News

More than half of the UK’s SACN advisors have food industry ties

Of the 19 experts on the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, 11 have ties to the food industry. Industry professionals are split as to whether that is appropriate.

At a glance:

• Of the 19 Members, 11 have food industry ties, and six have ties that SACN’s own code says should bar them, according to a BMJ investigation.
• Some critics are calling for conflicted members' immediate dismissal.
• The UK’s Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has given SACN members two years to comply with its code of practice.

UK's Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) is a group of independent experts that provide scientific advice and risk assessments on food, diet, and health to governmental health departments and agencies across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

An investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) found that eleven of its 19 members had food industry ties as of June 2026.

In addition, the BMJ says six members have conflicts of interest that the committee’s own code of practice defines as “significant”, and this should rule them out of being appointed.

Some critics, including the head of policy at the Soil Association – the UK’s food, farming and environmental charity working to promote sustainable agriculture and organic standards – argue for immediate dismissal. Other nutrition professionals disagree as to whether ties to industry should preclude members at all.

The UK’s Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) – the department under which SACN falls – has given its members two years to comply with its code of practice, which was updated in September 2026.

Can a line be drawn between ‘conflict’ and ‘interest’?

Rob Percival, head of policy at the Soil Association, told the BMJ that conflicted members of SACN “need to leave the committee immediately”.

Ingredients Network put this comment to Carrie Ruxton, a UK-based registered dietitian and founding director of the consultancy Nutrition Communications. Ruxton’s consultancy advises supplement and food companies including General Mills, Ferrero, and Yakult, and Ruxton herself sits on two industry-funded nutrition panels.

“The Soil Association has a strong track record of campaigning on the importance of soil health for growing food but has limited experience of public health policy,” she said. “I wonder if they are confusing an interest with a conflict of interest.

“A scientist employed by a food company would have a COI [conflict of interest], but a university employee working on research funded by industry simply has an interest,” she added.

Ruxton explained that the individuals named in the BMJ investigation “are not industry-linked experts but academics whose universities have received funding from the food industry”.

According to the BMJ investigation, “three advisers have more than one significant conflict of interest, including SACN’s chair, Julie Lovegrove, who has three”.

The investigation cites research funding from Alpro, the Dutch and Danish dairy industries, as well as funding for a PhD student from a UK-based dairy firm that provides hardship grants.

Other conflicts cited in the investigation include one member, Gill Fine, holding shares in Sainsbury’s, and another, Kevin Whelan, being paid to give a speech at a conference sponsored by probiotic firm Yakult.

According to SACN’s own register of interest, updated on 9 September 2026, Fine’s shareholding in Sainsbury’s is less than 1%, a share value it says is “less than £10,000 (at start of tax year)” and the value of Whelan’s honorarium was less than £1,000.

What matters more: SACN’s track record of decisions or its register of interest?

Ruxton said the decisions SACN makes matter more than its members’ declarations.

“I have not heard any criticism of SACN’s advice or how it commissions and evaluates evidence. It’s lazy to target someone’s register of interests without providing examples of where this has caused a problem,” she said.

“If I had one comment, it would be that SACN is highly conservative and tends not to act unless there is compelling and consistent evidence. That’s why they didn’t endorse the NOVA classification: the evidence is skewed towards lower-grade observational studies which can’t prove that processing per se is the reason why high UPF [ultra-processed food] diets are associated with disease risk.

“It could equally be a lack of fibre, low fruit/veg/nuts, too much saturated fat, or micronutrient gaps,” she added.

Ingredients Network approached Barrie Margetts, emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Southampton, for comment.

Margetts said the way SACN weighs evidence is sound.

He sat on the diet and cancer working group of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (SACN's predecessor). He explained that in 1998, the group received large “pushback from the meat and livestock lobby about our recommendations around meat consumption”, but because the group had set its criteria for judging evidence in advance and based its recommendations on systematic reviews, it held its position.

“I believe this approach is still applied [by SACN] today. This is good and robust,” he said.

“I am thus not saying that SACN is corrupt because of the failure in the past of members to openly declare conflicts of interest, but I do know that this failure undermines confidence in the independence of recommendations,” he added.

Ingredients Network approached the DHSC, but it did not respond to a request for comment.