BANT statement on Academy of Nutrition Sciences
BANT hopes that the Academy’s intention to speak as one unified voice is not in fact an attempt to muzzle the independence and integrity of The Nutrition Society.
BANT notes the launch of the Academy of Nutrition Sciences on 15 October. It is however disappointing that the suggestion BANT made to the Privy Council that the Nutrition Society itself morphs into the Academy, with the collaboration of the Royal Societies of Medicine, Public Health, Biology and Chemistry (Royal Societies have a stake in nutrition science) failed to get any traction. Disappointing also to see the deep tentacles of the sugar industry are already evident in the new Academy given that the British Nutrition Foundation is funded by AB Foods (subsidiary is AB Sugar which proclaims itself as a ‘world leading sugar business’), Pepsico, Coca-Cola, Kellogg’s, Nestle, Tate & Lyle among others.
BANT hopes that the Academy’s intention to speak as one unified voice is not in fact an attempt to muzzle the independence and integrity of The Nutrition Society ahead of the publication of the consultation on the Scientific Advisory Committee Nutrition (SACN)’s report into low carbohydrate diets in type 2 diabetes. In 2014 the Nutrition Society submitted to SACN that it was ‘improper’ to set inclusion criteria so that evidence on the deleterious effect of fructose was ignored. SACN rebuffed the comment and its 2015 Carbohydrates final report concluded that fructose is ‘not a nutrient of concern’.
Nonetheless the Academy has a chance to display its bona fides and independence.
Perhaps it will state its position on whether it regards 1) fructose as a nutrient of concern and 2) glycaemic maltodextrin as empty calories similarly to other free sugars. Otherwise AoNS may simply turn out to be the Academy of Eatwell Guide for Everyone. We hope not.
