The British General Medical Council (GMC) has reportedly allocated about £870,000 to investments in food and sugar-sweetened beverage companies. The disclosure has sparked discontent among medical professionals who argue that such allocations may add strain to the health system rather than relieve it. This concern was highlighted in a BMJ report.
The GMC charges a one-time registration fee of £161 for new doctors, followed by an annual fee of £420. The same report notes that the council’s funds have been invested in major consumer and food brands, including Nestlé, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Pepsico, Coca-Cola, and Unilever. What matters to practitioners is not only the scale of the fees but also how the organisation chooses to deploy the resources entrusted to it by UK doctors.
Sam Everington, a general practitioner at Tower Hamlets and head of the Clinical Commissioning Team there, commented to BMJ that GMC funding comes from UK doctors and that many would be appalled to learn that those funds are tied to companies linked to products that drive illness, reduce quality of life, and place additional pressure on health services. He drew a blunt comparison, saying the situation mirrors investments in tobacco firms when viewed through the lens of public health impact.
Glasgow-based GP Margaret McCartney questioned the rationale behind the present pattern of expenditure. She noted that UK medical practitioners face substantial annual fees and urged the GMC to demonstrate prudent use of its substantial cash reserves. Transparency on investment decisions and the reasons behind them were emphasized as essential for professional accountability, with calls for clearer disclosure about where salaries and fees are directed.
According to the GMC, investment policy undergoes annual review by the GMC Board. A board spokesperson has indicated that posting the investment portfolio on the organisation’s website is under consideration to improve transparency and allow for better scrutiny by doctors and the public alike. The aim, critics say, should be to align financial choices with public health objectives and professional expectations of stewardship.
Beyond food and beverages, the same portfolio reportedly includes more than £1.2 million invested in pharmaceutical companies such as Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Merck, and Roche, alongside more than £1.3 million in various medical device manufacturers including Edwards Lifesciences, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and Intuitive Medical. The breadth of this diversification has prompted a broader discussion about the balance between supporting medical research and the potential perception of conflicts of interest in a profession bound to patient welfare. Proponents argue that diversified investments may support the long-term stability of the GMC’s operations, while critics call for a tighter alignment with public health priorities and clearer justification for each category of holdings [BMJ].