In reply: You oughta be congratulated?

In reply: "Oh what a feeling" to receive a congratulatory letter! But the euphoria was short lived, as, on closer inspection, congratulations turned to castigation. The offending event was the Journal's publication of an industry-supported supplement,1 and its practice of branding supplements with the logos of their sponsoring bodies.

Although sponsorship by government agencies or non-profit health organisations rarely provokes comment, industry sponsorship is another matter. As industry support for research and other health-related activities will inevitably increase in the future, we at the Journal are pleased that Padiglione and colleagues have aired their anxiety.

Irrespective of the source of sponsorship, the Journal's policy governing the publication of supplements follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.2 These include that:

• the journal's editor must take full responsibility for policies, practices and content of supplements, must approve the appointment of the editors of supplements, and must retain the authority to reject articles; and

• the source of funding should be clearly stated and prominently located in supplements, preferably on each page.

To these principles the Journal has added its own requirements.3 These include the need for peer review and that editors of and contributors to supplements declare competing interests and compensations. These were clearly identified on the title page of the offending publication.1

For our readers, the Journal is the bread and its supplements the butter. One can always refuse to taste the butter. But, for those who hanker after a little fat, we aim to ensure, through churning by external peer review and transparent sponsorship of the product, that "butter is better".