There is something that in the financial sector would go straight to court, but which in the wellness industry we have normalised to the point of invisibility: that the same person researches, disseminates and sells a product.
We have accepted it because the person who does it has a PhD, speaks with confidence and communicates well in front of a camera. But that does not eliminate the conflict of interest. It just makes it more digestible.
A few weeks ago I saw this clearly in a specific case. A science populariser with millions of followers posted a video criticising a recent study on melatonin. The work pointed to possible long-term adverse effects. The critique was technically correct: limited design, small sample size, premature conclusions.
Everything was reasonable. Except for one relevant detail that was not mentioned at any point: this populariser is co-founder of a company that sells melatonin.
There it became clear that the problem is not anecdotal or personal. It is structural. And it is much more widespread than we tend to admit in the wellness ecosystem.
Science and business: an old, but poorly managed marriage
The relationship between science and commercial interests is not new. It has been studied in the pharmaceutical industry for decades. Trials funded by manufacturers tend, more often than not, to show favourable results. It's not a conspiracy; it's incentives.
The difference is that in wellness we have created something different. More subtle. And, in some ways, more dangerous.
Scientists with academic credibility who become the public face of brands they themselves founded. Disseminators who educate about ingredients in the morning and sell them in the afternoon. Professionals who publish papers and commercial content from the same profile, without a clear boundary between scientific analysis and sales strategy.
The problem is not that scientists are entrepreneurial. The problem is when one person accumulates all the roles: researcher, disseminator, shareholder and spokesperson.
Let's take melatonin again as an example. In recent months, studies have appeared with mixed conclusions. Some suggest additional benefits; others raise questions about prolonged use. Science is doing what it should: debating.
Now let us imagine two scenarios. In the first, an independent scientist analyses the evidence, acknowledges limitations and concludes that solid data are still lacking. In the second, the same analysis is carried out by a scientist who is also a shareholder in a company that sells melatonin. The negative studies “have serious methodological flaws”. The positive ones “are promising and well designed”.
Both can be honest. But in the second case a cognitive bias operates that is difficult to avoid, even to detect by the sufferer. His brain protects both his scientific reputation and his financial investment.
And the audience, which trusts his judgement as a scientist, does not always know that they are also listening to the businessman. It is not a problem of bad faith. It is a problem of incentives. This conflict is not limited to influencers or media communicators. It can also arise in serious academic contexts.
During the development of a formulation together with a prestigious scientific institution, the scenario was illustrative. Solid research, relevant publications, seemingly aligned values. But when it came to deciding on specific ingredients, a subtle pressure emerged: to prioritise those that were part of their historical line of research.
It was never explicit. No one imposed conditions. But the incentive was there. That led to an uncomfortable but necessary conclusion: even in harsh environments, incentives exist. It is not malpractice. It is structure.
How to identify a conflict of interest in wellness
For anyone who trusts their health to scientific recommendations, there are some key questions:
- Who is funding the studies cited?
Funding does not invalidate a study, but it does require independent verification. - Is there direct economic involvement of the disseminator?
Partnerships“ are not enough. Equity, royalties or co-ownership matter. - How are unfavourable studies dealt with?
Acknowledging their questions is different from dismissing them out of hand. - Is uncertainty allowed?
Nutrition and supplementation are full of greys. Absolute certainties are often a sign of marketing, not science. - Who is on the scientific committee?
When everyone has their own products and large audiences, it is probably not a scientific committee, but a brand council.
Why do we need the scientist to be the salesman as well?
In pharma, with all its problems, there is a clear institutional separation between research, regulation and marketing. In wellness we have normalised that one person concentrates all roles and we call it transparency because it is well communicated in networks.
But it is not transparency. It is a well-presented conflict of interest.
This reflection is not intended to single out specific individuals, but to highlight a structural problem in the wellness sector.
I share these lines from the ALMA supplement company blog , whose working philosophy is based on scientific independence, clear separation of roles and the primacy of evidence over commercial interest.
