A group of leading health campaigners have attacked a decision by the government’s scientific health advisers that there was not enough evidence to warrant a further crackdown on ultra-processed foods.
Speaking exclusively to The Grocer this week, a raft of high-profile figures said the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) had gone against overwhelming evidence and public support for intervention, following a series of studies linking UPFs with health harms.
They also criticised the committee’s close links with the food industry and said the time had come for prime minister Andy Burnham to step in.
In July, The Grocer revealed SACN had discussed the weight of evidence mounting on potential cancer risks and other health harms from UPFs, but had decided that there was “insufficient evidence” to launch a full risk assessment.
Minutes recently released from the meeting show that SACN’s horizon scan talks did conclude that there was stronger evidence among studies conducted into the risk from UPFs, since it published a position statement in 2023, which acknowledged “concerning” reports linking UPFs with serious health risks but cast doubt on the quality of the evidence.
That was backed up by a SACN “raid review” last year.
The new minutes show that SACN “noted that research on the topic of processed foods seems to have progressed since its 2023 and 2025 publications, and SACN’s recommendations to government and research recommendations have started to be addressed.
“The quality of the evidence in this area appears to be improving.”
But it adds: “However, there are still many gaps in the evidence.”
Public health campaigner Dolly van Tulleken told The Grocer that SACN’s decision was another example of food industry influence on government policy. It was time for the government to step in to prevent the the UK being “left behind” in the war against ultra-processed foods, she added.
“The fingerprints of ultra-processed food companies and their membership organisations have been all over government policy for decades,” she said.
“Government food and health policy is riddled with conflicts of interest and industry interference from the evidence reviewing stage right through to policy design and implementation.”
Van Tulleken said Burnham had experienced the strong lobbying forces of the food industry as a former health secretary and shadow health secretary.
“Henry Dimbleby and I interviewed Andy Burnham for Nourishing Britain and he said he was “lobbied hard” by industry over junk food advertising regulations when he was health secretary.
“For the government to do what SACN recommends, the ultra-processed food industry should not be involved in conceiving or setting the ambition level of policies designed to regulate UPF and increase affordable access to minimally processed whole foods.
“This was a recommendation in the 2024 House of Lords report Recipe for Health and is the most important policy any government could embed.
“There is huge public concern about UPF and strong public support for the government to act.
“The government has a huge opportunity to make change by getting UPFs out of schools and hospitals and turbocharge the market for high quality, fresh, minimally processed whole foods by using its purchasing power in those critical places.
“The government could create and introduce world-leading food and health policies without industry trying to distract, delay and dispute at every stage.
“Government action on ultra-processed food is Britain’s next success story waiting to happen. It just requires a brave and smart prime minister to go for it.”
Nutritionist and author Stuart Gillespie, formerly of the International Food Policy Research Institute, said SACN was not justified in making its decision to maintain a watching brief on UPFs rather than launch a further probe.
“There is a vast amount of evidence from hundreds of studies in different places, in recent years, including four gold standard randomised controlled trails (RCTs) that show that UPF-heavy diets are significantly less healthy than minimally processed or whole food-based diets,” he said.
“UPFs are designed to displace other food options because they are the most profitable. They are designed to maximise consumption.
“The big challenge with SACN is that several members are or have recently been funded by the large transnationals that make most of their profits around the world from the sale of UPFs.
“Food industry-funded scientists and bodies they’re members of, are significantly more likely to generate industry-biased advice which runs counter to public health goals.”
Gillespie added: “The government needs to act, especially given the fact that the UK has one of the most UPF-saturated diets in the world.
In 2024 an investigation in the the BMJ reported that more than half of the experts on the SACN committee had links to the food industry.
At least 11 of the 17 members had “conflicts of interest” with the likes of Nestlé and sugar manufacturer Tate & Lyle, it said.
Soil Association head of policy Rob Percival said he believed the lack of policy impetus on UPFs was down to the government rather than its advisers.
“Contrary to the industry-cultivated, popular perception, SACN has not said ‘do nothing on UPF, the evidence isn’t strong enough’ – on the contrary, they’ve made a series of recommendations that government has failed to act on.
“They’ve recommended that government develops an agreed definition of UPF for use in the UK, that government monitor intake via the NDNS, that giver require transparency from manufacturers over the use of additives and processing techniques, and so on.
“All of which would open the door to a more robust policy response. And government has mostly failed to act.
“This is partly because officials in DHSC are under such intense and persistent pressure from the industry’s lobby groups.”
In July, The Guardian claimed the world’s biggest ultra-processed food companies had filed scores of lawsuits challenging government policies that tackle junk diets.
Percival said: “Senior officials in DHSC have said quite openly to me that they feel their hands are tied on UPFs, partly because of this threat.
“The whole policymaking process is at risk of being held to ransom by a handful of self-interested corporations and their willing servants at their favoured trade association.”
He said a Freedom of Information request submitted by the Soil Association last year found that more than 1,800 emails were exchanged within DHSC and between officials and the FDF relating to the government’s proposed promotion of “minimally processed foods”.
“The FDF energetically opposes the use of this language in government guidance.
“That’s an insane volume of opposition. And when the language was removed from the guidance, FDF wrote to their members (including major UPF manufacturers) citing the removal as one of their “key advocacy successes” of the year. They’re doing everything they can to keep government backed into a corner.”
The debate around the impact of ultra processed foods will be one of the key topics at The Grocer health summit on 16 September, at the QEII Centre in London.
It will featuring a keynote speech by Dr Chris van Tulleken, author of Ultra Processed People, on what comes next for public health and industry preparation.
1 Readers' comment