Nearly a third of the government's nutrition advisors still have "significant" ties to the food industry including Coca Cola, Sainsbury's, and Danone, reveals a new analysis by The BMJ today
Six of the 19 members of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) have conflicts of interest that its own rules deem 'significant' and should preclude them from being appointed, reports freelance journalist Sophie Borland.
SACN is a powerful group of experts that provides nutritional advice to the government on issues including artificial sweeteners, ultra-processed foods, and dietary guidelines for babies, young children and the over 65s. Their reports are used to inform national policy as well as NHS healthy eating recommendations.
One SACN adviser was until recently a long-serving senior member of the British Nutrition Foundation – a charity funded by firms including Coca Cola, Nestlé, and Mondelez, parent company of Cadbury's.
Four other advisors have received research funding from the meat, dairy and nut industries, including one who has also taken a grant from Danone, the world's largest yoghurt maker.
Today's figures come two years after an initial investigation by The BMJ revealed that more than half of SACN's advisors at the time had ties to the food industry.
The BMJ's findings were highlighted in a major House of Lords report into diet and obesity and, last September, SACN updated its code of practice to state that "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."
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) explained that current SACN advisors must not take on any new interests that are "at odds" with the updated policy, and can only be reappointed if they meet the updated policy.
"All SACN members are due to meet the new interests policy within the next two years," they added. "In the meantime, existing members with any significant interests are excluded from relevant discussions."
But experts argue that scientists with financial ties to the food industry should not be involved in influencing policy and have called for the conflicts to be removed "immediately". Some said that at least some previous financial relationships should also rule out involvement even once lapsed.
The BMJ analysed SACN's latest register of interests, published in June 2026, and found that six of the members declared "significant" conflicts of interest that the committee itself highlights with a note next to the declaration.
A further three were recorded by SACN as having "relevant" interests to the food industry, which are considered less serious. This includes receiving research funding from or undertaking consultancy work with smaller food firms.
The BMJ also identified other potentially serious conflicts of interests not flagged by SACN. This includes one advisor who is a "distinguished fellow" of the American Society for Nutrition, an organisation funded by organisations including Mondelez, Nestle and Pepsico. Five other members are on the UK's Nutrition Society, which receives sponsorship from Pepsico for conferences.
Chris van Tulleken, a professor of infection and global health at University College London and author of the book Ultra-Processed People, says: "This is not an allegation that individual members are acting improperly or deliberately influencing SACN's conclusions. However, research shows that conflicts of interest do affect beliefs and behaviour, as well as eroding trust in decision-making and advice."
He adds: "The problem is structural. SACN's authority depends on its independence, and these interests weaken public confidence and confer credibility on commercial actors that harm human health and scientific integrity."
Rob Percival, head of policy at food and farming charity the Soil Association, welcomed the tightening of SACN's policy but said it needs to be applied robustly. "I would suggest that the conflicted members of SACN need to leave the committee immediately and there needs to be open recruitment for non-conflicted members to stand in their place through an appropriate process."
SACN's updated rules allow members to stay on if they drop their significant conflict of interest, regardless of how long they had been working with the food industry beforehand or how much money they received.
But Percival argues that "once a scientist has received funding in relation to a product or is in a financial relationship with a manufacturer they should not be involved in policy making or regulatory decisions that pertain to that product."
The BMJ's findings come as SACN is working on recommendations on nutrition and maternal health, vitamin D requirements, and infant feeding. At its June meeting it considered whether to make new recommendations on topics including ultra-processed foods, artificial sweeteners, protein intake, and wholegrain foods, and agreed to keep these on its "watching brief."
