Social media influencers spreading misinformation and algorithms that reward controversy over science are increasingly driving the conversation around the food and beverage industry, and the trend has become the top concern among food science professionals, according to a recent report by the Institute of Food Technologists.
More than 5,000 respondents to a recent survey revealed that nearly half are “extremely concerned” about misinformation’s impact on the profession, William McDowell, IFT vice president of content and channel strategy, said during a panel discussion on misinformation at the IFT FIRST conference in mid-July.
“All of this raises central questions: How can professionals communicate sound science in ways that are transparent, relevant and meaningful to consumers and to the communities that we serve, and if we’re in an environment where facts aren’t enough, how do we earn and nurture and maintain trust?” McDowell asked panelists.
Facts are not enough
The first assumption to address is that publishing good science guarantees public trust.
That might have been the case 20 years ago, but public perception has changed over the last few decades, according to panelist Laura Hoover, executive vice president of food & beverage at Edelman US.
She suggests thinking about food science from the consumer’s perspective.
“Most consumers don’t actually consume science; they consume someone else’s interpretation of that science, so we no longer can just ask ourselves: Have we done the work? Have we proven the efficacy, the function, the safety? But who is interpreting our science for us, and how can we get out there ahead of the curve so that we can really establish that trust early on in the conversation?” she said.
Scientists and industry leaders need to put themselves in consumers’ shoes and imagine the circumstances driving them to their conclusions, said Laura Lindenfeld, executive director of the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science.
The goal is to avoid what she calls the “spray can effect of science communication,” where information flows in one direction from scientists to consumers. “The minute arrogance and ego come into the room, it’s game over,” she said.
Companies should treat communication training as a core research infrastructure, according to Lindenfeld.
Values first, facts second
The values of the messenger are two to three times as important in building trust compared to the data or science backing the message, according to Charlie Arnot, CEO of the Center for Food Integrity.
“To a point, it’s not about the data, it’s not about the science, it’s about the individual they believe is trustworthy,” he said.
For example, Arnot said that a middle-aged man like himself is probably not the best messenger for new mothers looking for nutritional information for their children’s diets.
“The danger is not that the information will not be received, but that it can be rejected strongly and emotionally in such a way that it creates a visceral response to reject not just that argument but also the organization,” he said.
Within the MAHA movement, growing skepticism of government institutions, such as the FDA and USDA, is an example of this pushback against official sources, Arnot said.
“They are now increasingly concerned that the scientists are gaining pressure to come up with specific conclusions, whether or not the data supports it,” he said.
That is why diversifying the messengers is increasingly important, according to Hoover. That diversity goes beyond race, age and other typical demographics and should include factors like different ideologies, she said.
“When we are working with clients, we’ll often create a campaign that’s delivered through influencers or creators,” she said.
The conversation on social media
Roxanne Smith, a food scientist and online influencer who operates under the name Hydroxide, works to battle food science misinformation online.
Smith’s website notes that she “saw a clear opportunity to speak up for science and find humor in the wildest food fads and fears being shared today.”
“Creating unique content with both humor and insight, Hydroxide is always seeking ways to combat food misinformation in today’s rapidly changing world,” the website notes.
Social media algorithms incentivize inflammatory comments because they are often the ones that get the most replies, Smith said at the forum. She noted her gratitude for her online following because they are largely genuinely interested in food science and typically navigate toward thoughtful conversations, she said.
She advised the industry to start thinking like “scientists as communicators” who collect data and ask good follow-up questions.
In the case of someone with concerns about ultra-processed foods, for instance, scientists should be asking questions like: “Do they not like ultra-processed foods because they don’t like that chips and candy are so prevalent, or do they not like food dyes because those are completely separate contextual things?” she said.
Accept that not every misconception must be corrected individually, she said, noting that sometimes the goal is to foster a healthier environment and empower the broader audience.
