Nearly a third of UK government nutrition advisors have food industry ties, BMJ finds
Key takeaways
- A BMJ investigation finds almost a third of the UK’s SACN has “significant” food industry ties.
- Six of 19 members were flagged for conflicts of interest, which the BMJ argues should bar them from their roles to protect public trust.
- The Soil Association calls for conflicted members to step down, while Danone maintains that its academic research funding is transparent.
An analysis by The BMJ has found that almost one-third of the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) has links to the food industry. Six out of 19 members of the independent group were reported to have “significant” conflicts of interest, which the publication believes should be a reason to bar them from their roles to secure public trust and the integrity of nutritional advice.
SACN members are selected based on their independence, skills, and knowledge. They advise the government on nutritional guidelines and policy where health issues are concerned.
Drawing on her previous investigation, Sophie Borland, a freelance journalist and author of the recent publication, tells Nutrition Insight that industry links to SACN have been going on for years, at least since September 2024 — “but probably well beyond.” The previous investigation found that more than half of SACN advisors had food industry ties.
Underlining the urgency to eliminate bias, the publication points out that SACN is currently developing recommendations on maternal health, vitamin D requirements, and infant feeding.
We also speak with Rob Percival, head of policy at food and farming charity the Soil Association, who, in response to the investigation, calls for the conflicted members of SACN to leave the committee immediately.
We contacted Sainsbury’s, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Danone, and Mondelēz — the parent company of Cadbury — as the investigation named them for funding certain SACN members. Only Danone responded in time for publication.
Cross-sector collaboration
The investigation points out that one SACN member was recently a long-term member of the charity British Nutrition Foundation, which is funded by companies such as Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and Mondelēz.
SACN is currently developing recommendations on nutrition topics on maternal health, vitamin D requirements, and infant feeding.Additionally, it reports that four other advisors have received research funding from meat, dairy, and nut industries — one of them gaining a grant from Danone.
In response, a spokesperson from Danone says: “Addressing complex nutrition and public health challenges requires collaboration across academia, health care, government, and [the food] industry. As part of our mission to bring health through food to as many people as possible, Danone works with a wide range of stakeholders, including academics, to investigate the effect of nutrition on health.”
“These collaborations play a vital role in advancing scientific understanding and improving public health outcomes and are conducted within established governance frameworks with appropriate transparency and disclosure requirements.”
Danone points out that the research funding referenced in The BMJ was used to support independent academic research on gut health through its Research & Innovation centers in France and the Netherlands.
To ensure that SACN advice is evidence-based, its processes involve established safeguards, declarations of interest, and collective expert reviews.
Scanning SACN register of interests
Last September, research published in The BMJ led SACN to update its code of practice, stating “individuals are only eligible to be SACN members if they do not hold significant interests in relation to the food, drink, diet or supplement industry.” The findings were also highlighted in a House of Lords report into diet and obesity.
Danone says: “Addressing complex nutrition and public health challenges requires collaboration across academia, healthcare, government, and the industry.”The Department of Health and Social Care added that current SACN advisors should not accept new interests that contradict the updated policy, and they could be reappointed once they meet the policy. Though some experts protested against reappointments, arguing that financial relationships should also rule out involvement.
Apart from the six members flagged based on SACN’s latest register of interests, published in June 2026, the investigation highlights that three more were recorded as having “relevant” interests in the food industry, which involves research funding or consultancy work with smaller food firms.
Furthermore, Borland highlights other potential conflicts of interest, not flagged by SACN, such as a SACN advisor and “distinguished fellow” of the American Society for Nutrition, which she notes is funded by organizations including Mondelēz, Nestlé, and PepsiCo.
Borland adds that five other SACN members are on the UK’s Nutrition Society, which has received sponsorship from PepsiCo for conferences.
Commenting on the investigation, Chris van Tulleken, a professor of infection and global health at University College London, UK, says that uncovering funding ties does not imply that the receivers act suspiciously or influence SACN conclusions. But research shows it instead affects beliefs, behavior, and trust in decision-making and advice, he adds, arguing that the problem is structural.
Concerning UPFs and nutrition policy
The research reveals a larger question on the relationship between privately funded science and policymaking for public health. The BMJ shares that in SACN’s June meeting, the board discussed whether to make new recommendations on topics including ultra-processed foods (UPFs), artificial sweeteners, protein intake, and wholegrain foods, deciding to keep them on its “watching brief.”
Percival states: “Conflicts of interest are a systemic challenge. The issue is not corrupt individuals but excessive corporate power.”Percival at the Soil Association tells us that it is essential that the government’s scientific advisors have no financial links to the UPF industry, as large bodies of evidence show that they are harmful to health.
“The BMJ investigation shows that several members of the government’s scientific advisory committee have ‘significant’ ties to the industry. They should stand down immediately to protect the integrity of the committee’s advice.”
“The scientific advisory committee assesses the quality of nutrition science and makes recommendations to the government. As yet, they have refrained from recommending action on UPFs, even as the evidence stacks up. In the meantime, diet-related disease continues to rise. The time for action is overdue.”
Industry-funded science
Percival points out that for decades, the UPF industry has invested in science that supports commercial benefit while also developing relationships with senior scientists.
“And in the background, they have lobbied tirelessly against a new policy that benefits the public’s health. More robust lines need to be drawn around the policymaking process. This means conflicted scientists should be excluded from the government’s advisory committee.”
“It’s important to stress that conflicts of interest are a systemic challenge. The issue is not corrupt individuals but excessive corporate power — stronger and more clearly defined boundaries need to be placed around science and policy to ensure a greater degree of independence,” states Percival.
He calls for more public research funding so scientists can easily choose a non-conflicted career path. “The public is wary of excessive corporate influence. They mistrust major food companies. And rightly.”
