These connections are always interesting to see.

While many of the companies the panel members are associated with are exclusively food and drink producers (predominantly UPFs), there are some companies in that list which produce other products.

For instance, Unilever also produces personal care products and household cleaners. (It was only in the last few years that I learned Unilever produced food products, since prior to that I'd only ever seen the Unilever name on personal care products and household cleaners)

Nestle doesn't just make junk food and bottled waters, they also make cat litter. Mars has a cat litter composting service in the UK, and is involved in several veterinary endeavors (no doubt because some of the pet foods they produce provide poor nutrition), and animal assistance projects.

Cargill has a rather diversified collection of industries, including personal care products, data asset, industrial products (such as metal and steel), risk management, and transportation.

Even though Danone admittedly produces all kinds of yogurt that is little more than sugar laden junk, they also produce old fashioned, plain yogurts.

Many of the panel members are also associated with individual real-food industries, such as dairy, meat, and nuts.

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, and I don't doubt that at least some of the panel members who are associated with UPF producers are going to promote those products as harmless (or as not damaging to health because they're not intended to be more than occasional, rare treats, despite the advertising campaigns that imply they're part of a nutritious diet) for financial gain, but it always bothers me when articles like this omit the fact that some of the companies they mention produce more than foods.



I also wonder just how many panel members they could possibly expect to get who have zero connections to any food industry. Would they put someone on the panel whose only background and connections are with paper manufacturing? How about if their connections were only with companies that make shoes? Or someone who was a plumber? They'd automatically be turned down.

They need to have some background in food, food production and food distribution to bring any kind of useful experience to the panel - and it's going to be difficult to get a background in food without being involved with food producers and distributors, or at least have a degree in nutrition.

But knowledge gained from a degree in nutrition is going to be based on what they were taught in nutrition class (low fat=good, whole grain=good, cholesterol=bad, etc). They won't know much about food production or distribution.

They could name physicians to the panel - but there are strong disagreements between physicians who advocate for lower carb diets, and physicians who see that sort of diet as being only artery-clogging-diets-of-death, always discouraging patients from even trying such an "extreme" diet. And what do physicians know about what it takes to provide enough food to feed a nation?

What's the old saying?

If you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Doesn't matter what background the panel members are from or what connections they have, their solutions are going to be related to what they know best - And they will inevitably fall short in some way.