 |
| Panel of Scientists with Ties to Food Companies Supports Ultra-Processed Foods |
Three out of five scientists on an expert panel that suggested ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are being unfairly demonized have ties to the world's largest manufacturers of these products, as reported by The Guardian.
Recent studies have linked UPFs such as ice-cream, fizzy drinks, and ready meals to various health issues, including an increased risk of cancer, weight gain, and heart disease. The global consumption of these products has been on the rise, with UPFs now constituting over half of the average diet in the UK and US.
During a media briefing held in London by the Science Media Centre, a panel of expert scientists suggested that consumers should not overly worry about concerns raised regarding UPFs. In fact, they claimed that UPFs might even have some benefits for people's health.
However, it has come to light that three of the five participants on this panel have financial ties to UPF manufacturers or are associated with organizations funded by them. These manufacturers include Nestlé, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever, and General Mills.
For instance, Prof Janet Cade from the University of Leeds, who was part of the panel, mentioned that most research suggesting a link between UPFs and health issues "cannot show cause and effect." She argued that some foods classified as UPFs, such as wholemeal bread, whole-grain breakfast cereals, and yoghurts, can be nutritious and that processing can help preserve nutrients.
Prof Cade is also the chair of the advisory committee of the British Nutrition Foundation, which counts corporate members like McDonald's, British Sugar, and Mars, and is funded by companies including Nestlé, Mondelēz, and Coca-Cola.
Prof Pete Wilde from the Quadram Institute in Norwich, another panel member, questioned whether homemade cakes, while not considered processed, were any healthier than their commercial counterparts. Wilde has received research support from Unilever, Mondelēz, and Nestlé.
Prof Ciarán Forde from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, who also participated, argued that advising against UPFs "risks demonizing foods that are nutritionally beneficial." Forde had previously worked for Nestlé and received research funding from companies like PepsiCo and General Mills.
While these scientists did declare their potential conflicts of interest before the briefing, media coverage did not mention their links to UPF manufacturers. This has raised concerns among experts, with some suggesting that such messaging could confuse the public and undermine public health efforts.
Barbara Crowther, manager of the children's food campaign at Sustain, emphasized the importance of reducing UPF consumption, especially those high in fat, salt, and sugar, to protect health. She expressed concern that labeling some UPFs as healthy could be misleading and dangerous for public health.
Duane Mellor, a registered dietitian and senior lecturer at Aston medical school, highlighted the need for clear communication and urged a focus on promoting healthier dietary choices like vegetables, fruits, and pulses.
In response, Prof Cade clarified that her role at the British Nutrition Foundation was unpaid and aimed to provide independent scientific input to improve the food system. Prof Wilde maintained the integrity of his views, stating that his associations with food companies did not sway his opinions but were intended to foster balanced debates. Prof Forde emphasized that the classification of UPFs needed to be reconsidered for more effective public health recommendations.
Fiona Fox, the chief executive of the Science Media Centre, defended the selection of scientists for their expertise and transparency regarding industry links, highlighting the importance of scientists engaging with various partners for research impact.
إرسال تعليق