Row over ultra-processed foods panel highlights conflicts of interest issue at heart of UK science reporting

Information brokers

For more than 20 years the centre has been brokering contact between scientists and time poor journalists, including those working for The BMJ. Its founding aim was to help renew public trust in science after a series of confidence rocking events, most noticeably in food scares over Escherichia coli, bovine spongiform encephalitis, and genetic modification.7 It does this by curating rapid reactions to breaking stories from a database of more than 3000 scientists, as well as providing briefings on stories, such as journal papers (including in BMJ journals). The range is vast: from Chernobyl nuclear power plant losing power during the war in Ukraine to childhood vaccination coverage data. Communication is through email, webinars, and in-person press conferences at its Euston base (located at the home of one of its biggest funders, the Wellcome Trust).

Tom Whipple, science editor at the Times, explains its appeal: “The most useful thing it does is just get the authors of big research out to talk about their upcoming paper. It saves them from chatting with all of us individually.

“Especially in the pandemic, it was a key central clearing house for big science announcements. It was where, for instance, the Oxford vaccine team did the teleconferences for their papers.

“I suppose it would be easy to depict it as a be-tentacled Voldemort of science, with us journalists its credulous marionettes, but we’re not that stupid and it’s really not that interesting. It’s one tool among many, of course. But it would be silly to ignore somewhere I can hear relevant scientists talk about relevant things.”

The morning after the ultra-processed food briefing, the press coverage (the Guardian aside) was more positive than usual for the recently maligned food group. “Is ultra-processed food bad for you? Not always, scientists say,” ran the Times. “Ultra-processed food can still be good for you, it depends on what is in it,” according to the Telegraph, going on to warn that “demonising” all processed foods is wrong as it can still be nutritious, and “not everyone can afford artisanal breads.”

Janet Cade told the briefing that “removing” processed foods from the shelves removes some foods that are encouraged from people’s diets, such as vegetables that are added to ready meals. It was likely that it was the high fat, salt, and sugar content of many ultra-processed foods that was the problem, she added, and research has not shown anything specific about processing.

Part of the problem, said the panel, is there is no clear definition of ultra-processed food, making any guidance on such a food group “unworkable.”

Disagreement and discourse

Doctor and broadcaster Chris van Tulleken has contributed to a wave of public awareness about ultra-processed foods through his best selling book, Ultra-Processed People. He strongly disagrees with the panel’s view of the state of the science on ultra-processed foods, for which he says there is “overwhelming evidence” of harm.

“We have now over 1000 papers linking it to negative health outcomes, including many high quality prospective trials, done at places like Imperial. They almost all adjust for salt, fat, sugar, and fibre and dietary patterns.”

The response of the food industry to this existential threat is to sow confusion, van Tulleken says. “They mount straw man arguments, talking about how banning UPFs would be wrong when no one is calling for a ban or even tax.

“If you are an institution with a sincere interest in evidence and public health, the discussion we should be having is how to regulate the companies that drive diet related disease. But instead, what we're getting is an argument about a scientific definition.”

Speaking to The BMJ, the Science Media Centre’s chief executive, Fiona Fox, is unapologetic about the centre’s model: “There will be individuals who have criticisms of what we do—and our trustees, advisory group, and staff are always open to debating our approach. But we do not recognise the charge that we lack credibility. Nor do we accept that more and more people care about conflicts of interest.

“The message we get from our friends in the science community is that universities and governments increasingly encourage academics to work with a variety of partners, including industry partners. All organisations have to take funding from somewhere. And all funding sources come with potential conflicts.”

Whipple says that journalists understand that conflicts of interest are important but, managed openly and honestly, they allow industry to support science. “We want—I presume—industry to fund science. It feels adolescent to then state that, having done so, those scientists are forever disqualified from talking about their science.”

Managing conflicts

Lethbridge says the centre asks scientists to declare interests, which are then passed on to journalists. “Our agreed policy is that we don’t go in search of scientists’ interests ourselves. Instead, we rely on self-declaration.”

In this sense, declarations of interest are an inexact science and what one party deems relevant, another might dismiss.

For example, Gunter Kuhnle, professor of nutrition and food science at the University of Reading, has over the past year featured in four of the centre’s “expert reactions” on processed foods. For each Kuhnle declared no conflicts of interest,891011 although journal declarations show he has received unrestricted research grants from Mars and, as recently as this year, co-authored papers with Mars employees.1213 Between 2018 and 2023, Mars has given £262 832 in research funding to principal investigators in human nutrition at Reading University.14

Kuhnle tells The BMJ that he follows the centre’s guidance to provide “relevant” declarations of interest and has always been open about his conflicts. His research collaboration with Mars was based on the health effect of flavanols, and “I do not always declare this funding in Science Media Centre comments on ultra-processed food because this project was about fundamental research on flavanols, not UPF.

“It is right to scrutinise the results and activities of scientists—this is how science progresses. But to publicly criticise scientists with smears and insinuation about their integrity and honesty, without evidence, is not only unfair but will discourage scientists from speaking up in public.”

It’s a view that van Tulleken counters: “We know that you can’t mitigate conflicts. We know they do affect output, whether it’s science or medicine or media communication.”

As to the Science Media Centre’s own conflicts of interest, Lethbridge points to a “complete firewall between funding and our editorial work.”

“We don’t do briefings or put people on our database because of funding,” she says. “We have around 110 different funders, including universities, government, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), news organisations, research journals, and charitable institutions, as well as industry.”

She also cites a 5% cap on donations, “so that no institution can give more than 5% of our prior year income.” This excludes the Wellcome Trust and UKRI. “It’s very rare for companies to suggest a press briefing to us. Much more common are the suggestions from scientists, press officers, and occasionally journalists; and us ourselves as we monitor what’s in the news and what topics we think might be suitable for briefings.”

Van Tulleken calls on the centres to end all relationships with the food industry. “Institutions and individuals who claim to have an interest in public health should end all financial relationships with the UPF industry and instead, they should advocate for expanded public funding to support research.”