Response concerning: Signild Vallgårda, The Danish trans-fatty acids ban: alliances, mental maps and co-production of policies and research

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response concerning: Signild Vallgårda, The Danish trans-fatty acids ban: alliances, mental maps and co-production of policies and research

AU - Stender, Steen

AU - Dyerberg, Jørn

AU - Astrup, Arne

N1 - CURIS 2018 NEXS 022

PY - 2018/5

Y1 - 2018/5

N2 - In this paper, Signild Vallgårda (SV) investigates why a ban against the use of industrially produced trans fatty acids in foods was introduced in Denmark as the first country in the world. SV correctly states that our part of, and activity in that process, represent a combination of scientific work and ‘policymaking’. We, however object to some of the main conclusions given in the title of the paper and spelled out in the following sentence from the abstract: ‘Danish researchers interpreted the research in a way to suit their “mental map” and to support their initially set goal to reduce industrially produced trans fats’; and further in the last sentence in the paper, ‘the evidence of the harmfulness of trans fats was interpreted strongly, ruminant trans fats were ignored and research results were sometimes misread’.We find that SV omits some crucial facts that undermine some of the main conclusions in her paper. We also find that several statements unrightfully question our scientific credibility and honesty.

AB - In this paper, Signild Vallgårda (SV) investigates why a ban against the use of industrially produced trans fatty acids in foods was introduced in Denmark as the first country in the world. SV correctly states that our part of, and activity in that process, represent a combination of scientific work and ‘policymaking’. We, however object to some of the main conclusions given in the title of the paper and spelled out in the following sentence from the abstract: ‘Danish researchers interpreted the research in a way to suit their “mental map” and to support their initially set goal to reduce industrially produced trans fats’; and further in the last sentence in the paper, ‘the evidence of the harmfulness of trans fats was interpreted strongly, ruminant trans fats were ignored and research results were sometimes misread’.We find that SV omits some crucial facts that undermine some of the main conclusions in her paper. We also find that several statements unrightfully question our scientific credibility and honesty.

U2 - 10.1332/174426417X15089138015058

DO - 10.1332/174426417X15089138015058

M3 - Comment/debate

SN - 1744-2648

VL - 14

SP - 235

EP - 237

JO - Evidence and Policy

JF - Evidence and Policy

IS - 2

ER -