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：D。根据题干中的Marion Nestle和present-day nutrition studies可定位至原文第二段。该段提到，玛丽恩·内斯托指出在近170项研究中，约有90%的营养研究照顾的是赞助方的利益。D项与此内容相符，其中的Nearly all of them是对定位句中Roughly 90% of nearly 170 studies的同义改写，serve the purpose of the funders是对favored the sponsor’s interest的同义替换，故D项为正确答案。

错项排除：原文第二段提到，内斯托花了一年时间来追踪各行业资助的食品研究，但没有提到分析这些研究用了多长时间，故A项错误。B项利用第二段结尾的systematic reviews设置干扰，但原文中只是说其他一些系统性的研究报告也都支持内斯托的结论，并没有说大多数研究都是基于系统性的报告，故排除B项。原文中只提到很多研究由食品行业资助，并没有上升到依赖的程度，C项表述过分夸大，故排除。