Combating Misinformation: Food Industry Experts Advocate for Science-Based Communication on Social Media
CHICAGO – The digital age has ushered in an era of unprecedented access to information, but it has also become a breeding ground for misinformation, particularly within the food industry. Social media platforms are awash with unsubstantiated claims and negative commentary about ingredients, often lacking any scientific basis. Experts at the Institute of Food Technologists’ (IFT) annual meeting and food exposition in Chicago urged food industry professionals to proactively address this issue by leveraging the same platforms to disseminate accurate, science-backed information.
Greg Stucky, chief research officer at InsightsNow, Inc., a behavioral research and strategy firm, emphasized the importance of engaging with consumers on social media and providing readily available scientific data. He suggested a simple yet effective strategy: when encountering positive, science-based posts about ingredients on platforms like LinkedIn, professionals can amplify the message by commenting and linking to additional data supporting the ingredient’s health benefits. This proactive approach can counteract the spread of misinformation and foster a more informed dialogue around food ingredients. Inaction, Stucky warned, allows the narrative to be dominated by non-scientific voices, potentially harming consumer perceptions and industry trust.
Juan Immer Beltrán, a sensory and consumer experience senior scientist at PepsiCo, Inc., highlighted the potential of social media, along with QR codes and traditional labeling, as educational tools for consumers. These platforms can bridge the information gap and clarify common misconceptions about ingredients. One area ripe for confusion is sweeteners, where the lines between artificial, processed, and natural are often blurred. Xiaolei Shi, Ph.D., a senior scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, pointed to tagatose as a prime example. This naturally occurring “rare” sugar is often misconstrued as processed due to consumer unfamiliarity.
Consumer perceptions of sweeteners vary significantly, with stevia, monk fruit, and allulose generally viewed as natural, while sucralose and acesulfame potassium (Ace-K) face more skepticism. Sharon Bender, senior principal scientist at Winland Foods, shared a successful strategy employed by fairlife to address negative perceptions surrounding sucralose and Ace-K. By strategically positioning these sweeteners between monk fruit extract and stevia leaf extract on the ingredient list of their high-protein shake, fairlife subtly conveyed a message of naturalness, mitigating potential consumer concerns.
Addressing consumer demand for “natural” ingredients presents its own set of challenges. While removing artificial ingredients, including synthetic dyes, often resonates well with consumers initially, the reality of product appearance can be a stumbling block. Beltrán cautioned that while consumers may embrace the concept of natural ingredients, they can be disappointed when the final product’s appearance, particularly color, deviates from their expectations. This underscores the delicate balance between meeting consumer desires for natural ingredients and maintaining the expected sensory attributes of food products.
Color, a crucial aspect of food appeal, can be particularly challenging when using natural sources. Bender cited the example of beet juice, a natural source of pink color, which may not hold up well during aseptic packaging. The resulting dull pink hue can fall short of the vibrant pink consumers expect in, say, a strawberry-flavored drink. This highlights the technical hurdles involved in formulating with natural colors and the importance of finding stable and visually appealing alternatives to synthetic dyes.
Certifications, such as the Non-GMO Project verification and USDA organic certification, can be valuable tools for building consumer trust, but experts warn against overuse. Stucky cautioned that an excessive number of certifications on a product can paradoxically erode trust, potentially making the product appear over-engineered or confusing to consumers. Bender further emphasized the importance of using certifications judiciously and appropriately. A Non-GMO Project verification on bottled water, for instance, is misleading and could create a false impression about the prevalence of GMO water. Similarly, a certification alone doesn’t necessarily signify a healthy product, as even high-fat items can carry certifications.
The overarching message from the IFT session was clear: the food industry must actively engage in science-based communication with consumers, particularly on social media. Failing to do so allows misinformation to proliferate, potentially damaging consumer trust and hindering the adoption of safe and beneficial food technologies. By embracing transparent and evidence-based communication, the industry can empower consumers to make informed decisions about the food they consume and counter the narratives propagated by unscientific sources. This proactive approach is not just a strategic imperative; it’s a responsibility to ensure accurate information prevails in the digital age.
