Science Media Centre goes for junk food?

NelliePledge said:
Seems like the Guardian is able to identify and highlight that SMC panel having a majority of experts as people with links to business interests. Pity they don’t see financial interests of experts promoting CBT/GET in the same way.
Click to expand...
They bought the flavor-aid years ago. You can't return the flavor-aid.

If there's one thing we've seen in recent years, and sadly it's just as true in academia, it's that admitting a mistake is worse than a lifetime of failures. Only then there are consequences, so the lesson is to just never admit to anything and DARVO: I'm the real victim, my victims are bullies, wah-wah.

So of course that's why the worst people rise to the top, because good people can't do that without hating themselves.
 
Row over ultra-processed foods panel highlights conflicts of interest issue at heart of UK science reporting

The Science Media Centre influences UK press news gathering so should it be taking funding from industry and showcasing scientists with such links? Rebecca Coombes reports

On 27 September, the Science Media Centre (SMC) in London held a briefing for specialist journalists.1 Five professors working in nutrition assembled to discuss the evidence around ultra-processed foods (UPF), and the growing public debate about its link with diet related disease. “Is there evidence that it is something about the processing—rather than the fat, salt and sugar content of these foods—that is responsible?” the press notice asked.
Click to expand...

The row has drawn attention to the usually low profile Science Media Centre and to its own links with industry. The latest annual report declares funding from Nestlé and it has previously received funding from Tate and Lyle, Northern Foods, Kraft Foods, Coca-Cola, and others.6 Should an organisation that features so heavily in the newsgathering habits of the UK’s health and science journalists be taking funding from food manufacturers and showcasing scientists with their own conflicts?
Click to expand...

Doctor and broadcaster Chris van Tulleken has contributed to a wave of public awareness about ultra-processed foods through his best selling book, Ultra-Processed People. He strongly disagrees with the panel’s view of the state of the science on ultra-processed foods, for which he says there is “overwhelming evidence” of harm.

“We have now over 1000 papers linking it to negative health outcomes, including many high quality prospective trials, done at places like Imperial. They almost all adjust for salt, fat, sugar, and fibre and dietary patterns.”

The response of the food industry to this existential threat is to sow confusion, van Tulleken says. “They mount straw man arguments, talking about how banning UPFs would be wrong when no one is calling for a ban or even tax.
Click to expand...

Speaking to The BMJ, the Science Media Centre’s chief executive, Fiona Fox, is unapologetic about the centre’s model: “There will be individuals who have criticisms of what we do—and our trustees, advisory group, and staff are always open to debating our approach. But we do not recognise the charge that we lack credibility. Nor do we accept that more and more people care about conflicts of interest.
Click to expand...

https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2514.full?ijkey=kUPwDIWXKvwww&keytype=ref&siteid=bmjjournals
 
Thank you @Andy for posting about this.

Speaking to The BMJ, the Science Media Centre’s chief executive, Fiona Fox, is unapologetic about the centre’s model: “There will be individuals who have criticisms of what we do—and our trustees, advisory group, and staff are always open to debating our approach. But we do not recognise the charge that we lack credibility. Nor do we accept that more and more people care about conflicts of interest.
Click to expand...

Interesting that Fiona Fox says on the one hand ‘staff are always open to debating our approach’ and then immediately follows it with an attempt to shut down any and all debate on this issue. Her rejection of the criticism also skirts any response to the substance of that criticism, just asserting ‘we are credible and no one cares about conflicts of interest’.
 
The SMC’s past coverage of ME/CFS, though recently more balanced, for years promoted only researchers with a narrow partisan approach to research and actively sought to protect those scientists from valid methodological criticisms, even participating in the active vilification of an entire patient community. Indeed it seems that they even promoted the use of such vilification in their media training for scientists.

Without knowing all the details of the processed food debate, it would not surprise me if the SMC over relied on a narrow cross section of ‘experts’ who also happen to be friends of their friends (or sponsors). This may not be a deliberate attempt at falsification rather an over reliance on an old boys network especially if that overlaps with personal ideologies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom