More than half of the experts on the British Government’s advisory panel on nutrition are linked to the food industry, according to an analysis by The BMJ, which found that 11 of the 17 members of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) have conflicts of interest with the companies like Nestlé, sugar manufacturer Tate and Lyle, and Unilever.
SACN – a powerful group of people appointed as independent experts to provide advice to the government, and which in turn influences policy – has, since inception in 2000, produced high profile guidelines on daily salt and sugar intake, vitamin D supplements, and feeding babies.
But campaigners say these conflicts of interest at the heart of policy-making are detrimental to public health, highlighting, for instance, rising obesity and food-related ill health.
Currently, 28.3% of women and 26.9% of men in the UK are obese, up from 13.8% and 10.7% three decades ago; deaths from premature heart disease are at their highest in 14 years, and diabetes cases UK are at record levels.
Money changes minds
The BMJ scrutinised interests declared by members of SACN – published on the government website – in the past three years, and found revealing information.
Among its members is David Mela, a retired senior scientist from Unilever, who has done consultancy work for the firm that earned him more than £5 000 last year. He also has shares in Unilever worth more than £5 000. He has done consultancy work for Tate and Lyle, Coca-Cola’s Israel franchise CBC Israel, and Cargill, which produces cocoa and chocolate products among other things.
Another SACN member, Julie Lovegrove, is the chair of an expert group at the International Life Sciences Institute Europe, in Brussels. Its member companies include PepsiCo, Cadbury’s US owner Mondelez, and General Mills, the American firm behind Cheerios and Haagen Dazs.
Member Kevin Whelan has worked for Nestlé Health Science, Danone, Alpro, Yakult, and the Dairy Council. He has received research grants from the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council and the Almond Board of California.
Gill Fine is a shareholder at Sainsburys, and Paul Haggarty is head of lifelong health at the University of Aberdeen’s Rowett Institute, which receives funding from the red meat and dairy industries.
The Department for Health and Social Care responded on behalf of SACN, telling The BMJ that members are required to confirm existing potential conflicts of interest annually and to declare new ones at the first appropriate committee meeting, which are included in the minutes and published on the SACN website.
Chris van Tulleken, associate professor at University College London and author of a bestselling book on ultra-processed food, said: “Even small financial conflicts affect behaviour and beliefs in subtle or unconscious ways – we have data from food and pharma research showing this. This means declaring conflicts doesn’t mitigate them.
“Conflicts in SACN damage the reputation and credibility of the committee. How can someone who claims to have an interest in public health have any links to companies like Coca-Cola or Unilever? We have known for decades about the harm caused by the products made by companies like these… all are controlled and constrained by the same financial incentives – meaning they can’t self-regulate.”
Undermining public health
Six members of SACN belong to the American Society for Nutrition, funded by Mars, Mondelez, Nestlé, PepsiCo, and the Sugar Association, among others, while others have financial links to Danone, the infant formula manufacturer Mead Johnson Nutrition, and General Mills.
Rob Percival, head of policy at the Soil Association, a charity aiming to transform how we eat, farm, and care for the natural world, said: “We’re concerned that the committee and its integrity might be undermined by those ties to the food industry. That’s not to say individual scientists have been corrupted; the challenge is systemic. There’s now really good evidence that conflicts of interest at the interface of science and policy can skew either specific policies or public narratives in favour of the food industry in ways which undermine public health.”
SACN’s current work includes reviewing the evidence over ultra-processed foods, artificial sweeteners, and plant-based food and drink.
Last July, the committee issued a statement on ultra-processed foods warning that increased consumption was “associated with increased risks of adverse health outcomes”, and that there were “uncertainties around the quality of evidence available.”
Experts including Van Tulleken and Percival say that SACN did not do enough to present the case for tougher regulation on ultra-processed foods. The UK is behind countries in Latin America that have introduced warning labels on products high in sugar, salt, and fat.
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said: “No members of the committee are directly employed by the food and drink industry – all have a duty to act in the public interest and to be independent and impartial.”
Lack of research funding
Katharine Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance, a coalition of more than 50 organisations, told The BMJ that SACN members’ ties to the food industry are partly a result of the lack of money in relevant research.
“Nutrition funding is notoriously underfunded. So many of the studies are industry-funded as the people with a particular interest are the research and development teams of the companies. It really is a very poorly funded world, which just invites more industry funding.”
Alison Tedstone, former chief nutritionist at Public Health England, which was replaced by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, said several experts on SACN are in receipt of research grants from the food industry, a practice “expected” by a key national funding body.
In her experience, she added, applications for nutrition research to the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) are more likely to be successful if there is partnership funding from food businesses. That can range from supplying products to be used in studies to funding part of the study.
A BBSRC spokesperson said that although “collaborations with industry and other stakeholders are encouraged, it is not expected”.
Excluding conflicted members
The BMJ’s findings come amid growing awareness over the importance of conflicts of interest in the food industry. Last year, researchers from the Centre for Food Policy at City, University of London, and the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School, warned that these were risking public health.
The BMJ has previously reported on conflicts of interest at the Science Media Centre, an organisation that facilitates health and science reporting and which has received money from Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Tate and Lyle.
Experts said the composition of SACN needs to be reviewed, in light of members’ ties to the food industry. Percival said “we should learn from the precedent set internationally” by organisations like the WHO, where members with conflicts of interest are excluded from key decisions.
The Department of Health and Social Care said that when members have a direct interest on a specific topic or issue, it is handled under the SACN code of practice and that those members “may be” excluded from the discussion.
SACN membership includes those with technical industry expertise “to ensure a broad range of skills, expertise, and experience are available during discussions”, it adds. “SACN’s conclusions reflect the considerations of the whole of SACN and are not influenced by any individual members.”
Van Tulleken said SACN should ensure that five years from now there are no members with recent industry ties. Any “industry representative” should be removed immediately.
“The first, necessary – but absolutely insufficient – step to getting control of the UK’s epidemic of diet-related disease is to de-conflict SACN. That is the most important thing … It will send a clear message that there is an intention to regulate the food industry. This is what happened with tobacco, and it must happen with food.”
Tedstone, however, a member of the WHO Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group subgroup on policy actions, who also advises them on obesity-related projects, as well as the Obesity Health Alliance, said refusing to allow experts with industry ties on SACN would “diminish” its expertise.
“WHO has made a decision to take nobody who takes any research money from industry, which has left them in a position where they have people who are not research-active.”
Van Tulleken insists: “Despite two decades of work from a conflicted SACN there has been an explosion of suffering and death from diet-related disease in the UK, so I don’t think it’s credible to claim the committee has been very effective. There are some excellent independent experts, but they are a minority and … their work has been hampered by conflicts of interest with the industry that has created this health crisis. SACN must become independent of the food industry.”
Formula milk and baby food links
The BMJ’s analysis has found that at least six of the 11 members in SACN’s subgroup on maternal and child nutrition have ties to food companies, including baby food manufacturers and formula milk brands.
Ann Prentice is a council member of the Nestlé Foundation, founded from a donation from Nestlé to support research in lower income countries, and Marion Hetherington has undertaken work for Danone and Ella’s Kitchen, the latter on an unpaid basis. The group’s chair, Ken Ong, has received research funding worth more than £5 000 a year from Mead Johnston Nutrition, which makes formula milk.
Last July, the subgroup produced guidelines on feeding children aged one to five years. Some experts think it held back on recommending the benefits of home-cooked food over ready-made baby food and on spelling out that “growing up” formula milk was entirely unnecessary.
Nestlé and Danone are two of the world’s largest infant milk providers, and Ella’s Kitchen is the most popular baby food brand in the UK.
“It raises the question – if you’re working for and supporting a commercial baby food company, and also sitting on a committee making public health recommendations – how can you be expected to give an independent view around how babies should be fed?” asks Vicky Sibson, director of First Steps Nutrition Trust, a public health nutrition charity.
“I also think certain conflicts should be red-lined, so we should not have anyone who works with the formula industry sitting on a subcommittee of SACN and making recommendations on feeding babies. It should be the same for commercial baby foods.”
The Department of Health and Social Care responded on behalf of SACN and all members named in this article, saying: “No members of the committee are directly employed by the food and drink industry, and all have a duty to act in the public interest and to be independent and impartial.”
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Reports by experts slam ‘underhand, exploitative’ milk formula marketing
Health professionals targeted by formula milk companies to push products
The rise and rise of the cholesterol deniers
UK nutrition advisory: Cut sugar intake in half