Response to “Stopping Spin at the Source: Learning From an Example in Obesity”

The authors of the Letter to the Editor “Stopping Spin at the
Source: Learning from an Example in Obesity” (hereafter the
authors of the Letter to the Editor) start their letter with an allegation
of “spin.” This insinuation, made without providing any
evidence, suggests that our research findings and communications
are driven by an agenda (an allegation which if founded
would then extend beyond the authors of our paper to the editors
of Obesity, who at the time of publication included one of the authors
of the Letter to the Editor as Editor-in-
Chief
of the journal,
the peer reviewers, and by extension the academic community as
a whole). We are bound to observe that the authors of the Letter
to the Editor's conflict of interest statement outlining the “grant,
contract, equity, gift, travel, or consulting fee” is compressed as
a list yet still runs to 283 words, detailing a range of food industry
organizations with a history of lobbying to directly influence
government policy around food and the food environment [2–5].
It is impossible for us to establish their relationship with each
entity within an extensive list of industry associations. Note that
our conflict of interest statement amounts to four words: no conflict
of interest.
As authors we reject the notion that the communication of this
research constitutes spin. This is a peer reviewed article describing
a quasi-experimental
evaluation of a real-world
policy implementation.
We transparently presented our study objectives,
outcomes, and findings (including uncertainty levels and limitations).
We stand by the findings of this paper and reiterate that
we have no commercial, academic, or other interests relevant to
an evaluation of this policy.