The Science of Profiting: Indian American Biomedical Researcher Navindra Seeram Lands in Maple Syrup Controversy

In an extensive investigative report published today, the New York Times shed light on the controversial career of Indian American biomedical researcher Dr. Navindra Seeram, who is currently the dean of the School of Pharmacy at the University of New England. 

According to reporting by The New York Times and The Examination, Seeram has South American roots and has cited natural medicines as part of his upbringing, which has influenced his research interests. The controversy surrounding Dr. Seeram centers on what critics describe as a blurring of lines between scientific researcher and industry promoter. 

For more than a decade, Dr. Seeram has focused his research on maple syrup, publishing over three dozen studies that highlight its potential health benefits. His work has reportedly received substantial funding from multiple sources, including the Quebec Maple Syrup Producers, an industry association that regulates most of the world’s maple syrup.

For more than a decade, Dr. Seeram has published over three dozen studies that highlight its potential health benefits of maple syrup. According to the Times investigation, there are several problematic aspects to his work.

For starters, the Times report identified Dr. Seeram’s exaggerated health claims, particularly his characterization of maple syrup as a “hero ingredient” and “champion food” with wide-ranging health benefits.

In videos and presentations, he has suggested that maple syrup consumption may help prevent or delay several diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and diabetes.

However, the actual research findings are much more limited, according to the Times. His studies primarily show that maple syrup contains small amounts of polyphenols (beneficial plant compounds). To demonstrate potential effects, he tested highly concentrated maple extracts in laboratory settings—not actual consumption of commercial maple syrup by humans.

In some cases, Dr. Seeram’s public statements and published conclusions appear to contradict or selectively represent his actual findings. The investigative report said that a study on genetically modified worms examining Alzheimer’s related effects found that, on average, worms treated with maple syrup extract were worse off, yet the paper’s summary stated the extract “showed protective effects.” A USDA-funded study on whether maple syrup extract could improve the health of obese mice showed no improvement and sometimes worsening health, but these results weren’t published in an academic journal.

More pertinently, the investigation revealed potential conflicts of interest. For instance, Dr. Seeram has served as both a researcher and paid consultant for the maple industry, and he is named as a co-inventor on a Canadian maple extract patent alongside an industry representative. At least a dozen of his papers funded by the Maple Association reportedly didn’t disclose that relationship. He has explicitly stated his commitment to “always work to find ways to promote maple products from Quebec” in emails to industry officials.

When questioned by journalists, Dr. Seeram defended his work on several grounds. He denied making absolute claims about maple syrup curing diseases, noting he used hedging language that maple “may” or “could” have health effects. He emphasized that industry funding is vital because other research dollars are scarce. He maintained that he wasn’t encouraging people to consume more sugar, merely to choose maple syrup over alternatives if they were going to use sweeteners. He stated that his promotional work was fulfilling the terms of government grants specifically aimed at increasing maple syrup sales. He claimed a former colleague at the University of Rhode Island was behind what he characterized as unwarranted scrutiny.

Several independent researchers, however, have criticized Dr. Seeram’s work. For example, Christopher Link of the University of Colorado Boulder, criticized the lack of basic experimental details in the Alzheimer’s worm study. Geoffrey Greene of the University of Chicago called Seeram’s comparison of a maple compound to the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen misleading.

Despite the controversy, Dr. Seeram has maintained a successful academic career, moving from the University of Rhode Island to become dean at the University of New England. According to the reporting, the University of Rhode Island investigated concerns about his work and found no research misconduct.

The case, the Times report says, highlights broader questions about the relationship between scientific research and industry promotion, particularly as nutrition research faces potential funding challenges under the Trump administration. It also demonstrates how scientific studies can be amplified and sometimes distorted as they move from academic journals to press releases and media coverage, ultimately shaping consumer perceptions and purchasing decisions.