Enable children to talk and then listen to them – the only solution

“Cover-up is a British institutional tradition”

2057

Michael Driver, ©The Observer

4 December 2016 for The Observer: Breaking the silence is immensely powerful and it is good medicine. But speaking up is hard. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has data that suggests one out of three people abused as a child has not disclosed the abuse and that the average victim who does waits nearly eight years to do so. Many of the men coming forward now, encouraged by the testimony of ex-footballer Andy Woodward, had never spoken before of the events when they were children.

In the past couple of years I have read or heard the accounts of more than 700 men and women sexually and emotionally abused as children in boarding schools, state-run and private. They came to me after I wrote in the Observer of the abuse at my own, Ashdown House. The stories are the grimmest reading, but what is heartening is that for so many people the simple act of speaking up is hugely helpful.

Continue reading

Why we should turn our backs on boarding schools

Review for the Observer, published 7 June 201511312829_10153425389710746_2908587241061870537_o

Boarding School Syndrome: the Psychological Trauma of the “Privileged” Child by Joy Schaverien
Routledge £27.99 

I once knew an American psychoanalyst who worked in a Bangkok practice, specialising in expats. He’d first come to east Asia on contract for an international church whose missionaries kept getting into trouble. He never went home: there was more than enough work. “Specifically,” he said, “with people like you. Middle-aged, middle-class Brits who went to your crazy private schools may just about be the most damaged social sub-group I’ve ever come across.”

It’s long been known that the ancient British practice of sending young children, rich and poor, off into the care of strangers is not wholly safe. The great “public” schools worried the Victorians as much or more than did the workhouses: three parliamentary commissions sat in the 19th century to look at the financial frauds, riots and astonishing numbers of deaths – from suicides, assaults by teachers and fellow-pupils, starvation and epidemics – in the schools of the wealthy. Tom Brown’s Schooldays only scraped the surface.

In the 20th century a clutch of authors, from George Orwell to Roald Dahl, wrote in their different ways about systemic cruelty, psychological and physical, in the schools and of its wider effects. One of those was the establishment of the principle, among the elite and the ordinary, that to have been brutalised at a boarding school was key to becoming the right sort of Briton – one that might run an Empire or a corporation, or a cricket team. Naturally, as the proven best way to educate a ruling caste, the system spread across the English-speaking world.

Psychology seem to have taken a long time to catch up with the issue, perhaps because Freud famously dismissed most of his child patients’ allegations of abuse by adults as fantasy. Given the importance the boarding school class had and still has in running modern Britain – from the City to Westminster, not forgetting the BBC – that seems to have been an omission. Joy Schaverien coined the term “Boarding School Syndrome” only a decade ago, though she follows in the footsteps of Nick Duffell, a psychotherapist who started work in the field in 1990 and wrote a passionate and influential book about the wounds boarding can inflict, The Making of Them.

Duffell is himself a “boarding school survivor” – his own term – and that inevitably fuels his work. But Professor Schaverien, a Jungian psychoanalyst, did not go to boarding school:  it was as a practitioner that she became intrigued, noting how often boarding featured in the past of surprising numbers of her patients. That makes her book – an academic work, academically priced, though a gripping read – all the more important. There is a fevered debate going on now about private boarding schools, with arguments about class and unfair privilege mixed up with a bewildering range of beliefs about children’s emotional health. Schaverien brings a clear eye and the experience of 25 years collecting data to an issue that should concern everyone worried about how children fare in professional care – which is, of course, what boarding school is.

She’s not impartial. In Britain, you don’t have to have gone to a private boarding school to be affected by them and their product. Schaverien’s experience comes from her father, who, in old age, told his family how he still ached at memories of being left at his boarding school in Brighton, in 1916. Aged just six, the fact that he arrived in short trousers and wearing a velour hat with elastic under the chin ensured that he was savagely bullied from the first minute. “If I was so precious that Mother dressed me this way, why then did she part with me?” he was still wondering, 70 years later.

That’s by no means the most upsetting story to be found in Schaverien’s awful case studies. But it does go to the heart of the issue, both for angry ex-boarders, their spouses and children and anyone bemused by the system. I’ve talked and corresponded with all of those since l started writing for this newspaper about sexual and psychological abuse in British boarding schools, state and private.  The hundreds of emails containing allegations make it pretty clear that the schools of the elite suffered the same cover-ups and the same astonishing failings in regulation and policing as did the hospitals, care homes and young offenders’ prisons. The difference? As several correspondents put it, in anger or amusement:  posh people’s parents paid to have them abused.

That, of course, is what most hurt Hymie Schaverien, and thousands of others. “Boarders cannot console themselves with the thought that their parents did not want them to go,” Professor Schaverien states. The parents chose to send them from home into hell or prison – words her patients frequently use – and so to break the bond, the attachment, with their child . Quality of attachment – the crucial establishment of trust and security through a primary carer  – has been the basis of child development psychology for half a century.

Boarding schools could not have broken or redirected healthy attachment more effectively, as Schaverien illustrates. From the moment the parent drove away, a child had to adjust to the fact that not only was privacy and safety no longer guaranteed – let alone the consolation of a hug – but that their parents had chosen this future. John Bowlby, the psychoanalyst famous for first coming up with attachment theory in the 1960s, described public school as part of “the time-honoured barbarism required to produce English gentlemen”. Bowlby boarded: he was against it.

Schaverien has, of course, accounts of children who enjoyed boarding school: often, patients inform her, that was because home life was so deficient in love or structure that the necessary attachments were better made at school. It’s hard not to conclude that boarding schools were meant for exactly this: to replace infantile loyalties to Mummy with the bonds that tie you to the team. It worked. But the side-effects of this abrupt intervention in a 6 or 8 year old’s development could be savage: symptoms that a therapist in boarding school syndrome addresses are problems with anger, depression, anxiety, failure to sustain relationships, fear of abandonment, substance abuse and so forth. A common effect is amnesia: many of Schaverien’s patients – and my correspondents – have sad gaps where, in a normal childhood and adolescence, there would be a wealth of memory. Forgetting the pain is yet another coping mechanism.

In a fascinating account of four years analysis with one deeply traumatised patient, “Theo”, Schaverien takes us to the point where she believes Boarding School Syndrome is born. On the way we see Theo – often using drawings – recover memories of awful injustice. That is a key issue for many boarders – children, she says, have an ethical sensibility from an early age and it is traumatic when something – like brutality on the part of an adult – violates it. Trauma affects the normal development of a child’s brain.

Eventually, and in Theo’s case this happened dramatically, a traumatised child, exhausted by perpetual fear, may be forced for their own survival to separate their selves – the normal, vulnerable home self, and the coping, armoured boarding-school self. That’s the Syndrome, and though sceptics of Jungian theory may be dubious, my correspondence is full of people who talk unhappily of the child they left behind at the school, their other self who was never able to grow up. It’s a profound effect, an “encapsulation of self…that may last a lifetime”, Schaverien says.

It’s obvious enough that these institutions, full of emotionally needy children and incompetently supervised, have provided havens and hunting grounds for sexual criminals since their beginning. Hence the extraordinary wave of allegations about historic child abuse in institutions. Schaverien devotes an interesting chapter to sexual abuse, including at girls’ schools. But, for her, it is not the main issue. “Theo”, indeed, never experienced sexual abuse.

It grabs the headlines, but I suspect that for those who want to protect and succour healthy children, the shocking revelations about paedophiles in institutions may be a distraction. Again, while my correspondence contains many awful allegations, it’s also full of people apologising for not having a story of sexual predation to tell. “It was only bullying”, people write, “not what you’d call abuse”.

But emotional cruelty is what exacts the greatest toll on the developing mind. Children are resilient, they can recover from physical hurt: it’s clear from reading Schaverien that what most reliably damages children is long-term emotional neglect, the absence of safety, the failure of justice, the loss of love. We need the psychological abuse of children to be properly outlawed – a long-awaited “Cinderella Law” came into force last month, but it is weak – and we need to ask the rich and aspirational to think again before they put their children into care. They should read this book: it could save them a lot of money.

Abuse and violence in boarding schools

July 28, 2014: I’m writing a series of stories looking at abuse in British boarding schools and its wider context – social, historical and psychological. The latest piece, published July 21st in the Observer magazine, looked at the experiences of those who have loved and cared for survivors of abuse, and the immense collateral damage early trauma can do. A lot of it came from those of you, including many wives, sisters and mothers, who have emailed me their stories. There’s 600 or more comments on the article

Here’s the first piecepublished May 4 in the Observer. It covers my personal experiences at Ashdown House preparatory school in the 1970s and the current surge of criminal and civil cases concerning similar schools then and more recently. The comments are fascinating; some of over 2,000 communications I’ve had since the article. Many of those are heart-rending; tales of lives warped and soured by early misery. Very few people have defended the system.

Boarding_schoolsChildren as young as six are still sent to boarding school in Britain; there are about 4000 kids under 11 boarding in the private sector, and an unknown number in the state boarding system. Along with the bulk of the child psychiatry profession, I believe sending a pre-teen away from home carries an unacceptably high risk of long-term damage, however kind and caring the institution.

Several campaigns exist to try and stop this bizarre practice. (Children as young as six are still going.) It is often done quite casually, for  notions of status, which can of course still be bought in Britain, or mere convenience.  Boarding School Action tracks the campaigns’ progress on this blog. There is also an important one to change regulation that encourages cronyism and cover-ups in all institutions looking after children – see @MandateNow on Twitter and this BBC story.

In June 2014, the government announced plans to create a crime of emotional abuse or neglect of children – the “Cinderella law”. If the legislation goes through before the election, it will at last bring Britain into line with the rest of the world. It will be interesting to see the scope of it: will it cover just parents, or those in “loco parentis”, like the head.

There’s good academic writing on the psychiatry of early broken attachment and “boarding school syndrome” – see Professor Joy Schaverien here.

Therapy appears to have a high success rate with people who have suffered these traumas – more details from Boarding Concern.

If you want to write to me in confidence about your experiences, good or bad, please do so at alex.renton@observer.co.uk. I will respond. It may take a little while – it’s a full in-box.


We can end early boarding

Nov 2014. I’ve joined the advisory board of Boarding School Action, a group campaigning to end early boarding. Also involved is Nick Duffell; the director of BSA is Sally Fraser.

BSA is a not-for-profit organisation and currently pays no salaries. I’m helping raise funds for campaigning, lobbying, media work and for administration. Please donate via the BSA site and sign up for updates. You can donate here by PayPal.

Donate Button

Click this button do donate to support the work of Boarding School Action.

For the good of animals and humans, butchers’ windows should look like this

A high Street butcher in Suffolk has been forced to take down its window display, as shoppers are said to be offended by the sight of bits of dead animals25 Feb 2014. Comment piece published in the Daily Mail (original here): A high Street butcher in Suffolk has been forced to take down its window display, as shoppers are said to be offended by the sight of bits of dead animals. Hanging pigs’ heads, limp rabbits and dead pheasants were upsetting the children.

The story is  ludicrous. But such silliness is indicative of something disturbingly wrong in our nation’s culture.

The senseless twits behind the hate campaign mounted against JBS Family Butchers of Sudbury say they are trying to protect their children from the ugliness of ‘mutilated carcasses’.

This seems implausibly puritanical. Any child with internet access and a stack of video games will have seen far worse.

These sentimental folk are part of an ever-growing collective ignorance about food and farming that is immensely damaging not only to the countryside, to farming and to animals — but also to ourselves.

Our lack of understanding of where food really comes from is helping to create mountains of food waste and a population of fat, unhealthy Britons.

We should not underestimate the scale of that ignorance.

Last year, a survey of 27,500 children by the British Nutrition Foundation found that almost a third of those aged five to 12 thought fish fingers came from chickens or pigs. One secondary pupil in five didn’t know where potatoes came from. Ten per cent thought spuds grow on trees.

If you’re shocked by those figures, consider this: 80 per cent of the secondary school pupils surveyed had been on a ‘farm visit’, presumably arranged to counter lack of understanding of food and its sources.

The senseless twits behind the hate campaign mounted against JBS Family Butchers of Sudbury say they are trying to protect their children from the ugliness of 'mutilated carcasses'

The senseless twits behind the hate campaign mounted against JBS Family Butchers of Sudbury say they are trying to protect their children from the ugliness of ‘mutilated carcasses’

Few of us today spend time thinking about where our food comes from. It arrives on supermarket shelves or over the fast-food counter without any traces of its origin.

There’s no mud on our salad or root vegetables. Most fruits are so perfect, glossy and uniform, they might have been made in a factory.

Butter comes wrapped in foil and a cut of steak or a chicken thigh is sold in a plastic tub covered with plastic film. Is it any wonder that some people, confronted with the visceral reality of  an old-fashioned butcher’s window, take fright? But there is a curious double standard at work. While we recoil at the sight of a pig’s cheeks or a pheasant, we are happy to put meats of much stranger origin in our mouths: ready meals full of chemicals, sugar and preservatives, even cheap ‘beef’ dishes that turn out to have been made from horses.

The consequences of our ignorance about food’s origins are far-reaching.

First, there is the waste. The average UK family loses £60 a month throwing away usable food — nearly a meal’s worth a day. And supermarkets reject huge amounts of food because it doesn’t look right. Retailers say they are only catering for our inability to tolerate anything not recipe-book perfect.

In a refreshing bout of honesty, Tesco admitted recently that nearly half its bread products, more than two-thirds of its bagged salads and 40 per cent of its apples are thrown away. Yet this food is good and healthy.

Neither Tesco nor any other store has admitted what weight of edible parts of animals are chucked out. Yet there is little of a farm animal, other than the hide and bones, that cannot pleasurably be eaten.

Hypocrisy

As the chef Fergus Henderson says: ‘If you’re going to kill an animal, it seems only polite to use the whole thing.’ But British butchers use less of an animal than their European counterparts — half a pig’s weight, whereas an Italian butcher will make meals out of 70 per cent of the carcass.

I’ve watched the Michelin-starred chef Andrew Fairlie preparing one of his most popular dishes — a ‘plate of pork’. It was a spread of delicious, old-fashioned treats: black pudding, smoked pork belly, a terrine made from the pig’s cheeks and tongue, and cuts from the head. ‘Any self-respecting chef should be using as much of the animal as possible,’ he said.

One of the window-display horrors that the good people of Sudbury complained about was a pig’s head. These are usually thrown away now, though for our ancestors they were a treat. Think of the ancient carol The Boar’s Head, which describes a great Christmas feast, and the many pubs named after it.

The second consequence of our ignorance concerns animal welfare. Those animal-lovers who object to seeing carcasses of birds and occasional pig parts in butchers’ windows are guilty of a grim sort of hypocrisy. Anyone who truly cared about animals would support any butcher who used whole animals.

Our squeamishness is a  driving factor in two evils: cruelty to animals and damage to the environment.

Choosy consumers who will eat only the lean meat from animals at the bargain prices we demand have driven livestock farming into a crisis. It is not possible for modern farming to keep animals in a traditional and kind way while supplying a narrow range of cheap cuts.

Ninety-five per cent of the chickens and almost all  the pigs we eat are raised in factory farms, where conditions would appal anyone with any feeling for animals.

The image of Daisy the Dairy Cow, happy in a green meadow, is becoming a myth. The new milk-factory super-farms, common in the U.S., and arriving here, house cows that never see daylight and die after just four years of production. All so we can have a cheap pint of milk.  A third of British pig farms have gone out of business in the past ten years and we now import 60 per cent of our pork from Europe, where pig welfare standards are  much lower.

The third point is that eating like this is bad for us. Rather than cooking from scratch with cuts of meat from a local, trusted butcher, we buy cheap meat from unknown sources, sold to us with added salt, preservatives, flavourings, colourings and fatty, sugary sauces. This does none of us any good at all and has helped to fuel our obesity crisis.

What’s the solution?

Sign: JBS Family Butchers has reluctantly had to remove the display after it become the target of a campaign including anonymous hate mail and people hurling abuse in the shop

Sign: JBS Family Butchers has reluctantly had to remove the display after it become the target of a campaign including anonymous hate mail and people hurling abuse in the shop

As we know, British children are toured around farms on school outings but many remain uncertain of the link between an egg and a chicken. More needs to be done.

A few years ago, concerned that our own urban children were growing up just as ignorant, my wife and I decided to keep a ‘remote pig’. So with the help of a friendly farmer just outside Edinburgh, where we live, we adopted a piglet.

We visited him fortnightly, often bringing chocolate. It was a bit like having a child at boarding school – in slightly more friendly conditions.

Fond as we were of the pig, there was no sentimentality. The kids called him Crispy Bacon. And a year later the family assembled in the butchering shed as we turned the grown-up piglet into a freezer-full of delicious roasts — and sausages and bacon.

We had worried about the emotional effect this might have on the children. But on the trip home, my five-year-old saw a field full of ewes and their young. ‘Can we get a lamb?’ she asked. ‘We could eat him!’

We were pleased — and so was the farm. It now has a wider adoption programme to help other city families be remote meat-producers. It’s fun, the meat is a bargain and we have learnt a new respect for farmers and animals.

Getting back in touch with the land and the origins of our food is good for us, for the economy and for Britain. Ignorance, of the sort shown by the silly shoppers of Sudbury, is causing untold damage to our farming traditions and the animals those shoppers purport to love.

Alex Renton is author of Planet Carnivore: Why Cheap Meat Costs The Earth (Kindle and iBook, £1.99).

Original here, with 100+ comments : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2567186/Why-sake-animals-humans-I-wish-butchers-windows-looked-like-this.html#ixzz2uKneIDHE

The sugar corps: scientists for sale?

20140119-090431.jpg

An ongoing discussion of Big Sugar and its spending in academia 

24 January 2016: BBC1’s The Big Questions held a live debate in Edinburgh on sugar and health. During it I stated that Professor Mike Lean, chair of human nutrition at Glasgow University, was funded by Coca-Cola for some of his research. He objected.

I based my assertion on a 2012 Coca-Cola-funded study of orange juice polyphenols done at Glasgow, for which Mike Lean was listed as “main contact”. The study led to a 2014 paper published in America, on which Mike Lean is one of nine authors. Three of them are Coca-Cola-funded scientists and/or employees, including Professor Alan Crozier. Materials for the research were also provided by Coca-Cola.

However Mike Lean says that no funds for the study went to him: he has never benefited, personally or in his work, from Coca-Cola funding and he would refuse such funds. Given his proven record of advocacy against sugary drinks marketing and his other public stances, I accept that assurance. Glasgow University has confirmed that Mike Lean has not had money from Coca-Cola for his research. Further, he tells me he is in favour of a tax on sugary drinks.

39fae85a-6dfc-11e5-_990537c.jpg

Rita Ora poses to celebrate 100 years of the hourglass Coca-Cola bottle

British universities, not least Glasgow, have benefited hugely from research investment by the big food and drink corporations. Professor Alan Crozier, Mike Lean’s former Glasgow colleague, co-author with him on 30 papers, has had “almost  £3m” (boasts the university) from Coca-Cola, Nestle and other food and drink corporations. Crozier’s research is largely into soft drinks, including tea, coffee and fruit juices.

 

Some of the millions Coca-Cola and other corporations spend in academia is of course to try and sway arguments about links between their products and public health problems – see last year’s Times investigations below. As pressure for a tax on sugary drinks to fund health education has grown in the past years, so has the money on offer. In the States it is claimed that the soda industry has spent $106m in recent years merely in lobbying against proposed taxes on sugary drinks.

Some scientists, not least in nutrition, appear to believe they are are immune from influence by their sponsors. They are not: a recent meta-analysis showed that when industry funds research into sugar and obesity it is much more likely to find no link between the two than is independent or government-funded research.

  • “Scientists for sale!” My 2014 Daily Mail article on links between Big Sugar and the scientists who were then on the government’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition.

 

22 January 2016: Food Standards Scotland – a government agency  – comes out for a sugary drinks tax, and a range of other measures. (Here is a list of the FSS’s latest recommendations on health and diet). The Times (£) – consistently he best national on the issue – singles out the FSS charge that sugar removed from drinks is being “recycled” into foods.

 

20 January 2016: Meeting in Edinburgh of chefs, food journalists and policy people to discuss a sugary drinks tax for Scotland, organised by Source. It was largely in favour, with the tax seen as one in a range of interventions, as laid out by the lobbying coalition led by Sustain and British Heart Foundation. Action on marketing frauds, targeting of children and transparency over science could be part of it. Nicely summed up here.

I spoke about the countries around the world that have introduced sugar taxes. It will be years before any link with health improvements can be proved, but there is new evidence of the success of the Mexican tax in reducing consumption. Here’s the Food Research Network’s useful run-down of current state of play, stated aims of the taxes, and lobbying positions in countries round the world.

 

10 December 2015: Alexi Mostrous’s ongoing investigation in The Times (£) states that Coca-Cola has spent £10m in five years on British scientists largely to help counter claims of links between sugar and obesity.

The advisers include Stuart Biddle, of Loughborough University, who was chairman of a health department group on obesity in 2010; Alan Boobis, a director at Public Health England, who stopped receiving funding in 2013; Ken Fox, who advised the government on obesity in 2009; and Carrie Ruxton, now on the board of Food Standards Scotland. In 2010 Dr Ruxton co-wrote a study sponsored by the UK Sugar Bureau, an industry group, that found no proven association between sugar intake and obesity. On her website she states separately: “When I correlated sugar consumption with obesity levels, there didn’t appear to be any relationship.”

The data reveal that Coca-Cola paid £8.9 million to organisations including £224,769 to the British Nutrition Foundation, £67,300 to the National Obesity Forum, £30,000 to the Science Media Centre, which promotes the “voices and views of the UK scientific community to the news media”, and £80,000 to ukactive, which promotes physical activity. The list does not include €6.6 million (£4.8 million) paid to the European Hydration Institute, a research foundation which has recommended that people consume soft drinks of the sort the company sells, because its headquarters are in Spain.

 

9 October 2015: “Giants of the health lobby funded by Coca-Cola”. Gripping investigation in the Times (£) into Coca-Cola’s funding of the European Hydration Institute and Loughborough University’s Ron Maughan.

In April, a Loughborough University study made headlines around the world with a surprising conclusion: that not drinking enough fluids before driving was as dangerous, in some circumstances, as driving while drunk.

Press coverage quoted Ron Maughan, professor of sport and exercise nutrition, who warned that dehydration was an “unrecognised danger” for drivers. Most stories failed to mention that the study was funded by the European Hydration Institute (EHI), a non-profit body set up to promote the benefits of hydration.

None disclosed that the EHI was funded to the tune of €6.6 million by Coca-Cola.

 

21 January 2014: “Top scientists for sale!” My comment piece in the Daily Mail on the sugar lobby, bought science and corporate capture of government advisors.

In this I mention some academic research on scientists in these fields with apparent conflicts of interest. It shows they tend to produce biased research – but you may judge this simplistic. Here are the two papers:

1.   Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA (2013) Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews. PLoS Med 10(12): e1001578. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578. Read it here.

2.      Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS (2007) Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. PLoS Med 4(1): e5. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005.  Read it here

Sugar watchdog works for Coca-Cola and Mars
Published 19 January 2014, copyright Sunday Times, UK . Original here

ONE of the country’s leading nutritional experts, tasked by the government with proposing new limits for the nation’s sugar consumption, is working as a paid adviser to Coca-Cola and Mars.

Professor Ian Macdonald chairs a government panel examining the health impact of sugar consumption, amid growing concern that excessive amounts in food are fuelling the obesity epidemic.

It will recommend to the government later this year what level of sugar in our diet is healthy, helping to frame the national guidance.

However, the Nottingham University scientist confirmed last week that he provided monthly advice to Mars “at board level” and also advised Coca-Cola on diet, obesity and exercise. He said the annual payment of £6,100 from Coca-Cola went into his personal income — it “goes into [my] tax return” — while the larger payment from Mars helped to fund his university research.

The disclosure of his links to the companies, in an investigation by Channel 4 Dispatches to be shown tomorrow, prompted demands this weekend that Macdonald should resign from the chairmanship of the panel because of the “unacceptable” conflict of interests.

Simon Capewell, a Liverpool University professor and founding member of the Action on Sugar campaign, said Macdonald’s role was untenable. “I am shocked,” he said. “This is a scandal for public health. It’s like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank. It’s clearly an outrageous conflict of interest.

“If Ian Macdonald doesn’t step down [from the panel], there will be real concerns that their recommendations will be prejudiced by commercial factors rather than scientific public health priorities.”

It will be the second time that Macdonald’s interests have drawn him into controversy. Macdonald stood down from a paid advisory role with Coca-Cola and Mars in 2009 after concerns were raised with health officials about his potential conflict of interest.

Dispatches has, however, established that he started working for the two companies again in 2012 after successfully seeking approval from officials.

Macdonald said: “I do understand people saying, ‘You are so close to those companies you should not have anything to do with gathering the evidence for UK policy to be decided’. I just disagree.”

MacDonald, who sits on the Coca-Cola European Scientific Advisory Council and the Mars Scientific Advisory Council, said he believed it was important to have a dialogue with industry. He said he never discussed any aspect of his government work on sugar with Coca-Cola and Mars.

The details of Macdonald’s close links to the food industry have emerged after a campaign was launched this month by Action on Sugar which claimed sugar was the “new tobacco”.

Macdonald is known to be sceptical of some of the claims made by the anti-sugar lobby. He says the evidence does not support the claim that fructose has a specific and adverse impact on health.

His work for the food industry and the work of his panel is now likely to come under close scrutiny. Macdonald is chairman of the carbohydrate working group, which is part of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN). It was requested nearly six years ago to “provide clarification of the relationship between dietary carbohydrate and health and make public health recommendations”.

Under current government recommendations, added sugars should comprise no more than 11% of total energy consumption. Some experts, however, believe this upper limit should be reduced significantly.

Five members of Macdonald’s eight-strong panel disclosed links to the food industry in the most recent register of interests published in the 2012 annual report.

The recommendations of Macdonald’s panel need to be approved by the SACN and will then be published for consultation. The Department of Health will then review the recommendations and decide on any changes in policy.

A spokesman for Public Health England said: “Professor Ian Macdonald has fully declared his interests in accordance with the code of practice for scientific advisory committees guidance.”

The spokesman said that throughout the deliberation on carbohydrates and health there had been processes in place to ensure “the transparency and integrity” of the review. The work was overseen by independent experts and government officials.

Tackling Big Sugar – the next great health war

Image - copyright, The ObserverMy Observer magazine story and an editorial calling for government action on sugary drinks gathered lots of interest: 170k web hits, 850 comments and a feeble response from the British soft drinks industry.

The tin of 7UP rolls to a stop at my feet. I pick it up, scowling at the kid on a bike who’d tossed it and missed the litter bin. The can is green and shiny: “Put some play into your every day,” it says. “Escape to a carefree world… Don’t grow up. 7UP.” And underneath, in tiny print, the real info (though you need a calculator to get to the truth): the lemon- and lime-flavoured drink contains a trace of salt, no fat, no fibre and 34.98g of sugar – eight teaspoons. The sugar delivers 135 calorie; enough energy for about 15 minutes’ cross-country running. It’s cheap, too. Half the price of milk.

If the stats are right, this teenager in Leith, who threw the empty tin, drinks 287 cans, or the equivalent, a year: more sugary drinks than any other child in Europe. Not to mention a whole lot more sugar, in breakfast cereals, bread, and even chicken nuggets. That is in part why Scottish children’s teeth are the same quality as those of children in Kazakhstan. And perhaps why a 2010 survey of 17 countries found that only Mexicans and Americans were fatter than Scots.