Sugar rush

UK food and drink associations have been fighting industry’s corner following the publication of an article by the The BMJ, which suggests that industry funding is swaying expert opinion on nutrition issues. Entitled Sugar: spinning a web of influence, it states, “An investigation by The BMJ has uncovered evidence of the extraordinary extent to which key public health experts are involved with the sugar industry and related companies responsible for many of the products blamed for the obesity crisis through research grants, consultancy fees, and other forms of funding.”

It highlights organisations – including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestlé, W K Kellogg Institute, Mars, and Unilever Foods – which have contributed financial backing to scientists involved with government funded organisations the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and the Medical Research Council’s Human Nutrition Research unit at Cambridge.

However, the Institute of Food Science & Technology has criticised the article’s suggestions as ‘harmful’.

In a statement, the institute said, “As the professional body for food scientists, we uphold high standards of professionalism from our members and know that the work of those working in food science lies behind many of the solutions to the problems of obesity and malnourishment.

“It is difficult to imagine how we might conquer many of the big health issues without scientific research and cooperation with industry to ensure that this research can be implemented in a way that is realistic and deliverable. It is completely understandable that companies in the food and drink sector seek the advice of top scientists and nutritionists, many of whom work for the food businesses themselves in addition to those working for third party organisations. Simply because a scientist works for industry, doesn’t mean to say that they are not dedicated to reliable evidence based science.

“It is vital that collaborations between academia or government and industry are allowed to go ahead for the benefit of public health. It would be impossible for industry and government bodies to make positive changes without working together. By suggesting that those with connections to industry are tainted is harmful – it is their experience within industry that ensures the ultimate solutions are viable and deliverable.

“The BMJ demonstrates that the processes in the food sector are poorly understood. Large companies, such as those named, have been unjustly demonised, when in reality, is it many of the bigger food producers that have made the most significant progress in reformulating their products. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the aspects of this research were influenced by industry. Of course, it is important that any declarations of interest or collaborations are transparent; something that is already being done.”

The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) also dismissed the article, calling it an ‘unjustified attack’.

Barbara Gallani, director of regulation, science and health at the FDF, says,
“We strongly believe that nutrition advice and public health policy should be based on the best available science and that government’s scientific advisory committees should include the top experts in their field. The BMJ articles completely fail to recognise the robust systems in place to ensure the research is transparent, is independently reviewed and that potential conflicts of interest are declared and addressed.

“In addition, some of the comments expressed in the articles on the work of the Responsibility Deal on Public Health fail to reflect the progress made in reducing calories, including those from sugars, in parallel with impressive industry initiatives to promote active lifestyles and provide clear on-pack information.

“The causes of obesity are hugely complex, including but not limited to diet, and there is a strong need to work collaboratively to deliver solutions rather than devising unjustified attacks on the professional integrity of the UK’s leading science experts and research bodies.”

You can read the original article here. What are your views on this apparent attack on the industry? Please leave your comments below.