More than half of UK government dietitians are paid by food companies, research shows

At least 11 of the 17 members of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) have conflicts of interest with companies such as Nestlé, the sugar manufacturer Tate and Lyle and the world’s largest ice cream maker Unilever, reports Sophie Borland in The BMJ.

And at least six of the 11 members of SACN’s Maternal and Child Nutrition Subgroup have links to food companies, including manufacturers of baby formula and infant formula.

SACN is an influential group of independent experts who advise the government, which in turn influences policy, explains Borland. Since its formation in 2000, it has issued important guidelines on daily salt and sugar intake, vitamin D supplements and infant feeding.

However, there are concerns that neither the SACN nor previous governments that have reviewed its recommendations have done enough to curb the rise in obesity and diet-related diseases.

The BMJ examined the interests declared by SACN members over the past three years in publicly available documents published on the government website.

They include David Mela, a retired Unilever chief scientist who has consulted for Unilever, Tate and Lyle, Coca Cola’s Israel franchise CBC Israel and Cargill, which produces cocoa and chocolate products, among others.

Another member, Julie Lovegrove, chairs 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 US company behind Cheerios and Haagen Dazs.

Members of the SACN subgroup on maternal and child nutrition include Ann Prentice, a council member of the Nestlé Foundation, and Marion Hetherington, who has worked 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, an infant formula manufacturer.

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) responded on behalf of the SACN and all members named in this article, explaining that SACN members are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest annually – and any new conflicts at the first relevant committee meeting, which would be recorded in the minutes and published on the SACN website.

It continued: “None of the committee members 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 influence behaviour and beliefs in subtle or unconscious ways,” and Rob Percival, policy director of the Soil Association, says: “We are concerned that the committee and its integrity could be undermined by these links to the food industry.”

Experts say The BMJ The composition of the SACN needs to be reviewed given its members’ links to the food industry. However, Kat Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance, says these links are partly due to a lack of money for relevant research.

Alison Tedstone, former chief nutritionist at Public Health England, also said that refusing to include experts with links to industry in the SACN could “diminish” its expertise and delay future legislative processes.

But Van Tulleken insists: “Despite twenty years of work by a contradictory SACN, there has been an explosion of suffering and death from diet-related disease in Britain. Therefore, I find the claim that the committee has been particularly effective lacking credibility.”

“There are some excellent independent experts, but they are in the minority and in my view their work is hampered by conflicts of interest with the industry that has caused this health crisis. SACN must become independent of the food industry.”