How did F&B giants become villains over govt’s scientist picks?

Eleven of the 17 UK government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) have conflicts of interest with big food groups, a British Medical Journal investigation poses​ this week.

It goes on to say the group of scientists have influence and power over government decisions when mandating health policies, like how much salt, sugar or fat consumers should eat daily, for example.

There is, some comments in the report allude, a correlation between the scientists working for industry, advising government and increasing food-related health issues. This includes rising obesity rates among men and women, which the government and SACN have not done enough to combat.

‘Dangers’ of the food and drink industry’s products

UPF poster boy Professor Chris van Tulleken also wades in with his warnings about the dangers of the sector’s foods. Even the ones that are “slightly less harmful” are dangerous, he says.

We can only assume these scientists are taking great big backhanders from the industry. They’re in cahoots with and controlled by food and drink makers who are mandating that government must advocate consumers drink at least one can of full-sugar coke daily and eat ice cream for breakfast. Right..?

No. Not quite. Not even close.

The report’s own evidence breaks down the industry contact of the 11 scientists. Some have annual consultancy fees; others annual research grants; and some have lectured for companies or made an appearance on a podcast, among other things.

Most of those earning from the industry have one paid opportunity and just one of the scientists earns from three organisations.