Trust Begins With Scientific Consensus

What do we do with people who want to challenge established scientific consensus? Food science is a mature discipline built on more than a century of carefully executed, statistically validated experimentation, observation, and conclusion. So how are we to respond to those who would try to overthrow the scientific consensus resulting from that body of work?

Here’s the thing: A “consensus” in food science is a generally agreed-upon position held by a majority of qualified, reputable experts based on a large body of statistically validated data. Scientific perspectives have weight and merit when they are derived from, and backed by, rigorously vetted experimental data acquired through sound research—the more the better. It doesn’t mean that all the food scientists in a given field—microbiology, chemistry, nutrition, etc.—are in complete agreement, or that they’re unwilling to consider new evidence.

Also, let’s talk about that “majority of qualified, reputable experts,” because those are some really important words.

In a marketplace of ideas where no one scientific theory or interpretation holds a majority, none of them are yet persuasive enough to form the basis of a new consensus. This could be due to a lack of good supporting data, inadequate relation to observed phenomena, contradictory conclusions, or a host of other reasons. Is coffee good for you or not? Does dietary cholesterol raise blood cholesterol or not? The jury is still out, awaiting more data. Unanimity of opinion is rare in any field of science, but achieving a majority is a necessary part of consensus building.

A scientific consensus in food science is valuable and important because it is the underpinning of trust in that science.

Demonstration of technical expertise sufficient to show competence and trustworthiness makes you qualified, but only in that field. Remember, qualifications in one technical field do not automatically confer them in another. Let’s be honest: As a trained food microbiologist, my opinions on the origins and physical nature of neutron stars would carry little weight in a roomful of astrophysicists, no matter how widely or enthusiastically I express them.

To be reputable is to have sufficient experience and accomplishment to have earned the respect of one’s peers. That could be a track record of successful food engineering R&D, innovative food microbiology, or excellence in food science courses taught. Again, this is specific to one’s specialty. To reverse the example above, a reputation as an experienced and respected astrophysicist would mean little in a discussion of the nutritional properties of a reformulated high-protein snack bar.

That combination of scientific qualification (through education or certification) and reputation (through experience and achievement) conveys recognition of scientific expertise. These are the opinions that carry weight in the process of building a scientific consensus. For food science, that means consensus-building is driven by food science experts, across every subdiscipline, so that decisions and policies based on that consensus will be based on sound science. Conversely, when a technical decision-making process is based on opinions from a group or an individual that lacks scientific or technical qualifications, reputation, or subject matter expertise, the result is a house built on sand.

A scientific consensus in food science is valuable and important because it is the underpinning of trust in that science. It’s the open and dynamic process of food scientists and technologists, such as the global membership of IFT, coming together to discuss, debate, weigh the evidence, and come to an understanding of how our food works. And when new data comes to light, it can shift that understanding and change that consensus view. Ingredients, colorants, processing technologies, microbial safety, food biotechnology—every discipline within food science contributes to trust in our food system because of the effort poured into consensus-building by scientists and technologists in industry, academia, and government. Every scientific consensus in food science, in every field and subdiscipline, is the end result of a years- or decades-long process of aggressive vetting of ideas based on the quality of the data supporting them. That process is not to be set aside lightly.

Trust in the food system is based on trust in the consensus-building process that lies at the heart of food science. At IFT FIRST in July, our members will experience firsthand how IFT supports food scientists and technologists in meeting their responsibility of defending and enacting that science.