Long before the innovation funnel, big food companies conducted their research and development (R&D) mostly in-house. Their labs were large enough for 'blue sky' research, which may not have led directly to retail outcomes. It was an act of faith that knowledge would lead to opportunity.
If the vast funding spend wasn't an issue; then shorter innovation cycles demanded a speedier response from a flexible R&D resource. Also, the knowledge explosion required fast information access. The 1990s saw the growth of external research, EU funding, and collaborative European programmes, enabling access to the best corporate and academic expertise centres, where they fitted strategic priorities.
Unsurprisingly, we're now seeing reports of bias in nutritional studies. Specialists are recommending independent funding of nutrition research, which otherwise tends to favourably reflect industrial sponsors' interests.
Well it would, wouldn't it?
If your product is nutritionally beneficial, then a positive scientific report is grist to the marketing communications mill. Uncomplimentary data can be conveniently ignored: it lacks commercial value.
But R&D funding has to be sourced somewhere: there are limits to government and EU funded programmes.
Today, the climate is different. There's less altruism, a sharper focus and more commercial justification.
Therefore, a legitimate question is: does the sponsors' money really distort outcomes - or is it merely pre-selecting inputs towards studies most likely to produce unequivocal results?
After all, life's too short to fund a 'turkey' - or is it?
Paul Hart - heads up Nutraceuticals, an ingredient development consultancy. Email:
paul.m.hart@btopenworld.com