The BBC is facing questions over transparency after doctors who have received thousands of pounds from pharmaceutical companies were allowed to discuss new weight-loss drugs on air without viewers being told of their financial links.
Two leading obesity specialists appeared on BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours to explain the benefits of so-called “skinny jabs” – powerful injections such as Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro which are now being prescribed on the NHS.
But no mention was made of the fact that they had been paid by the manufacturers of the drugs.
The corporation’s own editorial guidelines state that contributors’ affiliations and potential conflicts of interest should be made clear to audiences “where relevant to understanding”.
After being approached, the BBC admitted it had fallen short. A spokeswoman said: “We always aim to declare affiliations where directly relevant to understanding and, in hindsight, it would have been preferable in these cases in the interests of full transparency.
“The scientists on You and Yours were appearing in their capacity as internationally renowned obesity experts offering broad advice on weight loss evidenced by scientific studies.”
There is no suggestion that the payments influenced their comments, but critics say the lack of disclosure risks undermining public trust at a time when the drugs are under intense scrutiny.
The news has echoes of another debate sparked last year after it was revealed three well-known TV doctors who had been vocal in their support for Covid-19 vaccines had all received thousands of pounds in ‘service fees’ from the vaccine manufacturer, AstraZeneca.
All three insisted their payments were for promotional work relating to AstraZeneca’s nasal flu vaccine and nothing to do with the COVID-19 jab.
It comes amid fierce debate about the rise of weight loss drugs such as Wegovy and Mounjaro, which have been hailed as potential game-changers in the battle against obesity. Trials show they can help patients shed significant amounts of weight – in some cases rivaling the effects of bariatric surgery.
But critics warn of side effects including nausea, severe gut problems, inflammation of the pancreas, kidney problems and concerns about long-term safety, including thyroid cancer. Some doctors also fear the drugs could be handed out too widely as a “quick fix”, without enough emphasis on diet and lifestyle change.
The controversy has been amplified by soaring demand and supply shortages, which have led to fears of black-market sales and patients switching medications without medical guidance.
According to the Disclosure UK database of industry payments, Professor Naveed Sattar of Glasgow University was paid £46,695 from Novo Nordisk – maker of Wegovy – between 2020 and 2024, plus £25,264 from rival Eli Lilly, manufacturers of Mounjaro.
In total, he received £71,960. These payments, for consultancy, advisory boards and scientific talks, were not declared when he appeared on the BBC.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s You and Yours last month, he said: “The way I would describe them is that they are almost chemical shields, helping you suppress your appetite and withstand that push to eat too many calories.
“But with these drugs, if they didn’t exist, our levels of obesity and multiple diseases linked to obesity would be so high, I think we would be in real trouble. They’ve come at a really good time for the NHS and the UK.”
Professor Giles Yeo of Cambridge University, who has regularly spoken in the media about the promise of weight-loss jabs, was paid £8,324 by Eli Lilly and £12,055 by Novo Nordisk between 2022 and 2024, totalling £20,379. According to the database of industry payments these were for ‘contracted services’ and ‘expenses’.
During his appearance on You and Yours in 2024, Prof Yeo described the drugs as “magic”. He told listeners: “These drugs are giving people a leg up. They are helping someone dampen down this food noise so that you can actually carry on with your life.”
Both professors insisted the payments do not affect their independence or the evidence they present.
Prof Sattar told GB News: “I always declare conflicts of interest, which are publicly available. I hold no shares in pharmaceutical or medical companies and have no financial stake in media discussions. My aim is to improve public understanding of health issues.
“Any paid work involves scientific consultation or trial design, common in academic medicine. Importantly, lack of industry ties doesn’t ensure objectivity – what matters is strong evidence and fair, contextual interpretation, regardless of affiliations or financial relationships.”
Cambridge University scientist Professor Giles Yeo also defended his position, stressing his consultancy fees had no bearing on his public commentary.
He said: “I entirely agree that transparency is crucial for public trust, and I always disclose direct conflicts, in all my publications, and whenever I speak. But as I mentioned previously, these payments were made for my services for speaking about obesity, particularly its genetic basis, which is my area of expertise, and not on specific work about the obesity drugs.”
Professor Carl Heneghan, Director of the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine, who uncovered the AstraZeneca payments in the substack Trust the Evidence, said: “We do have a problem with experts who have competing interests, direct payments or ideological conflicts who also want to be part of the discussion around drugs. You cannot stop conflicts of interest. But where these occur this must be explained to an audience or a patient.”
GP and lecturer Dr Margaret McCartney, a passionate advocate for evidence-based medicine, said: “We have masses of data over many years that finds that conflicts of interest are associated with harms in healthcare – making healthcare poorer quality and more expensive. We also know from scandals like pelvic mesh and oxycodone (an addictive opioid painkiller) in the US that conflicts can harm patients.”
She added: “Transparency is vital, but it’s simply not enough. People need to know not just that an expert is being paid by the drug company, but how that relationship could affect what they say. Conflicts of interest aren’t always about corruption – many people are well-intentioned – but the risk of bias remains. And bias in healthcare isn’t trivial – it can lead to decisions that harm patients.”
Dr McCartney said experts who speak to the press about specific drugs should always declare payments from relevant companies.
“If we the public are listening to a professional endorse a product they should also tell us if they are being paid by the manufacturer. We shouldn’t have to go hunting for that information either.
“That’s why the best health advice needs to come from sources who won’t benefit personally from what they’re telling you. Those are the voices people can really trust.”
