Connections between scientist-led recommendations on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the corporations selling them risk eroding consumer confidence.

The news that scientists on a UK panel defending ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are connected to food firms that sell UPFs raised questions over whether consumers can trust this information and advice on healthy eating.

On 27 September, the Science Media Centre (SMC), an independent press office for the science industry, organised a briefing on UPFs. During the expert panel, suggestions were made that UPFs could sometimes be good for people and not something consumers needed to be too worried about, The Guardian reported.

Subsequently, concerns were raised about the ties between some of its speakers and the corporations selling UPFs, as three of the five scientists on the SMC panel have connections with the globe’s largest manufacturers. The food industry at large may worry over this impact on consumer confidence and be conscious of mitigating any potential concerns over bias or vested interests in UPF communications.

Concerns over corporate UPF connections

A core priority is ensuring consumers are confident in the scientific research and communication on UPFs and that links to food companies do not impact this trust and understanding.

When Ingredients Network reached out to the SMC, its senior press officer, Fiona Lethbridge, highlighted a specific extract from its recently released blog in response to the panel event and unfavourable coverage. “The public remains wary of scientists with ties to industry, so if the government and the scientific community think that scepticism isn’t justified and these partnerships are in the public interest, they need to tell us all why.”

A heightened focus remains on ethical recommendations to avoid bias and vested interest and to accurately communicate scientific information to the public. “It is, of course, key that research undertaken in this area is carried out rigorously to minimise the risk of bias and to ensure that the results generated are reliable,” Dr Laura Fernández Celemín, director general of EUFIC, told Ingredients Network.

“On the other hand, it is also important to collaborate with stakeholders from all sectors to ensure that research outcomes are relevant and applicable in real-life contexts, for example, in guiding policy-making, informing food reformulation efforts, or identifying future research priorities,” Dr Celemin adds. Transparency, for example, by providing a declaration of interests upfront, is vital when communicating research to the public.

UPF is an area of focus for the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF), as it is across the global nutrition science community, the organisation stated. Professor Janet Cade of the University of Leeds, who spoke at the panel event, is the chair of the advisory committee of the BNF, which has corporate members, including Mars, McDonald’s, and British Sugar.

“We do not lobby, endorse products, or allow commercial or political pressure to influence us when publishing or disseminating information,” Bridget Benelam, a nutrition scientist at BNF, said, speaking on whether it is possible to ensure the omission of bias or vested interest on UPFs.

The BNF says it strives to safeguard its impartiality through its governance, and membership of its Board of Trustees, Advisory Committee and Scientific Committee is weighted heavily towards the scientific community, universities and research institutes. “This provides an additional layer of scrutiny (in addition to internal reviews) to our position statements on key issues,” Benelam adds.

In response to how the BNF gathers information on UPFs, which is then passed on to the consumer domain, its position statement was “developed internally and then critically reviewed by our independent Scientific Committee of up to 30 independent experts, the names of whom are published on our website”, Benelam says.

BNF follows a public recruitment process for appointments to the Advisory Committee managed by our Nominations Committee. After the interview, the Nominations Committee Chair recommends who should be appointed to the Board.

From confusion and controversy to credibility

Controversy continues around the food industry’s understanding and recommendations relating to UPF consumption, with the recent SMC panel drawing attention to this. As demonstrated, tensions between scientists and corporations risk creating doubts over the validity of public health messages. The focus now turns to how to overcome the fallout.

“We believe improvements to our food landscape can only be done in concert with the industries and institutions that can most effectively deliver the change required,” Benelam says. It states that only by collaboration can the industry navigate UPFs and reach meaningful conclusions about changes required to balance contemporary food system needs with improved access to healthy and sustainable diets.

“My view is that the observational research published by those using the NOVA classification has reinforced the view for some people that UPFs and the food industry are all bad,” says Professor Pete Wilde, Food Innovation and Health Programme, Quadram Institute of Norwich University, who was also present at the SMC briefing.

“This has stimulated a reaction from others working in food science and nutrition studying the mechanisms underpinning the health impact of food that a more deterministic approach is required,” Wilde continues.

Therefore, to address both sides of this argument, Wilde says we need to look at the actual impact of individual food types on health. Both sides refer to the nutritional quality, composition and structure and account for the effect processing has on other factors such as additives, eating behaviour and socio-demographic effects. “[These] are all considered to give a balanced view on the effects of different types of food processing on health,” adds Wilde.