Reputable journals insist that funding be declared in the article.  You
can usually find such information on the first page, or sometimes the
last page of the published article.  Nevertheless, it is up to the
honesty of the researchers to include all such information, and of
course, rarely does anyone check to see that they have included all
funding sources.

Formula companies fund a lot of studies in the "nutrition" field.  And
unlike what the researchers themselves say, the funding has a tremendous
influence.  Because, the researchers know that if they want continued
funding, they had better come up with the right conclusions.  There is
probably nothing openly said, but we know, don't we?

So, for example, a study published a few years ago on iron deficiency in
8 month old children in a poor part of Montreal, showed that the risk of
iron deficiency increased with poverty, *not* breastfeeding, using cow's
milk and so on.  This study was funded by Ross.  What were the
recommendations of the authors'?  That government should be promoting
breastfeeding?  No, not even mentioned in the conclusion.  Their
recommendation were essentially that government should provide free,
iron "enriched" formula to poor women, the experience of the US WIC
programme not seeming to provide even the slightest restraint to this
breathtakingly stupid conclusion.  I asked the principal author about
the funding.  She stated that she went to the Medical Research Council
of Canada, and they refused her money after tons of paper work.  She
then went to Ross and they gave her the money without batting an eye (or
asking any questions).  As it turns out, not long after the study was
published, the Canadian Pediatric Society came out for the use of iron
enriched formula, which, if you agree with the logic, (and I don't),
also justifies formula to 9 months or a a year (with which I strongly
disagree).  And the Quebec government started to provide coupons for
formula to women on welfare.  Ross' donation of a few thousand dollars
pays off handsomely, though I don't suggest that this study alone did
the trick.  They had probably been lobbying the Canadian Pediatric
Society and various governments for years.

Funding can also be hidden.  For example, if we are comparing two
groups, breastfeeding and formula, the formula company can donate all
the formula.  This can result in huge savings, yet strictly speaking,
would not be considered "funding" by some people, although it obviously
is.  Or the formula company can donate the machine used to measure
oxygen saturations for example, and so on.  And, by the way, this does
not have to be formula companies that influence studies, but also
*anyone* who provides money.

Jack Newman, MD, FRCPC