[4][5][6][7] It presents itself to journalists, the public, and the government as an independent, impartial, disinterested, and scientifically rigorous; its industry funders also promote this image.

[4] The BNF has opposed many public-health interventions that might harm food-industry profits, often using tobacco-industry techniques, such as creating unwarranted doubt and uncertainty around the scientific evidence.

[4][5] During the Second World War, a great deal of official attention was paid to ensuring that the UK population had adequate nutrition despite the blockade.

[citation needed] When rationing ended, diets began to change, as did diet-related illness; rates of heart disease, for instance, increased sharply.

[9][10] The report recommended regulating the formulation of processed foods (to make them less unhealthy), more explicit nutritional labelling, and incentives for breeding leaner meat.

In the 1970s, they wrote, that was no longer a major problem in the United Kingdom; people needed to eat healthier foods, not more varied ones.

[4][12] In 2005, 26 UK MPs signed an Early Day Motion in Parliament expressing concern over BNF activities, and requesting more transparency.

It has also argued that publicly condemning of ultra-processed foods as unhealthy will make poor people feel stigmatized and guilty for not eating a financially-unacheivable diet.

Opponents argue that poor people should not be economically forced to eat unhealthy foods, and policy should take that as its goal.

In return the foundation swiftly delivers succinct analysis in a language that suits its audience and does not offend either its partners in Whitehall [the British government] or its paymasters in the food industry.

[4][15] Member-funders may have significant conflicts of interest; for instance, the BNF organized a 2010 conference on sweeteners without conspicuously disclosing that its funders include then-sugar-manufacturers Tate & Lyle and British Sugar, and artificial sweetener manufacturers Ajinomoto (Aminosweet-brand aspartame) and McNeil Consumer Nutritionals (Splenda), and sweet-drinks manufacturers Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

[4][15] The BNF also contributed to a controversial 2023 industry-funded panel that generated more-positive media coverage of ultra-processed foods.

Articles in the Nutrition Review may be publicized in press releases put out by the BNF, and garner substantial media coverage.

[19][better source needed] Many members of the British Nutrition Foundation's staff, including the board of trustees and oversight committees, are or have been employees of the food industry.

For instance, Paul Hebblethwaite, as of 2009[update] a member of the BNF board of trustees and its former chairman, has had "a distinguished career in the food industry working for a number of major companies including Cadbury-Schweppes and Chivers-Hartley", and was simultaneously chairman of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Trade Association.