The Soil Association has called for a crackdown on conflicts of interest in response to the damaging report released by the BMJ, which highlights that more than half of UK government nutrition advisors are paid by food companies.
BMJ’s analysis found that at least 11 of the 17 members of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) have conflicts of interest with the likes of Nestlé, sugar manufacturer Tate and Lyle, and the world’s largest ice cream producer, Unilever.
SACN is a powerful group of people appointed as independent experts that provides advice to the government—which in turn influences policy. Since its establishment in 2000 it has produced high profile guidelines on daily salt and sugar intake, vitamin D supplements, and feeding babies.
Soil Association Head of Policy Rob Percival said: “The influence of the ultra-processed food industry over nutrition and health policy has been well established. This influence is coordinated, systematic, pervasive, and results in commercial interests being prioritised over public health. This is the view of the World Health Organization and UNICEF, as well as public health actors globally.
“The challenge is systemic. It extends from industry’s funding and framing of research agendas, through to its influence over policymaking and regulation, achieved via lobbying and the threat of litigation. Action is needed on multiple fronts to enable more ethical enterprise and re-position food businesses as part of the solution.
“With respect to conflicts of interest, the Soil Association believes the challenge needs to be properly understood: the primary issue is not that industry funding and engagement is ‘corrupting’ for individual scientists or civil society organisations. The greater issue arises when the UPF industry levers these relationships to ‘health-wash’ their image and bolster their influence over policymaking.
“We understand that the challenge is systemic, requiring greater public investment in research, a stricter approach to conflicts that goes beyond declaration, and a more rigorous approach to due diligence among civil society organisations. Conflicts of interest on government advisory committees such as SACN are of legitimate concern and the BMJ’s investigation is therefore welcome.”
