Should agrifood companies lobby or not? Their influence goes well beyond the supermarket shelves, reaching deep into politics and shaping policy and research. In the US, the release of new dietary guidelines has reignited debates about industry interference, while in the UK, the food sector’s sway over public policy also demands much closer scrutiny. The line between serving the public good and chasing private profit has never been blurrier.
Food systems directly affect our health, our planet and society. So, we must ask: how much business involvement in policymaking is legitimate? When vested interests call the shots, the consequences can be severe – skewed policies, biased research and outcomes that benefit corporations over people, animals and the planet.
A senior civil servant recently told me that having just a handful of major retailers actually makes things easier for the government in a crisis. But convenience comes at a cost. Corporate lobbying and industry-funded research have become commonplace, making it hard to tell where honest consultation ends and undue influence begins. Letting agrifood companies tap into public research funds, advise ministers, or aggressively market to vulnerable groups, like children, risks putting profit before the public interest.
Industry leaders say their input into policymaking is vital since they’re the ones making change happen. On the face of it, that may seem fair enough, but too often their influence waters down regulations or skews policies in their favour. When that happens, public trust in the food system takes a hit.
Citizen voices should be heard above corporations
For public health matters, it’s time for corporations to step back and let independent, public interest-driven voices lead. In contrast, when it comes to developing an industrial strategy, input from both large and small businesses can be worthwhile – provided there are robust boundaries and transparency.
Transparency is the bedrock of a trustworthy food policy environment. All actors – corporations, trade associations, NGOs and government bodies – must openly declare their interests. At the Food Ethics Council, most of our funding comes from charitable trusts, with up to 10% from agrifood firms participating in our Business Forum, a trusted space to explore contentious issues. We maintain our independence by refusing individual consultancy work with businesses.
Too often, the distinction between legitimate consultation and covert lobbying is unclear, allowing private interests to masquerade as serving the public. To rebuild trust, we need stricter rules and far more openness. The Food Foundation found Defra ministers met with food businesses and trade associations 40 times more often than food NGOs under the last UK government, highlighting the imbalance in influence.
Real legitimacy happens when citizens – especially those most affected – help shape policy. That’s why I back the Citizen Advisory Council and meaningful public engagement. I’d love to see such models strengthened, bringing democracy to the heart of food strategy and ensuring policies reflect what society actually values and needs. Meanwhile, publicly-funded research should put public health and sustainability first, not novelty or corporate gain.
The big question for agrifood businesses is whether they keep wielding influence in the shadows, or choose transparency and responsibility? Food businesses, government, and NGOs must prioritise the public good, set clear boundaries, empower citizens, and raise ethical standards. In the end, everyone stands to gain.
Dan Crossley is executive director at the Food Ethics Council
No comments yet