see my posts on iv, they need a competent adversary who can contrast provenge to the competing products. A motivated competent person with biases different from the sponsor in an "honest" debate is the essence of the process. Do you want to find people who don't know what a vitamin is?
If you want an example from other industries, look at things like the RMBS litigation re JEDEC and see what the issues were there. The idea is to get disclosure of motives and debate facts and merits so motives aren't as important. Sure, people can conceal motives but that doesn't seem to apply in this case. I made seveal sarcastic remarks on IV - worth reading for humour value.