Yes, I work with the food industry, but I doubt they see me as a friend

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/advise-food-industry-conflict-of-interest-bmj

Version 0 of 1.

I woke up on Thursday morning to a flurry of newspaper stories about me under headlines such as “Row over sugar firms’ links to scientists” (BBC) and, worse, “Obesity experts advising the government are being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by the junk food industry” (Daily Mail).

I then turned on the Today programme to hear that “row” played out between Prof Colin Blakemore, the former head of the Medical Research Council, and Dr Fiona Godlee, the editor of the BMJ, the journal that had published claims that I and others involved in the sugar debate had received funding from food companies. Sadly, the BMJ report has generated more heat than light on a complex and important subject that does indeed need a grown-up debate. The relationship between research, academics, industry and policymakers is not a new issue. I have been grappling with it for many years now and believe it deserves more considered attention than we have seen in the past few days.

Throughout my career I have been supported by public research funds. My heart and my role are concerned with using science to improve public health. My job does not depend on industry funding and the vast majority of my research is funded through public bodies. In my dreams I wish we had infinite funding for research, but we don’t. Encouraging industry to support research boosts the overall science budget and can sometimes speed up the translation of science into practical applications. But it must be within robust governance arrangements. For me, that means investigator-led protocols, independent data analysis and complete academic freedom to publish the results, even if they are unfavourable to the funder. That is what I have always done.

My research funding is no different from many other scientists, so I suspect I find myself in the headlines because I think it is important that scientists engage in the policy process to improve health. I am not and never have been part of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), but I know the scientists involved, who are some of the leading thinkers in the field. I trust in the governance process for the declaration of interests. In my view, it is important to recognise the difference between research funding conducted by independent organisations and personal consultancy or advisory work. In research funding, industry provides support to an independent research group to conduct a study.

In a role as a personal consultant or adviser, industry money may be paid directly to an individual. I choose not to do personal consultancy for the food industry because it is often harder, though not impossible, to put similar safeguards around advisory work and the discussions are not published in the peer-reviewed way that we do for research findings.

However, I recognise that advising companies doesn’t have to mean agreeing with them. In nutrition, the advice to industry is often to cut down on saturated fat, sugar and salt in products, and technical advice on the ways that this might be achieved.

My public role is as the independent chair of the Responsibility Deal food network. This is a government-led initiative to encourage industry to work towards improvements in public health. The Responsibility Deal is not about making policy; it’s about delivering on the public health nutrition goals set by SACN and others. My job is to lead the negotiations between industry and the public health community on voluntary agreements to help people eat fewer calories, less saturated fat, sugar and salt, and more fruit and vegetables. I hope industry see me as fair and evidence-based, but I doubt they see me as a friend.

I have been very clear from the start that the Responsibility Deal should only be one part of the overall portfolio of action to improve public health nutrition. I have publicly said that it has proved impossible to make progress to limit promotions on unhealthy foods and that stronger policies are needed. Personally, I am also supportive of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages because of the clear evidence of a specific link between these drinks and an increased risk of obesity. Evidence of the impact on tobacco and alcohol control policies shows that price reduces consumption, and I believe a price differential at point of choice between high- and no-sugar options would likely act as a specific prompt to change the behaviour of consumers. We need more empirical evidence on this, but that will only come when we trial the policy.

So, while it is reasonable to start from the position that any association between scientists and industry may indicate a conflict of interest, that is not evidence, it is just a hypothesis. In science, we test the hypothesis and report the findings. Yes, we should hunt down malpractice and lobbying, but it seems to me that the BMJ have found no evidence that my research or that of SACN members has led to any undue influence in SACN decision-making or in my work within the Responsibility Deal.

Indeed, I have been outspoken on the need to cut sugar intakes and have written academic papers exploring the options to achieve this.

As someone who cares passionately about engaging the public in a debate about science, my greatest sadness is that in the absence of evidence, implying that bias exists and that there has been wrongdoing by scientists simply erodes trust and confidence in research and is a disservice to the public.