Building Relevance and Trust in the Food Sciences

Trust in science is fragile.

In a world where the loudest voices often carry the most influence, professionals across the food sciences face an uphill battle to ensure that evidence-based truths are heard, understood, and trusted. Few topics illustrate this challenge more clearly than the debate surrounding ultra-processed foods (UPFs).

The term “ultra-processed” has become shorthand for “unhealthy” in much of the public discourse. Central to this conversation is the Nova classification system, developed by Brazilian researchers in 2009, which categorizes foods based on the extent of processing rather than their nutritional composition. While Nova links UPFs to chronic disease and poor health outcomes, its simplicity often leads to misinterpretation. Influencers, activists, and policymakers have seized on these classifications to advocate for sweeping changes in how foods are formulated, marketed, and consumed.

However, the science is far more nuanced. As Matt Teegarden points out in this issue of Food Technology, retroactively applying Nova categories to dietary data often results in inconsistencies. He calls for a more precise, science-based approach to studying food processing and its health impacts. A balanced perspective is critical as we work to provide actionable, evidence-based insights that inform public health policies and consumer behavior.

At last summer’s IFT FIRST: Annual Event & Expo, Kevin Hall of the National Institutes of Health emphasized the need for more rigorous, controlled studies to understand how UPFs impact health. He noted that many existing epidemiological studies have significant limitations, making it critical to move beyond correlations and uncover the underlying causes of diet-related diseases.

Scientists across the food system know that food processing is not inherently harmful. On the contrary, it’s a vital tool for ensuring safety, affordability, accessibility, and nutrition on a global scale. Yet, without a concerted effort to share this perspective in ways that resonate with consumers, lawmakers, and influencers, the public narrative risks becoming dominated by oversimplifications and fear.

To cut through the noise, we prioritize making complex scientific concepts relatable and actionable.

The UPF debate highlights a broader issue: trust in science cannot rely on data alone. As consultant Charlie Arnot recently noted in an Omnivore podcast interview, facts in a vacuum rarely resonate with people because decision-making is rooted in values and emotion.

The public is inundated with contradictory messages about food. By fostering its transparency and shared values, IFT is working to ensure that science remains central to decision-making. To cut through the noise, we prioritize making complex scientific concepts relatable and actionable.

In the BBC documentary Irresistible: Why We Can’t Stop Eating, John Ruff, IFT’s chief science advisor and former president, explains how the food industry meticulously optimizes products to meet consumer preferences, from taste and texture to palatability. While acknowledging the industry’s role in creating hyper-palatable foods, Ruff stresses the need for a balanced approach to food manufacturing that meets consumer demands without compromising health.

As policy and public perception often go hand in hand, IFT’s Science and Policy Initiatives team actively engages with lawmakers, regulators, and key opinion leaders. Whether advocating for increased funding for food and agriculture research or providing science-based insights on food traceability, we focus on translating evidence into actionable recommendations.

Making science accessible and relevant is not the work of one organization alone—it’s a collective effort. Every member of IFT has a role to play in building trust, whether by sharing their expertise, mentoring the next generation of food scientists, or engaging in conversations about the critical issues shaping local, national, or global food policy.

This effort requires tolerance, empathy, and understanding. We need to listen as much as we educate, recognizing that skepticism often stems from fear or misunderstanding. As we continue to engage in debates like the one surrounding UPFs, let’s remember that our ultimate goal is not just to educate but to inspire. By making science accessible, relatable, and deeply relevant, we can ensure that it remains a guiding force in shaping the future of food.

Let’s embrace this challenge together.ft