On Wednesday, at a media briefing in London, a panel of expert scientists suggested consumers should not get too hung up on concerns raised about UPFs. They could sometimes even be good for people, they said.
The briefing, organised by the Science Media Centre, generated headlines including “Ultra-processed foods as good as homemade fare, say experts”, “Ultra-processed foods can be good for you, say nutritionists”, and “Ultra-processed foods can sometimes be better for you, experts claim”.
Three of the five participants on the panel have either received financial support for research from UPF manufacturers or hold key positions with organisations that are funded by them. The manufacturers include Nestlé, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Unilever and General Mills.
…
There is no suggestion that the scientists failed to declare potential conflicts of interest. Each provided declarations of interests before the briefing, which the Science Media Centre shared with journalists. However, there was no mention of their links to UPF manufacturers in any of the media coverage.
The media not passing on the scientists credentials can’t be being influenced by the companies funding those scientists also being some of their biggest advertisers. Can it?
Who pays the bills for these media companies? It’s not the masses who ingest their content mostly for free. It’s the advertisers that get to push their content along with the media content that keep the presses going, websites managed, production costs cleared.