The British Medical Journal has just published an article by me looking at the activities of the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF).
The BNF is a key independent charity that has influence on food policy in the UK and is often used by the government for advice and to publish web sites and other information to the public. It also has strong links to the food industry and there have been complaints that its stated aims of being objective and scientific are undermined by these connections.
The Independent published a version of the BMJ story as well.
Update: Thanks to The Gym Monkey for this list of BBC pages quoting the BNF.
A couple of people have been in touch with extra information following publication. One that intrigued me highlighted the role of a company called Fallon Currie Consulting. They are fronted by Ailbhe Fallon who is speaking at a conference on sweeteners organised by the BNF. The conference aims to "separate fact from fiction" and has a generous industry presence
Other speakers include Prof Tom Sanders, whose has done a lot of research for Tate & Lyle, and Prof Nick Finer. You can see Prof Finer talking on this video about aspartame and sweeteners. It's on a website called the Aspartame Information Service. A Whosis search shows that it was set up by Fallon Currie for the makers of this sweetener, Ajinomoto. You can contact the information service via a post box whose postcode is SW1E 5WQ. Fallon Currie's head office is at SW1E 5DD.
Needless to say both Ajinomoto and Tate & Lyle fund the British Nutrition Foundation. While the Foundation's web site and and annual reports acknowledge their links and fairly chart their work, Fallon Currie's online presence remains curiously opaque.
They seem to do independent-looking web sites for food industries well, though. Take the International Glutamate Information Service - another Fallon Currie creation but this time on behalf of MSG industry.
I've heard no comment from either the BNF or any of its supporters about these articles in the Independent and the BMJ but was warned today by one researcher familiar with this area: "Brace yourself for a shoal of letters from top profs saying the BNF is AOK
and that good understanding with industry is vital bla bla."
I do think it fair, though, to include a lengthy explanation about the work of that BNF that I was sent by Sara Stanner, its science programme manager. For reasons of space this could not be included in full in the articles.
Q: In almost all its publicity the foundation makes clear its commitment to
objective, science-based research. This independence is obviously important to
the foundation.
I'd be interested in your views on how the BNF maintains
its independence despite its industry funding. Does the foundation not come
under pressure from donors to concentrate on certain areas or ignore other ones?
Do you think that having such close links with industry (in terms of the amount
of money food manufacturers give you and the number of staff and trustees who
work or have worked for the private sector) damages your credibility as an
independent charity?
A: We are certain that if we were viewed as unable to provide advice that is
authoritative and independent of our funding sources, then we would not attract
donations from industry or enjoy the rich collaboration and support we receive
from the nutrition, academic and education communities.
BNF
provides a forum for people and organisations who share an interest in nutrition
science to come together to encourage enhanced standards in food provision.
Our
members tell us that they appreciate access to a 'sounding board' which provides
an honest, informed, no frills opinion of what they are doing or proposing to
do.
Certainly, if we feel their plans are misguided, we tell them and we
regularly challenge their thinking and help them to identify ways to reformulate
in line with best practice, e.g. portion size, energy density, nutrient
composition. We do this in a way that places our advice in the context of the
available scientific evidence, food law and food policy. But the scientific
evidence base is the most important driver of the advice we provide. We work in
a similar way, in fact, with government officials and their departments (in the
work they commission us to do, we do not lobby) and in our responses to
consultations.
As
you will have seen the Foundation attracts funding (won in open competition)
from a variety of sources, including contracts with the European Commission,
national government departments and agencies; a wide range of food producers and
manufacturers, retailers and food service companies; grant providing bodies,
trusts and other charities. We obtain no funding by right. The donations we
receive from food and drink companies are used at ‘arms length’ and in a generic
sense to supplement the funding we secure from the other sources referred to
above (including contracts in which we are collaborating with university
departments across Europe) to deliver a free information service to health
professionals, journalists, teachers and indeed the general public (you will
have seen our two websites www.nutrition.org.uk and www.foodafactoflife.org.uk). You
should also look at our recent podcasts
(http://www.foodafactoflife.org.uk/Search.aspx?search=podcast), especially
episode 5 of the Eatwell plate series
on foods high in fat, sugar and salt, and the most recent one on healthy eating.
We interact with many sectors, including government and our peers in academia,
education and the health professions, and believe that this enriches the
information and resources we provide.
Our
ability to protect our independence is strengthened by this diversity in funding
and centres on our strong governance. This governance (comprising principally
our Board of Trustees and Council) is organised to secure our independence and
to ensure we meet our charitable objectives. It is broad based but heavily weighted towards
the academic community and involves many leading high ranking experts in
nutrition and health, education and communications, of international standing,
who receive no payment and generously give up their time to ensure that the
Foundation delivers messages based on the accurate interpretation of nutrition
science. We also have a Royal patron.
The
work that both our education and science teams produces is testament to our
ability to produce evidence-based information without pressure from our
supporters, who recognise that our independence is our most valued asset. This
work is guided by education committees representing the four constituent
countries of the UK and various advisory committees
comprising scientists with expertise in human nutrition. Strange as it may seem
we are not pressurised, commercially or politically, to be selective in the
repertoire of nutrition topics we address, as will be evident from our websites
and the topics we cover in our publications and podcasts. A fundamental
principle of our work is that we do not endorse
or in any way promote individual products or companies; this is made clear at
the outset and the Foundation reserves the right to withdraw membership.
All
applications for membership are scrutinised by our Trustees in a structured
manner approved by our Council and all members are required by signature to
abide by our objects and values in their interactions with
us.
Incidentally, you refer to
‘the number of staff and trustees who work or have worked for the private
sector’, suggesting that this is a dominant theme in the expertise we have
available to us and that such experience is detrimental to good judgement. A
number of our nutrition scientists undertook work experience placements with
food companies during their degrees (which you will find is a common practice in
human nutrition degrees and these graduates are usually in high demand as these
placements typically go to talented students and they also develop a level of
maturity from this experience which is attractive to employers), and another was
employed by a trade association many years ago.
Our view is that we are
fortunate in attracting scientific staff of a very high calibre from all walks
of human nutrition, which enriches the work we do and ensures we are able to
provide a mature and balanced view on nutrition issues. You also mention our
Trustees - to ensure diversity in the expertise available among our Trustees,
our Articles of Association
that not more than two of our Trustees (out of a total of 12) can be Industrial
Governors (i.e. from the food industry).
Details are provided in our
Annual Report.
Q:
Do you think that these industry links are adequately signposted so people are
aware of them? By people I mean anyone who interacts with the foundation whether
in government, NGOs, academics, teachers, consumers etc. For instance, it is
extremely rare in press reports where the foundation may talk about a particular
company for the report to mention that that firm is a member of the foundation.
Of course, that might be an oversight on behalf of the writer, but it does seem
to be a common oversight. The membership list is published on your web site but
do you feel there is proper disclosure on other material you publish to
demonstrate possible conflicts of interest?A: Picking up on
your example, we base our communications about diet and nutrition on generic
foods and food groups. We would not give any comment on specific brands either
in our resources or to the media (I am not sure which press reports you are
referring to). If we engage in any piece of project work that involves support
from one of our member companies (or any other industry link), we always clearly
acknowledge this (for example, we thank anyone who has given us support towards
a conference during the event and in all related literature and we include a
conflict of interest statement in any paper we write that has received financial
support or even been encouraged as a topic for us to review by one of our member
companies).
We have clear statements about our funding on both of our websites
and in our Annual Reports, as well as a list of all of the companies that have
provided us with any financial support during the year. You make an interesting point though and we
shall give consideration to this, as part of our on-going review of our
policies. But in our experience, most people that we talk to are aware that we
get funding from different sources, including industry
and government.
As I am sure you
will realise from exploring our website and activities, we are passionate about
what we do and the role we believe we have in supporting and guiding consumers
(including children) to improve the dietary choices they make, through the use
of nutrition science encouraging and supporting the food industry to improve
nutrition standards for the public good, and also providing tools and resources
that teachers and health professionals can use in their work. We are proud of
our track record of ‘telling it how it is’.