Obesity tsars, sugar firms paying them a fortune and a VERY unhealthy relationship.
By Alex Renton
You might think that there was a sign above every university and medical school announcing: ‘Top scientists for sale!’ According to an investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, five of the eight members of the Government’s scientific committee on nutrition receive funding from large confectionary companies.
The chairman, Professor Ian Macdonald, receives money not only from Unilever; the world’s biggest ice-cream maker, but from Coca-Cola and Mars, too.
Another of the Government’s most trusted scientists on diet, sugar and heart disease, Professor Tom Sanders, has been given £4.5 million towards his research by sugar giant Tate & Lyle.
If they enjoy such sweet business connections, can we trust the advice our scientists give us on diet and obesity?
Have the men and women in white coats - once thought incorruptible, above politics and devoted only to the purity of scientific fact - been bought up by the industries they have been asked to help regulate?
Of course, universities and research institutes need money to fund their programmes. But we should be very worried about industry funding scientists who advise the Government on how to look after our people’s health.
Perhaps the most shocking thing about Professor Macdonald, chairman of the ‘independent’ Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (VSACN), being funded by three food multinationals is that most of his peers aren’t shocked at all.
The scientific 'establishment likes to tell you it is above such conflicts of interest. Supporters would say Professor Macdonald is so eminent in his field - diabetes and obesity - that the news that Coca-Cola pays thousands of pounds into his personal bank account is of no consequence.
But you may remember we used to be told MPs didn’t suffer conflicts of interest - they could be trusted utterly. Then it turned out that backbenchers touted themselves for hire regularly. They took money for parliamentary questions from their corporate friends, while ministers sold rich businessmen peerages.
Epidemic
There is, of course, no evidence Professor Macdonald and his friends on the SACN committee - all of whom are paid by the taxpayer to be there – have put the interests of the companies that back them first.
But consistently,” the SACN has gone against the general tide of scientific opinion as the epidemic of obesity and diet-related diabetes has become Britain’s most pressing public health problem. Its forthcoming report on sugar and health will be of huge concern to every parent in the land. The committee’s reports are the main reason official health advice on the amounts of sugar we eat hasn’t changed in 23 years.
But our diet – and accompanying health problems - have changed, drastically since. Back then, obesity was rare and the chief threat from sugar was to our teeth.
Could this reluctance to condemn the added sugar in our diets have anything to do
with five of the eight members - including two other professors - of the SACN committee having links to the sweets and sugar industry, which has funded their research to the tune of millions of pounds?
Sadly, the SACN story is all too familiar. Other supposedly independent health advisory bodies are habitually stuffed with scientists and industry insiders who would have to be saints to remain impartial.
The Government’s Alcohol Working Group has just played a major role in reversing David Cameron’s pledge to tackle teenage abuse of cheap alcohol with minimum pricing. When Cameron made the pledge three years ago, there were just two alcohol industry members on the 15-strong committee.
Within six months, half the non-government members of the committee had links to the booze business or were employed by the likes of Heineken or the Scotch Whisky Association. The public health minister at the time, Anne Milton, said she hadn’t noticed.
Similarly, in the medical drugs business, industry has always sought close ties with
government and academia to sell its wares. Numerous scandals have resulted and the phrase ‘Big Pharma’ was coined to describe the way the biggest pharmaceutical companies are able to influence who receives research money.
The Government’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides on drug and equipment purchases, is frequently criticised for allowing drugs company employees and industry-funded scientists onto its decision-making committees.
Lobby
This is something corporate lobbyists here have learned from the U.S.
In 2003, U.S. sugar- producers managed to persuade President George Bush to threaten to withdraw funding from the United Nations World Health Organisation.
The offence? WHO scientists wanted to publish guidelines saying that sugar should make up only,10 per cent of the average diet; (It is around 20 per cent in many parts of the developed world.)
Though most authorities, including the NHS, agreed, the sugar lobby managed to find scientists to support their cause. So, how can we taxpayers know if scientists are being open about their backers?
Some make it plain. Tom Sanders, the King’s College London professor of nutrition and diabetes criticised for taking £4.5million from sugar giant Tate & Lyle for a research facility at St Thomas’ Hospital, lists on his Website who, including government agencies, has funded him.
But Professor Macdonald, at the centre of the new row over sweet industry funding, says nothing about his business backers on his Nottingham University web page, though he did inform the Government of his industry connections before he took the SACN role.
Many eminent academics and doctors say these conflicts of interest have to stop. Professor Simon Capewell, who works on public health at Liverpool University and campaigns for the reduction of sugar in processed foods, has called for Professor Macdonald to resign. ‘It’s like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank,’ he says.
‘If Ian Macdonald doesn’t step down, there will be real concerns that their [the SACN] recommendations will be prejudiced by commercial factors rather than scientific public health priorities?
Eminent pharmacologist Professor David Colquhoun of University College London says that the Macdonald case represents a ‘shocking conflict of interest". He believes all scientists should make all their interests clear in every speech and academic paper.
In the field of drugs, says Professor Colquhoun, ‘far too many clinicians accept money from pharma [companies] and do nothing about it’. On his blog, Improbable Science, he lists academics who have compromised their independence through their ties with businesses. It makes depressing reading.
While views from those within industry are worth hearing, ‘no advisory committee should have a majority from the industry side on it,’ he says.
Last night on Dispatches, Professor Macdonald had an opportunity to defend himself. He said he never discussed any of his Government work with Coca-Cola or Mars.
Biased
‘I am not to be bought off by anybody,’ he said. He denied being biased and said that it is important y to confer with industry representatives.
But While it may be true that Professor Macdonald is not to be bought, there are studies showing medical scientists funded by any industry tend to produce work biased in that industry’s favour.
One influential paper from last year examined research on sugary drinks and Weight gain. The researchers looked at 17 academic studies and found that when the authors had connections to the sugar industry, they were five times as likely to conclude sugary drinks did not make you fat.
We’ll find out later this year just how ‘independent’ 'Ian Macdonald’s committee on nutrition really is when it delivers its much-awaited report on sugar and obesity.
Many within the scientific community will be watching keenly to see whether a spoonful of financial sugar will sweeten the report in the favour of the confectionery giants.
ALEX RENTON is author of Planet Carnivore; Why Cheap Meat Costs The Earth.
You might think that there was a sign above every university and medical school announcing: ‘Top scientists for sale!’ According to an investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, five of the eight members of the Government’s scientific committee on nutrition receive funding from large confectionary companies.
The chairman, Professor Ian Macdonald, receives money not only from Unilever; the world’s biggest ice-cream maker, but from Coca-Cola and Mars, too.
Another of the Government’s most trusted scientists on diet, sugar and heart disease, Professor Tom Sanders, has been given £4.5 million towards his research by sugar giant Tate & Lyle.
If they enjoy such sweet business connections, can we trust the advice our scientists give us on diet and obesity?
Have the men and women in white coats - once thought incorruptible, above politics and devoted only to the purity of scientific fact - been bought up by the industries they have been asked to help regulate?
Of course, universities and research institutes need money to fund their programmes. But we should be very worried about industry funding scientists who advise the Government on how to look after our people’s health.
Perhaps the most shocking thing about Professor Macdonald, chairman of the ‘independent’ Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (VSACN), being funded by three food multinationals is that most of his peers aren’t shocked at all.
The scientific 'establishment likes to tell you it is above such conflicts of interest. Supporters would say Professor Macdonald is so eminent in his field - diabetes and obesity - that the news that Coca-Cola pays thousands of pounds into his personal bank account is of no consequence.
But you may remember we used to be told MPs didn’t suffer conflicts of interest - they could be trusted utterly. Then it turned out that backbenchers touted themselves for hire regularly. They took money for parliamentary questions from their corporate friends, while ministers sold rich businessmen peerages.
Epidemic
There is, of course, no evidence Professor Macdonald and his friends on the SACN committee - all of whom are paid by the taxpayer to be there – have put the interests of the companies that back them first.
But consistently,” the SACN has gone against the general tide of scientific opinion as the epidemic of obesity and diet-related diabetes has become Britain’s most pressing public health problem. Its forthcoming report on sugar and health will be of huge concern to every parent in the land. The committee’s reports are the main reason official health advice on the amounts of sugar we eat hasn’t changed in 23 years.
But our diet – and accompanying health problems - have changed, drastically since. Back then, obesity was rare and the chief threat from sugar was to our teeth.
Could this reluctance to condemn the added sugar in our diets have anything to do
with five of the eight members - including two other professors - of the SACN committee having links to the sweets and sugar industry, which has funded their research to the tune of millions of pounds?
Sadly, the SACN story is all too familiar. Other supposedly independent health advisory bodies are habitually stuffed with scientists and industry insiders who would have to be saints to remain impartial.
The Government’s Alcohol Working Group has just played a major role in reversing David Cameron’s pledge to tackle teenage abuse of cheap alcohol with minimum pricing. When Cameron made the pledge three years ago, there were just two alcohol industry members on the 15-strong committee.
Within six months, half the non-government members of the committee had links to the booze business or were employed by the likes of Heineken or the Scotch Whisky Association. The public health minister at the time, Anne Milton, said she hadn’t noticed.
Similarly, in the medical drugs business, industry has always sought close ties with
government and academia to sell its wares. Numerous scandals have resulted and the phrase ‘Big Pharma’ was coined to describe the way the biggest pharmaceutical companies are able to influence who receives research money.
The Government’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides on drug and equipment purchases, is frequently criticised for allowing drugs company employees and industry-funded scientists onto its decision-making committees.
Lobby
This is something corporate lobbyists here have learned from the U.S.
In 2003, U.S. sugar- producers managed to persuade President George Bush to threaten to withdraw funding from the United Nations World Health Organisation.
The offence? WHO scientists wanted to publish guidelines saying that sugar should make up only,10 per cent of the average diet; (It is around 20 per cent in many parts of the developed world.)
Though most authorities, including the NHS, agreed, the sugar lobby managed to find scientists to support their cause. So, how can we taxpayers know if scientists are being open about their backers?
Some make it plain. Tom Sanders, the King’s College London professor of nutrition and diabetes criticised for taking £4.5million from sugar giant Tate & Lyle for a research facility at St Thomas’ Hospital, lists on his Website who, including government agencies, has funded him.
But Professor Macdonald, at the centre of the new row over sweet industry funding, says nothing about his business backers on his Nottingham University web page, though he did inform the Government of his industry connections before he took the SACN role.
Many eminent academics and doctors say these conflicts of interest have to stop. Professor Simon Capewell, who works on public health at Liverpool University and campaigns for the reduction of sugar in processed foods, has called for Professor Macdonald to resign. ‘It’s like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank,’ he says.
‘If Ian Macdonald doesn’t step down, there will be real concerns that their [the SACN] recommendations will be prejudiced by commercial factors rather than scientific public health priorities?
Eminent pharmacologist Professor David Colquhoun of University College London says that the Macdonald case represents a ‘shocking conflict of interest". He believes all scientists should make all their interests clear in every speech and academic paper.
In the field of drugs, says Professor Colquhoun, ‘far too many clinicians accept money from pharma [companies] and do nothing about it’. On his blog, Improbable Science, he lists academics who have compromised their independence through their ties with businesses. It makes depressing reading.
While views from those within industry are worth hearing, ‘no advisory committee should have a majority from the industry side on it,’ he says.
Last night on Dispatches, Professor Macdonald had an opportunity to defend himself. He said he never discussed any of his Government work with Coca-Cola or Mars.
Biased
‘I am not to be bought off by anybody,’ he said. He denied being biased and said that it is important y to confer with industry representatives.
But While it may be true that Professor Macdonald is not to be bought, there are studies showing medical scientists funded by any industry tend to produce work biased in that industry’s favour.
One influential paper from last year examined research on sugary drinks and Weight gain. The researchers looked at 17 academic studies and found that when the authors had connections to the sugar industry, they were five times as likely to conclude sugary drinks did not make you fat.
We’ll find out later this year just how ‘independent’ 'Ian Macdonald’s committee on nutrition really is when it delivers its much-awaited report on sugar and obesity.
Many within the scientific community will be watching keenly to see whether a spoonful of financial sugar will sweeten the report in the favour of the confectionery giants.
ALEX RENTON is author of Planet Carnivore; Why Cheap Meat Costs The Earth.
The Sugar Tsars ‘in bed’ with confectionary giants
By Arthur Martin
EXPERTS who advise the government non sugar consumption were under fire last night after it was revealed they receive funding from confectionery giants.
Five out of eight members of a committee tasked with helping to tackle Britain’s obesity epidemic have ‘worryingly close’ ties with the food industry, it was claimed.
They include chairman Professor Ian Macdonald - one of the country’s leading nutritionists - who works as a paid advisor for Coca-Cola and Mars.
Yesterday critics said those who sat on the so-called ‘sugar committee’ could not be trusted because many of them are ‘in bed’ with food manufacturers.
The row comes as food giants are men being urged to cut sugar in products amid fears it has become the ‘new tobacco’. Doctors and academics say sugar levels must be reduced by at least 30 per cent to halt a wave of disease and death.
The typical Briton consumes 12 teaspoons of sugar a day - and there are nine in a can of Coca-Cola come and eight in a 51g Mars Bars. Professor Macdonald is paid £6,100 to sit on two advisory boards for Coca-Cola and also receives a larger payment for advising Mars.
But in 2009 he faced concerns over a potential conflict of interest and stood down until 2012.
His research at Nottingham University has now received more than £1million in the past three years from the food industry, including £300,000 from Mars. Funding also comes from Unilever - the World’s largest ice cream manufacturer. The disclosures yesterday prompted calls for the scientist to resign from the panel because of an ‘unacceptable’ conflict of interests. Simon Capewell, from campaign group Action on Sugar, said: ‘It’s like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank. If Ian Macdonald doesn’t step down, there will be real concerns that their recommendations will be prejudiced by commercial factors rather than scientific public health priorities?
Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra added: ‘I don’t think that anyone who is in bed with the food industry should be advising the Government.’ Other committee members with ties to the sugar industry include Ian Johnson, a consultant for Swiss chocolate multinational Barry Callebaut.
Professor Ian Young and Professor Julie Lovegrove have also received funding from the sugar industry, while David Mela is an employee and a shareholder of Unilever. All eight members are paid for their work on the committee.
In an interview with Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, Professor Macdonald denied that he is too close to food companies. He claimed it was important to confer with the industry and said he never discussed any of his government work with Coca-Cola or Mars.
Last night Public Health England said advisers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and be ‘independent and professionally impartial’. A spokesman said there were processes in place to ensure ‘transparency and integrity’.
A report to be published later this year by the committee on the health impact of sugar consumption could have a massive impact on the food industry.
EXPERTS who advise the government non sugar consumption were under fire last night after it was revealed they receive funding from confectionery giants.
Five out of eight members of a committee tasked with helping to tackle Britain’s obesity epidemic have ‘worryingly close’ ties with the food industry, it was claimed.
They include chairman Professor Ian Macdonald - one of the country’s leading nutritionists - who works as a paid advisor for Coca-Cola and Mars.
Yesterday critics said those who sat on the so-called ‘sugar committee’ could not be trusted because many of them are ‘in bed’ with food manufacturers.
The row comes as food giants are men being urged to cut sugar in products amid fears it has become the ‘new tobacco’. Doctors and academics say sugar levels must be reduced by at least 30 per cent to halt a wave of disease and death.
The typical Briton consumes 12 teaspoons of sugar a day - and there are nine in a can of Coca-Cola come and eight in a 51g Mars Bars. Professor Macdonald is paid £6,100 to sit on two advisory boards for Coca-Cola and also receives a larger payment for advising Mars.
But in 2009 he faced concerns over a potential conflict of interest and stood down until 2012.
His research at Nottingham University has now received more than £1million in the past three years from the food industry, including £300,000 from Mars. Funding also comes from Unilever - the World’s largest ice cream manufacturer. The disclosures yesterday prompted calls for the scientist to resign from the panel because of an ‘unacceptable’ conflict of interests. Simon Capewell, from campaign group Action on Sugar, said: ‘It’s like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank. If Ian Macdonald doesn’t step down, there will be real concerns that their recommendations will be prejudiced by commercial factors rather than scientific public health priorities?
Cardiologist Aseem Malhotra added: ‘I don’t think that anyone who is in bed with the food industry should be advising the Government.’ Other committee members with ties to the sugar industry include Ian Johnson, a consultant for Swiss chocolate multinational Barry Callebaut.
Professor Ian Young and Professor Julie Lovegrove have also received funding from the sugar industry, while David Mela is an employee and a shareholder of Unilever. All eight members are paid for their work on the committee.
In an interview with Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, Professor Macdonald denied that he is too close to food companies. He claimed it was important to confer with the industry and said he never discussed any of his government work with Coca-Cola or Mars.
Last night Public Health England said advisers must declare any potential conflicts of interest and be ‘independent and professionally impartial’. A spokesman said there were processes in place to ensure ‘transparency and integrity’.
A report to be published later this year by the committee on the health impact of sugar consumption could have a massive impact on the food industry.
Five who are funded by the industry
|
Ian Macdonald
Job: Professor of metabolic physiology at Nottingham University Disclosed Interests: Advisor to Mars and Coa-Cola. Research funding from Unilever – which makes Walls and Ben & Jerry’s Ice cream. |
Ian Johnson
Job: Research leader at the Institute of Food Research Disclosed Interests: Consultant of Barry Callebaut, Swiss chocolate manufacturer. |
Ian Young
Job: Director of Centre for Public Health at Queen’s University, Belfast. Disclosed Interests: Has received research funding from Unilever and the Sugar Bureau. |
David Mela
Job: Senior scientist and nutritionist at Unilever. Disclosed Interests: Employee of Unilever and shareholder. |
Julie Lovegrove
Job: Professor of metabolic nutrition at Reading University. Disclosed Interests: Research funding from Unilever and Sugar Nutrition UK. |
