Who helps shape government nutrition advice matters, especially when those experts have financial ties to food companies or industry groups.
A new analysis by The BMJ found that six of the 19 experts who serve on the United Kingdom’s main nutrition advisory committee have food-industry relationships considered “significant” under the committee’s own conflict-of-interest rules. The findings do not show that any adviser acted improperly or that industry influenced government recommendations. But they raise questions about how potential conflicts should be handled when experts are helping shape public nutrition policy.
The committee, known as the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, or SACN, advises the UK government on issues such as infant feeding, vitamin requirements, artificial sweeteners and ultraprocessed foods. Its recommendations help inform national nutrition policy and health guidance.
SACN tightened its conflict-of-interest rules in 2025 after an earlier BMJ investigation found that more than half of its members at the time had ties to the food industry. Under the newer policy, people with significant financial interests involving the food, drink, diet or supplement industries are not eligible to become new members.
The rules are not being applied immediately to everyone already serving on the committee.
The UK Department of Health and Social Care told The BMJ that current members have up to two years to meet the stricter standard. In the meantime, members with significant conflicts are excluded from discussions related to those interests.
For its latest analysis, The BMJ reviewed SACN’s June 2026 public list of members’ financial and professional interests. Six members had relationships the committee itself classified as significant. Three more had industry relationships classified as relevant but less serious.
Those relationships were not all the same. Some involved research funding from the meat, dairy or nut industries. One adviser had received funding involving Danone. Another had recently held a senior role with the British Nutrition Foundation, a charity whose corporate supporters have included Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Mondelez.
The BMJ also identified other professional ties that SACN had not labeled significant or relevant, including membership in nutrition organizations that receive sponsorship from food companies.
That distinction is important. Receiving industry-supported research funding is not the same as working directly for a company, and belonging to a professional organization with corporate sponsors is different again. None of those relationships automatically means an expert’s judgment was compromised.
Chris van Tulleken, a professor of infection and global health at University College London, made that point while arguing that financial conflicts can still undermine confidence in the process.
“This is not an allegation that individual members are acting improperly or deliberately influencing SACN’s conclusions,” van Tulleken told The BMJ. “However, research shows that conflicts of interest do affect beliefs and behaviour, as well as eroding trust in decision-making and advice.”
The issue matters because the committee is weighing topics that can have both public health and commercial consequences. Its work includes maternal nutrition, vitamin D and infant feeding, while ultraprocessed foods, artificial sweeteners, protein and whole grains are among the subjects it continues to monitor.
Questions about who helps shape government nutrition advice are not unique to the UK.
In the United States, a recent legal challenge to the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines has also raised questions about transparency, how scientific evidence is selected and potential conflicts among experts involved in developing national nutrition recommendations. As in the UK case, identifying a financial relationship does not prove that recommendations were improperly influenced.
The debate also overlaps with growing scrutiny of ultraprocessed foods. A recent Lancet series on ultraprocessed foods called for stronger government action while also examining the influence food companies can have on research and policy discussions.
Some public health experts interviewed by The BMJ argue the UK committee should move faster.
Rob Percival, head of policy at the Soil Association, said members with significant conflicts should leave the committee rather than remain during the transition period.
“The conflicted members of SACN need to leave the committee immediately,” Percival said.
SACN has chosen a different approach. Existing members may continue serving while the new rules are phased in, as long as they stay out of discussions connected to their conflicts. They may also remain eligible to serve once a significant financial relationship has ended.
That leads to another difficult question: How long should a past industry relationship matter?
Under SACN’s rules, an old conflict can eventually stop being disqualifying once the financial relationship ends. Critics argue some past relationships should still limit an expert’s role in decisions involving the same products, companies or industries.
The BMJ analysis does not show that SACN members changed their recommendations because of industry ties. Instead, it highlights a broader challenge in nutrition science: Many experts work across universities, government, professional organizations and industry during their careers.
Disclosure helps make those relationships visible. The harder question is deciding which ones are serious enough to limit an expert’s role in shaping public advice.
This was a news analysis published by The BMJ, not a clinical trial or observational study. The article reported no competing interests.