Why is Mayo Clinic cozzying up to the dairy lobby?
The author argues that Mayo should avoid associating with the National Dairy Council. Photo by Getty Images.
As a physician with a great deal of respect for the Mayo Clinic's lifesaving work, I was concerned when I learned of an ongoing partnership between Mayo Clinic and the National Dairy Promotion and Research Program, commonly known as the dairy checkoff program, which exists 'to build trust in and sales of dairy.'
The Mayo Clinic is promoting a 3-part podcast series done in collaboration with the National Dairy Council.
The program features glowing language about dairy products, out-of-date health claims, and exaggerated cautions about nondairy beverages. In addition, Dairy Management, Inc. is a sponsor of Mayo's upcoming conference, 'Cardiology Update at Puerto Vallarta: A Focus on Prevention.'
Why is it important to take issue with a relatively small partnership that likely goes unnoticed by most patients? About two-thirds of all Minnesota adults are either overweight or obese. As the premier health provider in our state, the Mayo Clinic should instead spearhead efforts to help Minnesotans improve health and achieve and maintain healthy weight.
Milk and other dairy products are among the top sources of artery-clogging saturated fat in the American diet. Milk products also contain cholesterol. Diets high in fat, saturated fat and cholesterol increase the risk of heart disease, which remains America's top killer.
The National Dairy Council, through collaborating with Mayo Clinic on educational materials, has the opportunity to promote its own industry-funded research, presenting an imbalanced perspective on dairy's role in chronic health outcomes.
The dairy industry is taking a multipronged approach to promoting full-fat milk, lobbying Congress for legislation that promotes full-fat milk, exempting it from limits on saturated fat intake. Creating alliances in the medical world to provide a health veneer for its products is smart marketing by the dairy lobby. But for a leading health care, education and research institution, this is an ill-advised partnership .
As noted before, dairy products are among the primary sources of saturated fat in Americans' diets, and unbiased research clearly shows this elevates cardiovascular disease risk.
The dairy industry was instrumental in the introduction of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act in Congress to allow more sales of high fat milk in schools and exempt dairy from school nutrition guidelines.
U.S. Rep. Brad Finstad, who represents Rochester, is a co-sponsor of this legislation.
For the benefit of students' heath, I urge him to rescind his sponsorship of this legislation.
A 2017 study examined food frequency questionnaires and followed more than 140,000 men and women, finding that those who consumed the most milk had higher mortality rates from multiple conditions, including heart disease. Dairy products are harmful for cardiovascular health, and they have been linked to various cancers, including prostate, breast, and ovarian.
Eighty percent of Black Americans and Native Americans and about 90% of Asian Americans are lactose intolerant.
Surely, Mayo Clinic can partner to promote a food that more Minnesotans can consume without suffering diarrhea, bloating and abdominal pain.
Medical organizations across the country have been working to eliminate the unethical practice of industry sponsorship, and I urge Mayo Clinic to follow suit.
Patients and physicians look to the Mayo Clinic as a source of reliable information. I respectfully urge its leaders to take this responsibility to heart and end the relationship with the National Dairy Council.
The Mayo Clinic should leave product marketing to the dairy industry and focus on what it does best: patient care.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
NIH scientists sign open letter criticizing Trump administration's grant cancellations, firings
More than 300 scientists from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) signed an open letter on Monday morning to director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, criticizing the Trump administration over recent moves. The letter, including 92 signed names and 250 anonymous but verified signatories, shares concerns that research is being politicized, global collaboration is being interrupted and that budget and staff cuts have hindered the ability of NIH to do important research. "[W]e dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe," the letter reads. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources." Some of the NIH scientists who signed the letter, speaking in their personal capacity and not on behalf of the agency, told ABC News they and their colleagues have tried to raise concerns internally -- and repeatedly -- but to no avail. They said there is now an urgency to speak up, especially as Bhattacharya is set to testify on Tuesday at a hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the proposed NIH budget for the upcoming fiscal year. "There is a lot of risk to speaking up, and I am very scared still, even after it's already done, even after it's already said," Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and one of the lead organizers of the letter, told ABC News. "I think a lot of people are focused on the risk of speaking up, but we also need to think about the risk of not speaking up." The letter, called the Bethesda Declaration -- NIH is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland -- is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, of which Bhattacharya was a co-author. Published in October 2020 and named after the Massachusetts town in which it was drafted, the Great Barrington Declaration called for COVID-19 lockdowns to be avoided and a new plan for handling the pandemic by protecting the most vulnerable individuals but allowing most to resume normal activities, achieving herd immunity naturally. At the time, it was widely criticized by public health professionals, including Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, who said allowing a virus "we don't fully understand to run free is simply unethical." During testimony before Congress in March 2023, Bhattacharya said the declaration was targeted for "suppression" by federal health officials. "We modeled the Bethesda Declaration after the Great Barrington Declaration … because we wanted him to see himself in our action," Norton said. "He's spoken a lot about his commitment to academic freedom and to dissent. If Jay Bhattacharya is the person he very publicly claims to be, and if he is actually in charge at NIH, our hope is that this will move him to action. And if he's not the person he says to be or he's not in charge at NIH, I think the public and Congress should be aware of that." The letter called on Bhattacharya to reverse grants that have been delayed or terminated for "political reasons" and to allow work with foreign collaborators. The signatories also asked Bhattacharya to reverse a policy capping indirect costs for research at 15% and to reinstate essential staff who were fired at NIH. "The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration," Bhattacharya said in a statement to ABC News. "Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed." A spokesperson for the Department of Health & Human Services told ABC News that the agency has not halted "legitimate" collaborations with international partners. Additionally, the spokesperson said other funders, like the Gates Foundation, cap indirect costs at 15% and that each case of termination is being reviewed. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral researcher at the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences whose work focused on antimicrobial resistance, told ABC News seeing the changes at the agency has been a "traumatic experience." He said when the Trump administration came into office, he was prevented from doing research in his lab because he couldn't purchase essential items and he was not allowed to attend a conference in February to speak with potential collaborators. He also saw many of his coworkers get accidentally terminated and then reinstated. "It's just really traumatic and really disruptive for researchers at the NIH," Morgan, who signed the letter, said. "We get into this not because we're trying to make money, not because of our own benefit. We're getting into this because we want to serve the public. We want to do life-saving research." Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute (NCI) who also signed the letter, said prior to the new administration, she worked with researchers interested either in receiving funds from NCI or who had funds already and were requesting assistance from NCI. However, with more than 2,100 research grants totaling around $9.5 billion terminated at NIH -- according to the letter -- she said some of her daily tasks have changed. "I spend my time on the phone now talking with people who've just learned that their projects have been cut and have been given false, pseudo-scientific reasons to say their work is not valuable, not important for public health for America, and it's just not true," Kobrin told ABC News. The NIH researchers told ABC News there is a public letter that people can sign to express their support or they can contact their congressional representatives to express their concerns. Morgan, the antimicrobial researcher, said he doesn't want the letter to just be about detailing all the changes that occurred at NIH since Trump took office. "It is us standing up and showing that that not everything is lost, and certainly there's been irreparable damage, but we still have time to right the ship and take it in the right direction," he said. "I need to leave people with that message of hope because, otherwise, they can feel there's nothing that they can do, and that we're powerless, but we are all powerful."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
NIH scientists condemn Trump research cuts
Hundreds of staffers from across the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are speaking out against the politicization of their research and termination of their work while demanding that the drastic changes made at the agency be walked back. In a letter addressed to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, more than 2,000 signatories stated, 'we dissent to Administration policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' The letter was titled 'The Bethesda Declaration' in reference to where NIH's campus is located. The signatories cited Bhattacharya's stated commitment to academic freedom that he made in April and called on him to push back against the changes Trump administration has implemented at NIH under his leadership. 'Academic freedom should not be applied selectively based on political ideology. To achieve political aims, NIH has targeted multiple universities with indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' they wrote. They pointed to U.S. law and prior research that has shown that the participation of diverse populations in studies is necessary for NIH's work. The NIH staffers further blasted the canceling of nearly completed studies. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million, it wastes $4 million,' they wrote. The researchers called on Bhattacharya to restore foreign collaborations with the global scientific community, put independent peer reviews back in place, bring back terminated NIH staffers and rethink the 15 percent cap on indirect study costs that the Trump administration enacted. 'Combined, these actions have resulted in an unprecedented reduction in NIH spending that does not reflect efficiency but rather a dramatic reduction in life-saving research,' they stated. 'Some may use the false impression that NIH funding is not needed to justify the draconian cuts proposed in the President's Budget. This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research.' NIH research is not solely centered in Bethesda. The agency is responsible for funding research projects across the country and abroad. Numerous lawsuits have been filed to combat the pulling back of billions of dollars in NIH funding. Last week, a federal judge allowed a suit filed by university researchers and public health groups challenging the cuts to move forward. Bhattacharya responded to the letter on the social media platform X. 'We all want @NIH to succeed and I believe that dissent in science is productive. However, the Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions NIH has taken in recent months,' he wrote. Bhattacharya said the actions taken at NIH have been to 'remove ideological influence from science' and further argued the agency hasn't halted international scientific collaboration but is instead 'ensuring accountability.' 'Claims that NIH is undermining peer review are misunderstood. We're expanding access to publishing while strengthening transparency, rigor, and reproducibility in NIH-funded research,' he wrote. 'Lastly, we are reviewing each termination case carefully and some individuals have already been reinstated. As NIH priorities evolve, so must our staffing to stay mission-focused and responsibly manage taxpayer dollars.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."
