In regard to his April 26 commentary ("Meet public enemy No. 1"), let's give Paul John Scott credit for writing on an important and relevant topic: the impact of diet on human health, in particular the overconsumption of sugar. It's high on our list of concerns as well.

Unfortunately, Scott falls back on conspiracy theory, alleging that Bad Guys — including the University of Minnesota and the Department of Food Science and Nutrition — are trying to harm consumers by hiding or ignoring research showing that sugar is the cause of all our health concerns.

Sorry, but there is no smoking gun here. In fact, the university, the department, the food industry and Mr. Scott all share a similar concern with the health effects of American diets. The difference in our viewpoints is that we see the complexity of the problem and are studying — with industry partners, policymakers and the public — how to most effectively address it.

For example, a few years ago scientists from the U partnered with local school districts to learn more about how students eat — or don't eat — whole grains. The project involved adding larger and larger amounts of whole grains to breads baked at schools and measuring how much got thrown away. When students started throwing away too much food, a benchmark for whole-grain ingredients was established.

Everybody won: The students got healthier food, the schools saved money on waste and nutritionists learned more about kids' flavor preferences.

That's just one example of how the food science and nutrition department works with public and private partners, large and small. The partnership with the General Mills Foundation cited in Scott's commentary is another example of how the financial resources of industry can be paired with the scientific expertise of a university; we are proud of that partnership. There actually are two General Mills faculty research positions, both focused on how food (of all types) affects human health.

By definition, a department of food science will work closely with industry, as we are training the scientists and executives who will ultimately work at food companies. But academic freedom — the principle that scientific research cannot be compromised no matter who is paying for it — is a basic tenet at the University of Minnesota, and it applies here as well.

As Scott's commentary notes, Joanne Slavin is a professor in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition and chaired the carbohydrate and protein subcommittees for the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAC). Since 1980, the committee (which includes a different group of scientists when it convenes every five years) has recommended reduced sugar consumption. The 2015 recommendations that Scott praises are an incremental move further in that direction and are consistent with what the 2010 committee led by Prof. Slavin recommended, not a radical departure.

Does the food industry play a big role in Minnesota's economy and culture? Of course. Is that a bad thing by definition? No. Does it make sense that the state's largest university would be partnering with some of its largest businesses? Yes.

The old saw that there are two (or more) sides to every story is particularly true in the complex fields of food science and nutrition. The challenges of ensuring a safe, sustainable, healthy food supply for Minnesotans and the rest of the world can only be addressed by universities, government, food companies and consumers working together.

Francisco Diez Gonzalez is head of the University of Minnesota's Department of Food Science and Nutrition.