Communicating the Science of Food

Those of you able to join me at the record-breaking IFT16 meeting in Chicago may have noticed a common theme in the plenary sessions—the power of science and the importance of effective communication. Jacques Rousseau opened the meeting with thoughts on pseudoscience, belief, and the power of critical thinking, as well as on the consequences of getting it wrong. Ben Goldacre described how the often unintentional misuse of data and statistics in the medical field can lead to unjustified conclusions and cost lives. Bev Postma talked about “slaying dragons”—effective use of communication skills to support consensus-based science over entrepreneurs who would otherwise capitalize on fear.

All these speakers were experts, convinced of the astonishing power of science to support prudent decision-making about how we should grow and prepare the food we eat. However, food science doesn’t exist in isolation from real people making, selling, buying, and eating real food. While these consumers might be carefully evaluating the latest science in their food decisions, they likely aren’t. That isn’t to say any individual’s choices are necessarily bad, they may just be weighing different types of information or just valuing different things. It was therefore very appropriate that the other main-stage presentation was given over to the people who buy and eat the food we make—seven real people from the Chicago area who talked about what they looked for in food and in particular what “clean,” “natural,” and “healthy” meant to them. While food and nutrition scientists may be very uncomfortable with all of these terms, they were important labels the consumers used to judge whether food would be appropriate for them and therefore important terms to the companies selling ingredients at the food expo.

We can do more as food scientists to support a greater public understanding of how and why food is made in order to guide consumers in better decision-making. In fact, some of the forward-thinking members of our community have already begun to take on this task. Both the IFTSA blog “Science Meets Food” and “Don’t Eat the Pseudoscience,” a group of young professionals and students trained as food communicators by IFT, offer effective examples of communicating the importance of the science of food to the public.

IFT will continue to do more to support and train food scientists who are motivated to talk about their work. For example, immediately before IFT16, Trevor Butterworth (Sense About Science USA) talked about science communication at a summit for section and division leaders, and his team later participated in training for the IFT Food Science Communicators who provide rapid response to media inquiries.

One of Butterworth’s essential points for science communicators was to be absolutely clear around issues of conflict of interest. It’s tempting to imagine conflict of interest as important only in its most egregious forms—for example, a scientist falsifying data to benefit a research sponsor. While it’s impossible to say this sort of thing never happens, it’s certainly so far from most of our experiences that we might feel that because we wouldn’t engage in such a practice, then we don’t suffer from any conflicts of interest.

However, more subtle forms of conflicts of interest (or even perceived conflicts of interest) can cloud our judgments and the public’s interpretation of our work. Most obviously, many food scientists depend directly or indirectly on food companies for their employment. While internal decisions around formulation, manufacturing, and safety of foods are supported by solid scientific principles, a product can be marketed with ambiguous or difficult-to-define terms in order to maintain competitiveness in a field of products making the same brand promise. This isn’t unique to food; it’s how marketing works. As professionals in the science of food, we’ll always walk the fine line of balancing a strict interpretation of science and its terms with the ways in which a food product may be marketed. Meanwhile, the claims made by critics of our industry are much easier for us to call out.

Conflicts of interest aren’t necessarily bad in themselves. It’s how we deal with these conflicts that make us trustworthy champions for food science while protecting our own reputations and those of our employers. By publicly acknowledging our own biases and limitations, we can be more effective communicators of the critical importance of food science in people’s lives. We might never agree what “clean” or “natural” means on a label, but we can be clear about the science and technology that supports a safe, nutritious food supply.

I look forward to a continuing dialogue on issues such as these in my tenure as your IFT president.

John Coupland, PhD, CFS
IFT President, 2016–2017
Professor of Food Science, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa.
[email protected]
@JohnNCoupland