Communicating Science in a Skeptical World

Experts in media, academia, and industry shared their strategies for countering myths about food via storytelling, digital platforms, and transparent messaging in a Tuesday IFT FIRST Keynote, “Science Communication in the Age of Misinformation: Restoring Confidence in Food Innovation.”

Moderated by Bill McDowell, Food Technology editor-in-chief and IFT’s vice president of content and channel strategy, the panel featured Laura Lindenfeld, executive director, Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science; Charlie Arnot, CEO, the Center for Food Integrity; Roxanne Smith, food scientist and content creator, Main Ingredients LLC; and Laura Chalela Hoover, executive vice president, food and beverage, Edelman US.

Misinformation about food, medicine, and vaccines is so rampant that roughly 70% of the world’s people believe at least one divisive claim, according to the well-known Edelman Trust Barometer, McDowell reported.

It was once accepted that conducting sound science and then publishing it was enough, Hoover said, but that has not been true for years. “Most consumers don't actually consume science,” said Hoover. “They consume someone else’s interpretation of that science. Who is interpreting our science for us and how can we get out there ahead of the curve so that we can really establish trust early on?”

Panelists agreed that empathizing with consumers’ fears and concerns and reassuring them with knowledge but without judgment is key to combatting the many misunderstandings about food science, food safety, and nutrition that currently exist.

Social media is an underutilized tool of science communication, said Smith. “That’s where everyone is right now—everyone from first graders to PhD students to your grandma. ... There are a lot of people out there who are not food scientists who love learning about this stuff. Every post that I make online is valuable real estate to facilitate {discussion, discovery, and knowledge] and provide a platform for folks who maybe don't have platforms to discuss this.”

There is a tendency, particularly for people who are technically oriented, to first want to correct misinformation, said Arnot. But, he added, “you can validate someone’s concern without validating their misinformation. So, if someone comes forward and says, ‘I am really concerned that [processed food] is poisoning us ... making us obese and causing cancer,’ we can respond and say, ‘I can tell you’re really passionate about healthy eating and I respect that.’ In that way, “we’ve not said a word, but we’ve acknowledged them,” Arnot explained.

The model the Center for Food Integrity uses in its value-based communication training is “listen, ask, listen, ask, listen, ask, and then share. You’re listening for a value where you can make a connection as a person,” Arnot said.

“This is exactly what we do at my center—train scientists and other experts to communicate with empathy,” so that they’re always considering who the audience is, what’s going on for them, and what they need from us to build trust, said Lindenfeld.

“We don’t learn this overnight,” Lindenfeld continued. “It takes training. It takes practice.” But refining the message is vital to advancing the science, she added. “The science is not speaking for itself. Communication is more than words. It’s relationships and trust.”

Explore IFT FIRST Coverage

Discover the latest reporting, interviews, and expert insights.

Read Now