Distorting the Plate: Why Healthcare Professionals are Speaking Out Against Food Industry’s Influence on Health, Science and Policy

By Shireen Kassam, Founder and Director of Plant-Based Health Professionals UK

As healthcare professionals, we rely on credible evidence to guide patient care and inform public health. But when it comes to food, much of what passes for evidence has been quietly and persistently shaped by powerful corporate interests.

The sugar, meat, dairy, and processed food industries have adopted tactics pioneered by Big Tobacco and fossil fuel giants: distort science, co-opt experts, undermine regulation, and confuse the public. The result is a food system that fuels disease, disproportionately harms poorer communities, burdens the NHS, accelerates environmental degradation, causes immense suffering to animals and leaves healthcare professionals exposed to co-opted narratives.

The appointment of the National Food Strategy Advisory Board with eight of 11 people having ties to the food industry and no environmental organisations represented has led health professionals to speak out.

A Historical Blueprint: Sugar Industry’s Subversion of Science

In the 1960s, as coronary heart disease emerged as the leading cause of death, competing hypotheses pointed to either saturated fat or sugar as the driver. The Sugar Research Foundation (now the Sugar Association) responded not by allowing the science to unfold, but by purchasing influence. It paid respected Harvard scientists to publish two reviews in the New England Journal of Medicine shifting blame onto fat and conveniently omitting any mention of its sponsorship. This all came to light in 2015 after analysis of internal industry documents.

The consequences were far-reaching. Public policy focused on reducing fat and low-fat processed foods flooded the market (many high in added sugars), and sugar escaped scrutiny for decades. The reality is that both saturated fat and sugar are implicated in driving the risk of chronic conditions.

This was not an anomaly. It was a blueprint, and it remains foundational to the food industry’s strategy today.

A Pattern Repeats: Cholesterol and Eggs and the Red Meat Papers

Fast forward to the 21st century, and we see the same manipulation. A 2019 systematic review analysed 211 studies on the effects of egg consumption on blood cholesterol concentrations. The results were stark. The proportion of industry-funded studies rose from 0% in the 1950s to 60% in the 2010s. While the majority of studies, both industry- and non–industry-funded, reported increases in blood cholesterol from egg consumption, there was a crucial difference. 49% of industry-funded studies concluded that eggs had a favourable or neutral effect, even when their data showed cholesterol increases. In contrast, only 13% of non–industry-funded studies showed this kind of discrepancy between results and conclusions​.

In 2019, Annals of Internal Medicine published a controversial set of systematic reviews that concluded adults need not reduce red or processed meat intake for health reasons. This was despite the results showing harms from eating red meat. The authors, led by Dr Bradley Johnston, applied the GRADE system, designed for pharmaceutical trials, to assess nutrition research, disregarding the limitations of applying this framework to dietary patterns.

The backlash was swift and polarised. The authors admitted the evidence was of “low certainty,” yet still issued guidance that undermined decades of epidemiological consensus. Investigations revealed that Johnston had previously received undisclosed funding from food industry groups, including those connected to beef and sugar. Further revelations showed ties between NutriRECS, the group behind the studies, and Texas A&M, a university deeply embedded in the farmed animal industry. Despite no new data presented in these papers, the highly publicised conclusions presented in a credible journal sought to undermine decades of public health guidelines and policies and cast doubt on the negative health impacts of red meat consumption.

Of course, industry funded research can contribute to scientific advancements, but we have to recognise that it also poses risks of bias. A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis reviewed over 340 studies across 12 reports. The authors found that while the statistical association was not always significant, industry-sponsored studies were more likely to reach conclusions favourable to the sponsor compared to those funded independently. Notably, industry-funded research reported smaller harmful effects of sugar-sweetened beverages on energy intake and weight gain, suggesting subtle but impactful framing biases. This reinforces calls for systematic disclosure and critical appraisal of nutrition science.

Institutional Influence: The Capture of Professional Societies

An investigative study of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), the largest professional body for dietitians in the USA, offers a clear illustration of how deeply commercial interests have embedded themselves within the nutrition profession. Internal documents revealed that AND leaders have held positions in or maintained financial ties with major food and agribusiness corporations, including Nestlé, PepsiCo, Abbott, and Monsanto. The Academy has not only accepted corporate sponsorship but invested in these companies’ stocks, while also allowing corporate sponsors to shape position papers and continuing education curricula. Despite public outcry, including over an endorsement deal for Kraft Singles, AND continued to build partnerships that contradict its mission to promote health.

Similarly in the UK, we have evidence that the food industry is paying professional societies under the guise of supporting education. The British Dietetic Association, the British Nutrition Foundation and The Nutrition Society all accept money from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, whose only role is to promote meat and dairy consumption and is undermining the UK’s efforts to reduce meat and dairy consumption.

More than half of members of the UK’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) have ties in the form of shares, research funding and consultancy work, to the food industry, including companies responsible for producing and promoting junk foods such as ice cream, chocolate and sugar-sweetened beverages.

This symbiotic relationship between a professional association and the industries it should scrutinise illustrates how nutrition science and education can be quietly steered in directions that serve corporate rather than public interests.

The Illusion of Independence: Corporate Funding and Policy Capture

Corporate lobbying now stretches far beyond academia. In the UK, policymaking itself has been compromised. The BMJ recently revealed how industry players applied significant pressure on Transport for London (TfL) to reverse or delay its ban on junk food advertising across the Underground and bus network. Public health officials had intended to include meat and dairy products high in fat and salt in the ban, based on nutritional science. But meat and dairy lobbyists mobilised rapidly, alleging that such measures would damage farmers and mislead consumers.

In response, TfL and city officials amended their proposals to exempt meat and dairy products from the ban, despite no new evidence justifying the change. Similarly, the same report found that councils in England who had planned to ban junk food advertising have been threatened with a significant fall in advertising revenue. This is how corporate actors reframe public health policy: not through open scientific debate, but via backchannel lobbying, financial pressure, and media manipulation.

Undermining the Evidence: Global Health and Climate Policy

A striking example of public deception came in the form of the Dublin Declaration, released in 2022 and signed by over 1200 scientists to promote the societal value of animal farming. Despite its academic veneer, the declaration was deeply enmeshed with industry interests. It mirrors industry talking points, downplays meat’s health and climate impacts, and omits the need for reductions in industrial animal agriculture​. It was promoted via self-citation, unacknowledged conflicts of interest, and publication in journals closely linked to animal production lobbies​. It was used to influence EU policy, despite directly contradicting the IPCC and WHO findings on the need to cut meat consumption to meet climate targets​.

Recent research has also dismantled a common narrative promoted by the animal farming industry that regenerative grazing systems are climate-friendly and promote soil health. A comprehensive study found that grass-fed beef is just as carbon intensive as feedlot beef and approximately 10 to 40 times more greenhouse gas intensive per gram of protein than common plant-based or non-beef alternatives. The authors concluded that soil carbon gains attributed to grazing are too small, inconsistent, and geographically limited to counterbalance the methane and land use emissions intrinsic to beef production. This robust modelling across diverse geographies and management practices challenges the “regenerative grazing” narrative and reinforces the need for protein transitions that prioritise low-carbon, resource-efficient foods.

One of the most shocking revelations comes from an expose by DeSmog. The report revealed how the PR firm Red Flag, working on behalf of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, orchestrated a global backlash against the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet. The diet, grounded in robust science, called for a 50% reduction in red meat consumption to support health and climate goals. But the Red Flag campaign coordinated talking points, media briefings, and online attacks to discredit the recommendations as “radical” and “anti-farmer.”

This disinformation effort was so effective that it helped derail WHO’s involvement in the launch, with some authors receiving threats and stepping back from public engagement.

Misdirection in Retail: The “Natural” Trap

The public debate around ultra-processed foods (UPFs) is necessary but has also been used by the food industry to misdirect. Not all UPFs are created equal and some, such as breads, cereals and plant-based alternatives, are not harmful to health. The food industry has capitalised on the lack of nuanced debate and the resulting confusion. By lumping plant-based meats and milks into the UPF category, they cast doubt on sustainable alternatives while preserving the four N’s of meat and dairy  – nice, normal, natural and necessary.

Retailers have also co-opted the UPF narrative to create new, seemingly healthier products. Marks & Spencer has launched a new range of products with six or less ingredients. This includes a single ingredient corn flakes and a three ingredient oat drink, both devoid of the usual fortification with iron, calcium, vitamin D, iodine, or B12 fortification required for nutritional adequacy. These are marketed as “natural” or “clean,” without consumers understanding the potential for increasing the risk of deficiencies (especially among children and the elderly).

The Animal Welfare Illusion: When Labels Lie

In the UK, meat and dairy products are often marketed under the comforting guise of “high welfare” standards, with labels like “RSPCA Assured” or “Red Tractor.” These schemes are designed to reassure consumers, suggesting animals are cared for with compassion and integrity.

Yet repeated investigations by animal freedom groups reveal a grim disconnect between marketing and reality.

Undercover footage by Animal Rising exposed appalling conditions on multiple RSPCA Assured farms: pigs with untreated injuries in squalid sheds, chickens crippled by overcrowding, and cows enduring chronic neglect.

Similarly, the Animal Justice Project has documented cases of abuse, neglect, and systemic cruelty across the UK’s so-called “higher welfare” supply chains.

In aquaculture, investigations by Animal Equality have shown that salmon, often sold under the banner of sustainable, healthy protein, suffer silently in underwater cages, plagued by lice infestations, deformities, and disease. Mortality rates are high, and welfare protections remain weak or entirely absent.

Despite these realities, animal products from such systems are marketed to the public as responsible and ethical. This deliberate misrepresentation not only deceives consumers, but undermines broader discussions about food ethics, sustainability, and health.

But People Power Can Prevail: The Cranswick Victory

Amid these challenges, there are signs of hope. Residents of Norfolk, supported by civil society organisations successfully resisted the construction of a mega pig and chicken farm by Cranswick, one of the UK’s largest meat producers and now also represented on the National Food Strategy Advisory Board.

Despite claims that the project would support “food security,” campaigners highlighted the environmental, animal welfare, and public health harms associated with industrial-scale animal farming.

They won.

This victory shows that organised, evidence-informed resistance can overcome corporate narratives. When communities, professionals, and activists work together, change is possible.

Further reading and resources

All works by Marion Nestle

Plant-Based Health Professionals UK

Processing the discourse over plant-based meat

The Food Foundation, The Broken Plate 2025

The Food Foundation (2025), Corporate lobbying: the dark side of the plate

Processed foods and health. SACN’s rapid evidence update summary