I recently had the opportunity to attend the U.S. Institute of Food Technology (IFT) 2012 annual convention (IFT12) in Las Vegas. It was even bigger than IFT11: over 18,000 attendees, over 1,000 exhibiting companies.
So while the U.S. food manufacturing industry appears to be in rude health, food technologists are worried. They fear the erosion of trust by the public of the food industry as a whole. The misunderstanding (wilful or otherwise) of what ‘processed food’ actually is continues to be a very real threat to the industry, and also the food technology profession’s ability to attract students and members.
A number of presentations addressed this issue at the convention. The fundamental fact is that humans have been processing food for thousands of years. ‘Processing’ has always been performed to make food last longer, less susceptible to spoilage, better tasting, more convenient to store and consume, etc.
However, when consumers are surveyed as to what they think about processed foods, the most common reactions include words such as: ‘added chemicals’, ’unnatural’, ’preservatives’, and ’unhealthy’. Even the term ‘food technology’ had become problematic, as consumers don’t enjoy the idea that ‘technology’ has somehow been involved in the production of their food, in contrast to the way that they DON’T have an issue with ‘medical technology’ or ‘communications technology’.
Now with the proliferation of social media and the ‘food bloggers’, some of whom have an ‘anti-processing’ agenda, the ability of misinformation about food processing to spread and become part of public consciousness has changed the game for food manufacturers. The message I heard at IFT12 is that while patient explanation of the scientific reality of modern processed foods is still necessary, it will never be enough on its own to win the debate.
Some of the collective wisdom of the presenters is:
The IFT itself has responded to what they see as a crisis, via activities such as a workshop entitled ‘Changing the Conversation About Food Science’, reported here.
I particularly like the following observation:
Author Michael Pollan, an outspoken critic of processed foods, says that “food is what your great-grandparents ate,” said Fergus Clydesdale of the University of Massachusetts, adding that he hopes that is not the case because what our grandparents ate wasn’t always optimal. Consider Ireland in the mid-19th century, for example; when the potato blight struck, millions died or were forced to emigrate.
“I really think the media should look at just how good were the good old days,” said Clydesdale. “We have to approach it on an historical level with real data.” He pointed out that many people today are losing touch with some of the benefits of food science because they’ve rarely encountered a spoiled food and “therefore they don’t understand how a food stays stable and safe and why they should be concerned about it.”
The IFT has also produced a number of emotive videos aimed at reminding consumers of the positive role food science plays in a modern society, which are published here.
The challenge is real, and the message is important, because the misinformation that pushes consumers away from ‘processed foods’ may well be pushing them toward unsafe foods.
by Adam Hyland
So while the U.S. food manufacturing industry appears to be in rude health, food technologists are worried. They fear the erosion of trust by the public of the food industry as a whole. The misunderstanding (wilful or otherwise) of what ‘processed food’ actually is continues to be a very real threat to the industry, and also the food technology profession’s ability to attract students and members.
A number of presentations addressed this issue at the convention. The fundamental fact is that humans have been processing food for thousands of years. ‘Processing’ has always been performed to make food last longer, less susceptible to spoilage, better tasting, more convenient to store and consume, etc.
However, when consumers are surveyed as to what they think about processed foods, the most common reactions include words such as: ‘added chemicals’, ’unnatural’, ’preservatives’, and ’unhealthy’. Even the term ‘food technology’ had become problematic, as consumers don’t enjoy the idea that ‘technology’ has somehow been involved in the production of their food, in contrast to the way that they DON’T have an issue with ‘medical technology’ or ‘communications technology’.
Now with the proliferation of social media and the ‘food bloggers’, some of whom have an ‘anti-processing’ agenda, the ability of misinformation about food processing to spread and become part of public consciousness has changed the game for food manufacturers. The message I heard at IFT12 is that while patient explanation of the scientific reality of modern processed foods is still necessary, it will never be enough on its own to win the debate.
Some of the collective wisdom of the presenters is:
- Communicate the real need for food science and technology, e.g. that the world will need to feed 33% more mouths in the next few years, but that right now 30% of the worlds food production is spoiled by pests or micro-organisms long before it reaches the consumer.
- Play up the culinary aspect of food manufacturing, because this is something consumers can more readily engage with.
- Get on the front foot against misinformation – don’t run from or hide the fact that food technology is a key part of a safe and reliable food chain.
- Never overestimate the credentials and knowledge of those seeking to spread sensational misinformation – challenge their ‘facts’; don’t accept their premise.
- Recognise that in a politically polarised media landscape, the noisiest minority views will tend to rule.
- Be transparent: throw open the factory door; don’t appear secretive as this will equate to a perception of underhandedness.
- Partner, at ‘arm’s length’, with independent online opinion leaders. This means maintaining an open, factual dialogue with them, not necessarily trying to ‘recruit’ them as a mouthpiece.
The IFT itself has responded to what they see as a crisis, via activities such as a workshop entitled ‘Changing the Conversation About Food Science’, reported here.
I particularly like the following observation:
Author Michael Pollan, an outspoken critic of processed foods, says that “food is what your great-grandparents ate,” said Fergus Clydesdale of the University of Massachusetts, adding that he hopes that is not the case because what our grandparents ate wasn’t always optimal. Consider Ireland in the mid-19th century, for example; when the potato blight struck, millions died or were forced to emigrate.
“I really think the media should look at just how good were the good old days,” said Clydesdale. “We have to approach it on an historical level with real data.” He pointed out that many people today are losing touch with some of the benefits of food science because they’ve rarely encountered a spoiled food and “therefore they don’t understand how a food stays stable and safe and why they should be concerned about it.”
The IFT has also produced a number of emotive videos aimed at reminding consumers of the positive role food science plays in a modern society, which are published here.
The challenge is real, and the message is important, because the misinformation that pushes consumers away from ‘processed foods’ may well be pushing them toward unsafe foods.
by Adam Hyland
