An investigation by Mónica Cerbón and Kennia Velázquez
for POPLab and CONNECTAS

A group of college students walk with a bottle of Gatorade in their hands. On their shoulders they carry a bag given to them when they registered, containing ultra-processed foods with seals that warn of excess sugar, sodium or fats. Some of these brands welcome them at the entrance of the venue. It is necessary to pay close attention to realize that this is the poster for one of the most important nutrition congresses in Mexico, held in the state of Guanajuato, aimed at students of that career.

For these young people and some of their teachers, the presence in academic spaces of products associated with non-communicable diseases is common.

Ultra-processing companies financing Mexican public universities is also common. In 12 years, higher education institutions have received, at least, 6.8 million dollars from these companies to carry out projects and academic research in areas of health and nutrition.

During this investigation, via Transparencia, more than 80 federal and state universities and research centers were asked if they received resources from the ultra-processed food industry to carry out academic projects. The National Transparency Platform and the websites of the main ultra-processed food product companies were also reviewed. It was found that at least 26 universities received funds from the industry, although in 12 cases the amounts invested are unknown.

The lack of transparency regarding contracts with industries prevents us from knowing the magnitude of the phenomenon. Only 15 of the more than 80 public universities shared the signed contracts, although according to the Transparency Law, they are required to make them public. This investigation attempted to access the information repeatedly, and in some cases it was necessary to make up to five information requests.

Although the impact of this funding on scientific work cannot be made visible due to the opacity of the universities, in eight of the 28 contracts to which PopLab and CONNECTAS had access, clauses are included that show the interference of the industry in the scientific process.

According to the documents, the companies can select the people who make up the research groups, or even eliminate any of the members at their sole discretion. In other cases, they can stop funding if they do not agree with the academic advances, or place third parties (without specifying who, or whether they have commercial interests) as supervisors of the investigations.

For example, a contract signed in 2015 between the Center for Research and Advanced Studies (Cinvestav, in its Spanish acronym) and PepsiCo, says that the university must obtain the consent of the company “before incorporating or replacing any of the members of the research activities team.” And it rules: “PepsiCo may, at its sole discretion, require the removal of any individual or entity from the university’s research activities team at any time.”

Click to view the contract

The details about the project were reserved as confidential arguing trade secret, although the university initially classified these resources as a donation.

For this research, interviews were requested with both institutions. The company responded that it did not have any spokesperson available, while the research center did not respond to the five requests sent through different means.

The Kellogg’s Foundation includes in its contracts with the Universidad de Yucatan or with the Colegio de la Frontera Sur, both located on the Mexican peninsula, a clause where they “reserve the right to suspend funding and terminate the grant at any time if the Foundation determines, in its sole discretion, that it is dissatisfied with the beneficiary’s performance, project progress, or the content of any written report.”

Click to view the contract

When questioned in this regard, Kellogg’s did not specify in which situations it can suspend financing, but assured that it is “a private philanthropic organization and not the charitable arm” of the commercial corporation that bears the same name.

Although it is an independent organization in its decisions, according to its financial reports and several experts consulted, the foundation is financed by the Kellogg’s company through a trust, and a former trustee holds a position in the company. On many occasions, the money donated by the Kellogg’s Foundation was used for social projects to promote food sovereignty and nutrition for children.

The experts consulted point out that these situations can lead to conflicts of interest and studies without the necessary independence. It was not possible to determine if there are strict mechanisms to inform, address and sanction possible conflicts of interest of researchers, since only four universities accepted the interview requests. Of them, one said that they have protocols for conducting research independent of funding sources, and another said that they are advancing in the design.

For Ana Larrañaga, nutritionist and food health researcher at the non-profit organization El Poder del Consumidor, the industry funding may affect the positions of public universities regarding the effects of ultra-processed foods on people’s health.

“An institution that is not receiving sums of money from that sector could position itself against practices that are harmful, or the quality of those products; however, these relationships, which could almost be commercial, influence the public position that the institution may or may not issue,” Larrañaga explains.

Although there is no evidence that this has happened, there are cases in which the financing has left concerns within the academic community. In 2015, the National Association of Producers of Soft Drinks and Carbonated Waters (ANPRAC, in its Spanish acronym) paid 1.6 million pesos (93 thousand dollars) to the Colegio de Mexico (Colmex) to carry out a study on the tax on sugary drinks that Mexico implemented since 2014. The contract included clauses that allowed the association “the right to supervise and review the progress of the investigation”.

Click to view the contract

The Colmex study, which is no longer available online, concluded ( according to ANPRAC itself) that the tax negatively affected total spending, and with it the access to basic basket products, of the sectors with a lower socioeconomic level. The Association then determined that “despite certain limitations”, a “proportional relationship between the decrease in the consumption of sugary drinks with the decrease in caloric consumption of the population studied” was not proven. This study was widely shared by the soft drink industry as proof of the failure of the measure imposed by the government to reduce caloric consumption in the country.

In internal emails from The Coca Cola Company sent between March and April 2016, executives asked to share this study (along with others financed by the soft drink companies) with the United States media, to show that taxes on sugary drinks do not inhibit their consumption, despite numerous evidence to the contrary.

One of those investigations disseminated by the soft drink company was carried out by the Universidad de Nuevo Leon (UANL, in its Spanish acronym). In the publication, it acknowledges having received private resources for its preparation, without specifying the origin of the financing. The study stated that “since soft drinks are a necessary good in the economic sense, the tax especially harmed the poorest households and it caused the loss of more than 10 thousand jobs”.

In August 2020, the National Association of Soft Drinks Producers signed another contract, now with UNAL, to finance the project “Regressivity and effects of the Special tax on Production and Services (known in spanish as IEPS) applied to the flavored beverage industry in Mexico”. One of the objectives was “to estimate the impact of the tax on the poor”.

The contract states that both parties agreed that “the ownership, use and rights arising from the investigation” would belong to ANPRAC and that the association could make free use of the content of that research. Via transparency, the university did not provide a copy of the study.

In May 2010, Nestlé and the Mexican Universidad del Bicentenario (UMB, in its Spanish acronym) signed a contract in which the company donated a building to the institution, located in the municipality of Ocoyoacac, which they named the Nutrition Training and Development Center (CEFODEN, in its Spanish acronym).

In the donation contract, the company undertakes that “to the extent of its possibilities” it will support the research and development projects of the institution. A clause was also included to force the university to negotiate with the State Executive, which at that time was Enrique Peña Nieto, later president of Mexico, a space for a person from Nestlé to participate in the Board of Directors of that educational establishment.

Training and Development Center in Nutrition donated by Nestlé to the Universidad Mexiquense del Bicentenario.
Photo: Facebook profile of Universidad Mexiquense del Bicentenario

The University, according to a its articles of incorporation, must have two representatives of the productive sector on its Board of Directors, and those who occupy those spaces must be invited by the governor in turn. Their participation is for two years with the option to be elected for an equal period. Nestlé, however, asked the university to make its participation on the council permanent.

Although an interview was requested from both Nestlé and the university on the subject, neither of them responded.

For this research, an interview was requested from 26 universities and public research centers in Mexico that, could be corroborated, received private financing, but only four responded: the Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California, the Colegio de Mexico, and the Universidad del Mar.

At the Colegio de Mexico and the Autonomous Universidad de Yucatan, the people interviewed stated that they do not have sufficient measures to prevent possible conflicts of interest between the academy (or its researches) and industry funders.

Elsy Mezo Palma, General Director of Finance at the Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan explained that each project goes through a legal review, but said that she doesn’t know if there are also protocols that evaluate a possible conflict of interest. She added that most of the time it is the researchers themselves who obtain private resources to finance their research.

Patricio Solís, Academic Secretary of the Colegio de Mexico (Colmex), one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the country, founded in 1960, explained that five years ago, general ethics guidelines were established that provide for conflicts of interest, but there is still no integrated committee that analyzes the cases. That, he affirms, is a goal they seek to achieve in 2024.

According to Solis, those challenges include defining the degree of independence of the members of said committee.

The Autonomous Universidad de Baja California and the Universidad del Mar informed that the financing had been given directly to the researchers, without the university mediating. The second also stated that it has mechanisms to prevent and sanction conflicts of interest.

Scientific research specialists assure that private financing is not always declared by universities or researchers; to Marion Nestlé, master’s degree in Nutrition and Public Health from the University of California, this is a practice that hides a possible conflict of interest.

The lack of transparency, says Ana Larrañaga, from El Poder del Consumidor, is worrying, “it may be because universities do not want to bear the cost of declaring who they receive these funds from and for what. They should be monitored most closely, they are institutions in which we place very strong trust for decision-making and the training of professionals”.

The financial opacity of universities is an omission from the law. In Mexico, the General Law of Transparency and Access to Public Information, in its article 75, obliges public higher education entities to make all their administrative processes transparent, which includes publishing all the contracts they sign and the terms they agree to in each of them.

The experts consulted agree that the private financing provided by universities for research is only a part of what companies actually allocate to them, since resources are also delivered through civil society organizations, foundations or directly to researchers.

In the case of the academics, the rules for declaring financing before the university authorities depend on their employment status, academic level, the collective contract and the institution to which they belong. But it is not a legal obligation, explains Isabel Valero, PhD in Public Health in Nutrition from Queen Mary University of London, “It is not legally required, it is a moral act, no one verifies that the declaration of conflict of interest is actually true. Normally, when they declare it, it’s because it’s inevitable to hide it, but there are many front groups, many small financings that perhaps they themselves say that they do not need to declare it,” said the specialist.

Enrique Fernández Fassnacht, former rector of the Universidad Autonoma Mexicana (2009-2013) and former general director of the Instituto Politecnico Nacional (2014-2017), assures that there are researchers who “participate in projets with other private institutions, or companies, and who do not report that work to the university”. The former official commented that the researchers owe a commitment to the university that hires them.

On the other hand, Raúl Arias Lovillo, former rector of the Universidad Veracruzana, says that the country’s federal authorities must establish surveillance mechanisms to avoid possible conflicts of interest between public universities, their researchers and private funders. “Companies win because in the absence of an institutional protocol, the company tries to take advantage of it as much as possible, even overlooking fundamental purposes of institutions of higher education. Many researchers are making their profits without any university being able to intervene.”

In Mexico, one of the largest financiers for academia is the Fundacion Gonzalo Rio Arronte, a private assistance association that, in 9 years, has given (at least) 51 million pesos (2.9 million dollars) to the Autonomous Universidad Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), the Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana (UAM), Cinvestav and the National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubirán. Its board of trustees is made up of people linked to the financial, industrial, academic, commercial and restaurant sectors, among others.

Pablo Kuri Morales, a former federal official controversial for benefiting soft drink companies when he was a public official, and for defending industry-designed warning labeling officially implemented in 2015, is currently in charge of the Health Committee in Rio Arronte, the area in charge of granting donations for the development of projects “aimed at solving health problems with the greatest impact” in the country.

Researchers in nutrition, health and social issues who have received financial support assured that they have not experienced interference in their research processes, but they showed concern about the presence of Kuri Morales on the board. Neither Kuri Morales nor the foundation responded to the interview requests for this report.

Various studies conclude that the origin of financing can influence the development and results of the research. For example, academics from Stanford University and Rome University reviewed 600 clinical trials, in which they found that 68% are financed by the industry, half of them exclusively by companies; in 59% of the cases, the authors were corporate employees; 20% were reviewed by industry analysts, and 89% reached conclusions favorable to the sponsors.

Marion Nestlé, master’s degree in Nutrition and Public Health from the University of California, explains that “funding is well established as a factor with a high probability of biasing research questions and results. It focuses on commercial interests rather than real science”. She adds that they can even refuse the publication of academic studies whose results affect their commercial or advertising strategies.

The influence of companies is not limited to laboratories. PopLab and CONNECTAS detected that ultra-processed companies also donate millions of dollars to public universities in Mexico to carry out social and health promotion projects in marginalized communities. Simón Barquera, director of the Nutrition and Health Research Center, says that this is nothing other than Health Washing, that is to say, an advertising tactic by companies to show interest in positive health activities, even if their products are harmful.

For example, while the Kellogg’s Foundation financed food sovereignty projects for indigenous children in the Mexican peninsula, a 2019 investigation by Changing Markets revealed that the company had eliminated key nutrients in five of its most popular products in Mexico, with the aim of making its production chain cheaper. “The expectation is that this will cause a deterioration in children’s diets,” criticized the study.

This industry also has presence at academic events. In April 2024, the 37th congress of the Mexican Association of Nutrition Faculties and Schools (AMMFEN, in its Spanish acronym) was held, hosted by the Universidad de Guanajuato, with 1,500 attendees. 70 percent were students, according to Mónica Sáchez Alcocer, then president of the association.

PepsiCo informed, without specifying the exact amount, that in 2023 it donated between 10,000 and 19,999 dollars to the AMMFEN. All products given in the welcome kit are brands of this company, which also set up a stand at the congress and several speakers are spokespersons for its Gatorade brand.

Products delivered to attendees at the 37th AMMFEN Congress and Pepsi stand at the event

Sánchez Alcocer explained that they have clear guidelines where they ask allies to respect the purposes of the association. When questioned about the promotion of ultra-processed foods in the congress, she said, “The experts are here and if not, they wouldn’t be present, they know well what type of products they are and what the formulation is and why each thing is”. Despite the fact that a study published in The British Medical Journal found that ultra-processed foods are associated with 32 different health conditions.

The association has alliances with more than 40 public and private universities. On how they protect themselves from conflicts of interest, Sánchez Alcocer said that everything is explained in their statutes, “they are visible to everyone in our web pages, there is total transparency in everything, in the resources”. However, conflict of interest is not mentioned in its statutes, there are no public financial reports, nor was it found on the list of the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit as an authorized donee, the only legal way in which an association can receive private donations.

Isabel Valero, member of the Nutricoi initiative that seeks to prevent and manage conflicts of interests, adds that the meddling of companies extends to the development of educational materials, such as the Mexican Equivalent Food System, considered “the Bible for nutritionists” as it is a tool that guides in the calculation of portions. Even so, they include “ultra-processed products that as a nutritionist you begin to recommend when you are young and do not have this conflict of interest perspective, so generations of nutritionists recommend that you consume ultra-processed products”.

Recommended portions of some ultra-processed products in the 2022 edition of the Mexican System of Equivalent Foods

The ultra-processed food and beverage manufacturing companies face a growing demand from investors and public opinion to make the financing of lobbyists, political activities and scientific development transparent.

Industry funding has raised questions about the impartiality of research and the existence of conflicts of interest. An example is that of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), presented as a non-profit organization, but which receives resources from large companies such as PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Monsanto, among others, according to a report by the citizen organization Corporate Accountability.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge revealed that ILSI sought to use the credibility of scientists and academics to promote its commercial interests, even marginalizing unfavorable positions. ILSI Mexico was suspended by its parent organization for lobbying against the tax on sugary drinks. Currently, ILSI Mesoamerica operates in the region, and has on its board of directors representatives of companies such as Mondelez, Gurma and Bayer.

Another similar case is that of The Global Energy Balance Network, a network of scientists that rejected the idea that ultra-processed products and sugary drinks are the causes of obesity. This network was financed by Coca-Cola without this being openly disclosed. Evidence has been found that the company sought to divert attention from its role as a financier and promote messages that were aligned with its public relations strategies, even supporting the careers of academics with similar messages. These revelations led to the then CEO of Coca-Cola to commit to publishing information about research funding.

In 2022, investors filed a request with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission to request a vote in favor of an initiative that demanded greater transparency from the soft drink company, at the annual meeting of The Coca Cola Company investors. “The corporation should disclose detailed data on global political contributions, lobbying and support for trade associations, charitable and scientific organizations,” even if it is not required by law in the various countries in which they operate, they said.

The board of directors of the soft drink company responded with a refusal and asked shareholders to vote against the proposal, as they considered that they had already made these reports to the European Union and the United Kingdom, and do the same with the donations made by their foundation. The board stated that reporting “beyond existing ones would be redundant, and an unnecessary use of time and resources.”

In the case of Mexico, where it is not mandatory for companies to make donations transparent, the publication of Coca Cola Mexico’s financing has not been updated for five years. While on the global site of The Coca Cola Company company, the research they have funded from 2008 to date are published, amongst them nine projects with Mexican universities and research centers that were not reported in the responses to the information requests made by PopLab and CONNECTAS for this investigation.

In March 2024, Common Spirit Health and seven other faith-based organizations made a new petition to shareholders to ask the soft drink company to have third parties evaluate the company’s efforts to mitigate potential health harms associated with the use of non-sugar sweeteners to provide safe alternatives. The orders also request that they report financial support to researchers, institutions, agencies or organizations that study or make recommendations about health.

The company reported that it has spent more than $100 million on sweetener innovation and research since 2008, and that together with other food, beverage and ingredient companies, has invested more than a billion in studying sugar substitutes in that same period.

The petitioners indicated that although the company has reported that both in the research it finances and in which it participates, those involved are asked to adhere to “the highest level of scientific integrity” and that “flaunts objectivity and transparency” in its contracts, it includes clauses such as: “Researchers are expected to generate an appropriately formulated hypothesis and conduct research that answers relevant questions”. To the petition’s authors, this language indicates that the company has control over what they consider “appropriate” and “relevant” in the investigation.

They also recalled that Coca Cola has recommended sugar substitutes to consumers as a healthy measure” and they accuse it of ignoring that in 2023 the World Health Organization advised against the use of sweeteners to control weight or reduce the risk of diseases such as diabetes.

The soft drink company’s board of directors asked shareholders to vote against the petition at the 2024 annual meeting as they consider that no additional third party evaluation could usefully contribute to the regulatory authority reports. Only 10,74% voted in favor of the request, therefore it was not approved.

For PepsiCo’s part, it has stated that it is committed to transparency, which is why it reports to the corresponding authorities the studies that are underway. However, on the global clinical trials platform it only registered three studies conducted in Mexico since 2013, without indicating with which institutions it was done, and on its own portal it mentions a single project.

Kellanova, a Kellogg’s family company, reports only the contributions it makes in the United States, and although it indicates that it allocated 334 million dollars to research and development in between 2020 and 2023, it does not mention beneficiaries. For its part, Nestlé sponsors research at academic institutions, but it does not list the beneficiaries of the 1,656 million Swiss francs it allocated for this purpose. On the other hand, Danone did not report on this expense, the Danone Mexico Institute reports that it carries out research on microbiota. None of the companies responded to our interview requests.

Raúl Arias Lovillo, former rector of the Universidad Veracruzana, believes that when faced with private businesses, public universities must prioritize their purpose: the generation of knowledge for the common good. “University autonomy is what must put a stop to commercial interests that evidently want to make the greatest profit from the research that can be promoted by the university. There must be academic councils that do not allow themselves to be manipulated by private companies.”