蜜芽传媒

In relation to the programme鈥檚 general approach, the ECU noted that the issue of ill- health arising from poor diet was well understood to be a matter of public concern, and that ultra-processed food accounted for a significant proportion of the UK diet.聽 As concerns about a possible link with ill-health have been expressed by the World Health Organisation (among others), the ECU considered that the topic was a matter of genuine public interest and that it was germane in a programme of this kind to feature the concerns of experts and document evidence about the effects of high consumption levels.聽

In relation to the specific criticisms of the programme, the ECU found as follows.

Professor Millstone鈥檚 analysis concluded that about 90% of studies which were 鈥渞别补蝉蝉耻谤颈苍驳鈥� as to the health effects of aspartame had been funded by chemical corporations which manufacture and sell aspartame, whereas 75% of the independently-funded studies found an association between aspartame and harm.聽 Notwithstanding the range of scientific opinion on aspartame, the ECU considered the finding of a correlation between research funding and results was relevant information for viewers.聽 This point of complaint was not upheld.

In relation to emulsifiers, the programme featured the most recent results of an epidemiological study led by 聽Dr Mathilde Touvier which had not been peer-reviewed or published at the time of transmission.聽 In the ECU鈥檚 view it would have been wrong to present these results as having established a causal link between emulsifiers and certain diseases, and it accepted that the programme鈥檚 first reference to it (as 鈥渆xclusive new evidence linking food additives to cancer鈥�) would have come close to doing so if taken on its own.聽 In the body of the programme, however, Dr Touvier spoke of 鈥渁 significant association鈥� rather than a causal relationship, and the commentary said 鈥淒r Touvier鈥檚 findings don鈥檛 prove aspartame causes cancer鈥�.聽 The ECU considered that it was made sufficiently clear to viewers that the results were as yet unpublished and not peer-reviewed, and that they derived from an observational study open the criticism that it depends on self-reported data which may be unreliable.聽 This point of complaint was not upheld.

In relation to the COT, the programme said 鈥�More than half the members of the Committee on Toxicology have recent links to the food and chemicals industries and last year it disagreed with the European regulator鈥檚 proposal to cut the safe level of BPA, criticising the regulator鈥檚 approach to the evidence. That means the safe level in the UK is 20,000 times higher than in Europe鈥�.聽 The ECU noted that the COT is not responsible for setting safety standards but is asked to advise the UK Food Standards Agency on the scientific evidence in relation to toxicity and risk.聽 However, it considered the programme implied that the COT鈥檚 reservations about the methodology of the EFSA鈥檚 scientific review were responsible for a failure by the FSA to modify safe levels for BPA, and that the opinion of the COT should be judged by viewers in the light of the links of its members to the food and chemicals industries.聽 The ECU also noted that the COT鈥檚 reservations about the EFSA鈥檚 review were shared by two bodies, which the EFSA is obliged to consult: the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which noted 鈥渋nsufficient evidence of聽 immune disorders in humans鈥�, and Germany鈥檚 Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which concluded that EFSA鈥檚 methodology was 鈥渘ot suitable for predicting adverse health effects in humans鈥�.聽 Even if the EMA鈥檚 dissent were discounted on the basis that its expertise is in medicine, not food packaging, the ECU concluded that the BfR鈥檚 position (in the absence of any argument that it had been coloured by conflict of interest) established the possibility that disagreement with the EFSA鈥檚 assessment could rest solely on scientific grounds, and that viewers might have seen the objections of the COT and any risk to the UK public arising from them in a different light if they had been made aware of this.聽 This point of complaint was upheld.

The statement that the judgments of the COT rarely served to protect public health was made by one of the contributors to the programme (Professor Millstone) and was followed by statements from the Chair of the COT and from the FSA rebutting the charge of influenced by vested interests.聽 In the ECU鈥檚 view the disagreement was presented with due impartiality, and this point of complaint was not upheld.

The trial involving identical twins was relevant to the topic of the programme principally because, after two weeks, the twin on the ultra-processed diet showed increases in lipid and blood sugar levels and weight gain. 聽While it would have been misleading to present this result as establishing a causal relationship between ultra-processed food and damage to health, the programme did not make such a claim, and said only that it was 鈥渋n line with a growing body of evidence鈥� of a causal connection.聽 As to the mothers at the children鈥檚 tea-party, the ECU accepted that their expressions of concern about children鈥檚 consumption of ultra-processed food were the kind of comments any mothers might make when responding to the possible risks of ill-health for their children, rather than evidence-based judgements.聽 In the context, however, the ECU thought it unlikely that viewers would have looked to these mothers for an informed scientific opinion, or that they would have been misled by what was said.聽 These points of complaint were not upheld.

Partly upheld