More than half of UK government nutrition advisors are paid by food companies

More than half of the experts on the UK government’s nutrition advisory panel have links to the food industry, reveals an investigation by The BMJ today.

At least 11 of the 17 members of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) have conflicts of interest with the likes of Nestle, sugar manufacturer Tate and Lyle, and the world’s largest ice cream producer, Unilever, reports freelance journalist Sophie Borland.

And at least six out of the 11 members of SACN’s Subgroup on Maternal and Child Nutrition have ties to food firms, including baby food manufacturers and formula milk brands.

SACN is a powerful group of people appointed as independent experts to advise the government, which in turn influences policy, explains Borland. Since being set up in 2000 it has produced high profile guidelines on daily salt and sugar intake, vitamin D supplements, and feeding babies.

But there is concern that both SACN – and the previous governments reviewing its recommendations – have not done enough to curb rising obesity levels and food-related ill health.

The BMJ looked at the interests declared by SACN members – in publicly available documents published on the government website – within the past three years.

Among them is David Mela, a retired senior scientist from Unilever, who has done consultancy work for Unilever, Tate and Lyle, Coca Cola’s Israel franchise CBC Israel, and Cargill, which produces cocoa and chocolate products among other things.

Another member, Julie Lovegrove, is chair of an expert group at the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Europe, whose member companies include Pepsico, Cadbury’s US owner Mondelez, and General Mills, the American firm behind Cheerios and Haagen Dazs.

Members of SACN’s Maternal and Child Nutrition subgroup include Ann Prentice, a council member of the Nestle Foundation, and Marion Hetherington who has undertaken work for Danone and baby food brand Ella’s Kitchen, the latter on an unpaid basis. The group’s chair, Ken Ong, has also received research funding from Mead Johnston Nutrition, which makes formula milk.

The Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) responded on behalf of SACN and all members named in this article, saying SACN members are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest annually – and new ones at the first appropriate committee meeting, which are included in the minutes and published on the SACN website.

It added: “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.”

But Chris van Tulleken, associate professor at University College London and author of a best-selling book on ultra-processed food, says: “Even small financial conflicts affect behaviour and beliefs in subtle or unconscious ways,” while Rob Percival, head of policy at the Soil Association, says: “We’re concerned that the committee and its integrity might be undermined by those ties to the food industry.”

Experts tell The BMJ the make-up of SACN needs to be reviewed in light of members’ ties to the food industry. However, Kat Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance, says these ties are partly a result of the lack of money in relevant research.

Alison Tedstone, former chief nutritionist for Public Health England, also suggests that refusing to allow experts with industry ties on SACN would “diminish” its expertise and could delay future legislation.

Yet 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 that the committee has been very effective.

“There are some excellent independent experts but they are a minority and in my view 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.”