International Life Sciences Institute

It is a member organization whose members are primarily food and beverage, agricultural, chemical, and pharmaceutical companies.[7] According to its 2018 annual report,[8] 74.5% of its 2017 revenue came from member support; 16.3% from grants and contributions; and the balance from publications, conference registration, and other sources.

ILSI is a global organization with 16 branches that operate at the global, regional, or country-specific level. These include ILSI Argentina; ILSI Brazil; ILSI Europe; ILSI Focal Point in China; ILSI India; ILSI Japan; ILSI Korea; ILSI Mesoamerica; ILSI Middle East; ILSI Mexico; ILSI North America; ILSI North Andean; ILSI South Africa; ILSI South Andean; ILSI Southeast Asia Region; and ILSI Taiwan.

It also includes the ILSI Research Foundation, which, unlike the branches, does not have members.

According to ILSI’s bylaws,[9] at least 51% of its Board of Trustees must come from the public sector (i.e. academic, government and non-governmental organization representatives). The remainder of the Board is elected from its agri/food member companies such as Danone, Nestle and DuPont [board of trustees, ILSI 2018 Annual Report].[8]

In 2001, an editorial in the British Medical Journal claimed ILSI received money from tobacco industry from 1983 to 1998.[10] ILSI denies accusations that it has ever sought to undermine tobacco control efforts. In a Letter to the American Journal of Public Health, ILSI responded to these allegations by saying that there is “little question that the tobacco industry has engaged in a variety of tactics to thwart public health efforts… As a scientific organization, ILSI deplores these tactics and is strongly against any attempts to twist and manipulate science.”[11] In support of this response, ILSI’s Statement on Tobacco Products and Companies that Produce and Sell Them states that ILSI entities are prohibited from accepting as members or accepting funds from any company that has any involvement in the production, marketing, sale or distribution of tobacco products.[12]

For example, in the 1989 ILSI Monograph Assessment of Inhalation Hazards,[13] three of 33 chapters address tobacco. Two of those papers show unequivocally that second hand smoke has adverse effects on respiratory infection and lung function, especially in children[14] and that epidemiological data show a “statistically significant increase in lung cancer risk of about 40%” for nonsmokers married to smokers.[15] The third article did not address risk per se, but rather compares the strengths and weakness of study designs for assessing risk.[16]

ILSI is aware its funding raises questions about the neutrality of its science. The North American branch of ILSI (ILSI North America) initiated a Conflict of Interest project which resulted in simultaneous publication of the article “Funding Food Science and Nutrition Research: Financial Conflicts and Scientific Integrity” in full or excerpted in six peer-reviewed journals.[17] The article outlines eight ground rules to ensure the integrity of industry-supported science.

It has been a strategy of Coca-Cola to found and to fund a scientific institution that gives ostensibly independent advice. Nutritionist Barry Popkin says that in China ILSI had “an extremely harmful influence, because they prevented raising awareness for a healthy diet.”[5][18]

In January 2020, a well publicized, ILSI sponsored, survey report[19][20] by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) on consumption of added sugar among Indians, draws criticism from Alliance Against Conflict of Interest. In a letter they wrote describes ILSI as a lobbying arm of food industry notoriously famous for pursuing policy influence in India and elsewhere, in particular, with respect to sugary foods and beverages. The letter then cited many instances where ILSI is accused of influencing WHO's and Government's decisions in their favour.[21]

“We wonder what strategic direction ICMR-NIN, the premier research agency of India, is giving to the people of India when this survey’s findings projected in the media may potentially perpetuate more sugar consumption while pretending to be concerned about non- communicable diseases,” the letter by the alliance said.[21]

In a review of Michael Gough's 1986 publication, Dioxin, Agent Orange: The Facts, the Los Angeles Times said that The Facts had "minimal scientific merit" as the book is about "toxicology, teratology, carcinogenesis, epidemiology and medicine"—areas where Gough has no authority as his qualifications are in molecular biology. The Times said that The Facts would however be useful to "dioxin defense attorneys, his current employers at the Risk Science Institute of the International Life Sciences Institute in Washington (a chemical industry think tank), and also his future industrial clients."[22][23]

• Front organization

• Homepage
• Chinese homepage