Sugar shocked. That describes the reaction of many Americans this week following revelations that, 50 years ago, the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists for research that shifted the focus away from sugar’s role in heart disease—and put the spotlight (注意的中心) squarely on dietary fat.

        What might surprise consumers is just how many present-day nutrition studies are still funded by the food industry. Nutrition scholar Marion Nestle of New York University spent a year informally tracking industry-funded studies on food. “Roughly 90% of nearly 170 studies favored the sponsor’s interest,” Nestle tells us. Other systematic reviews support her conclusions.

        For instance, studies funded by Welch Foods—the brand behind Welch’s 100% Grape Juice—found that drinking Concord grape juice daily may boost brain function. Another, funded by Quaker Oats, concluded, as a Daily Mail story put it, that “hot oatmeal (燕麦粥) breakfast keeps you full for longer.”

        Last year, The New York Times revealed how Coca-Cola was funding well-known scientists and organizations promoting a message that, in the battle against weight gain, people should pay more attention to exercise and less to what they eat and drink. Coca-Cola also released data detailing its funding of several medical institutions and associations between 2010 and 2015.

        “It’s certainly a problem that so much research in nutrition and health is funded by industry,” says Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “When the food industry pays for research, it often gets what it pays for.” And what it pays for is often a pro-industry finding.

        Given this environment, consumers should be skeptical (怀疑的) when reading the latest finding in nutrition science and ignore the latest study that pops up on your news feed. “Rely on health experts who’ve reviewed all the evidence,” Liebman says, pointing to the official government Dietary Guidelines, which are based on reviews of hundreds of studies.

        “And that expert advice remains pretty simple,” says Nestle. “We know what healthy diets are—lots of vegetables, not too much junk food, balanced calories. Everything else is really difficult to do experimentally.”

解析：C。根据题干中的Liebman可定位至原文第五段。该段中Liebman提到，如果食品行业为研究买单，往往就会得到他们想要买到的结果，并接着指出，这个结果往往就是对该行业有利的研究发现。该句中的pro-industry finding表示“偏袒行业的结果”，这说明受到食品行业资助的研究并不客观、公正，故C项为正确答案。

错项排除：A项利用原文第五段开头的nutrition and health设置干扰，但这里说的是很多营养与健康方面的研究都受到了食品行业的资助，而不是受到食品行业资助的研究只关注营养与健康，A项曲解了原文的意思，故错误。利伯曼只是说受到资助的研究容易对提供资助的行业有所偏袒，没有提到这会混淆消费者的视听或是与公众利益背道而驰，B项和D项属于过度引申，故均可排除。