A third of UK government’s nutrition advisers are still paid by food industry, including Coca-Cola and Nestlé

Nearly a third of the experts advising the UK government on nutrition still have significant links to the food industry despite new rules designed to prevent conflicts of interest, an investigation has found.

Analysis by The BMJ found six of the 19 members of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) have interests which the committee itself classes as “significant”. SACN provides independent scientific advice to the government on nutrition and related health issues, with its work helping to shape national policy and NHS healthy eating recommendations.

Its experts consider issues including ultra-processed foods, artificial sweeteners, infant feeding and dietary recommendations for older people. The latest investigation found one adviser was until recently a senior member of the British Nutrition Foundation, a charity which receives funding from food companies including Coca-Cola, Nestlé and Mondelez, the owner of Cadbury.

Four other advisers have received research funding connected to the meat, dairy and nut industries, including one who has received a grant from food giant Danone. The findings come two years after an earlier BMJ investigation found more than half of SACN’s advisers had links to the food industry. That investigation was subsequently highlighted in a House of Lords report examining diet, food and obesity.

SACN strengthened its conflict-of-interest rules last year, stating that people should only be eligible to become members if they do not have significant interests relating to the food, drink, diet or supplement industries. However, the new rules are being introduced gradually.

The Department of Health and Social Care said existing members must not take on new interests which conflict with the updated policy and can only be reappointed if they comply with the new requirements. All SACN members are expected to meet the new policy within two years. In the meantime, members with significant interests are excluded from relevant discussions. The BMJ’s analysis was based on SACN’s latest register of interests, published in June 2026.

Alongside the six members with significant conflicts, another three were recorded as having “relevant” food industry interests, which are considered less serious. The investigation also identified other connections which SACN had not flagged as significant. One adviser is a distinguished fellow of the American Society for Nutrition, which receives funding from companies including Mondelez, Nestlé and PepsiCo.

Five SACN members are also part of the Nutrition Society, which receives sponsorship from PepsiCo for conferences. Professor Chris van Tulleken, professor of infection and global health at University College London and author of Ultra-Processed People, stressed that the findings did not mean individual advisers were behaving improperly or deliberately influencing the committee’s conclusions. However, he warned that conflicts of interest could affect beliefs and behaviour and undermine public confidence in scientific advice.

Rob Percival, head of policy at the Soil Association, welcomed SACN’s decision to tighten its rules but argued the changes should take effect immediately rather than over a two-year transition period. He called for members with significant conflicts to leave the committee and be replaced through an open recruitment process.

The findings come as SACN continues work on areas including maternal nutrition, vitamin D requirements and infant feeding. At its June meeting, the committee also considered whether new recommendations were needed on ultra-processed foods, artificial sweeteners, protein intake and wholegrain foods, ultimately deciding to keep the subjects under review.

The latest findings are likely to fuel wider debate over whether scientists with financial relationships with major food companies should have a role in developing the independent advice used to shape government health and nutrition policy.

Stay informed with the stories shaping health and social care.