An issue with the peer review process is that typically the reviewers are people you know and are working in the same area, albeit the reviewers are typically anonymous, at least in my field. I worked with one fellow who actually signed all his reviews as he didn’t believe in the anonymous aspect. Some may think that the process is biased since the reviewers may be direct competitors for grants. However, most reviewers, I believe, are interested in furthering their reputation. Doing a poor job, or biased job, at reviewing a paper is inconsistent with that goal.

In my field, in applied sciences, research is more often modified rather than retracted. We simply learn more with time. Although the source of money for funding the research sometimes can have an “influence”. Real life results tend to be your “peer review”. Either it works or it doesn’t. And how often. In the soft sciences, for example, psychology, which my daughter does research in, interpretation and politics can influence the peer review.

When my daughter was doing her oral defense, the committee was divided. Her chair lady, locked the doors of the room and said, “Gentlemen, it seems like we have not reached a consensus yet. We will stay here until we do.” It was nice to have this lady as the chair of your PhD committee, she never had a student not pass. You couldn’t do that in my field.

Is anyone not already aware of the bias? And it's not just Big Sugar, it's Big Everything.

Not surprised; not infrequently, “He who pays the piper, calls the tune”.

I worked for a building Life Safety installation and service company.
We were always consulted as were other companies on what should regulatory bodies mandate for safety equipment for new building types as technology and other devices advance. The goal of the regulators is to improve human safety, which makes sense. However, they are also not experts in building safety design and advancement.

Interpreted properly, industry got to spec out their future revenue stream by influencing the regulators requirements with new / better equipment.

The correct term is regulatory capture in political circles.

It's a vicious circle. . . all thrown down the drain by the Supreme court's decision for corporate influence.