperity/wealth creation is not widely seen as an important factor for deciding which research into diet and health should be funded, a reflection of the lower importance placed on money/financial security compared with having good health, said the authors.
"There appears to be a need for further public dialogue on the funding of research into biotechnology and biological sciences, and for communication of how dialogue has been used to steer policies and funding decisions," concluded the authors.
