July 03, 2014 - Blogs
Yesterday, in this blog, I discussed a recent Cornell study published in the journal Food Quality and Preference(“Ingredient-Based Food Fears and Avoidance: Antecedents and Antidotes," May 20, 2014), that examined the concept of food fears among consumers (mothers in particular) and what can be done to correct misperceptions regarding the safety and health implications of various ingredients in the market today. The study’s authors suggested countering misinformation with education and making the consumer more familiar with the ingredients’ history and use.
But is that as simple as it sounds, particularly given the relentless publicity and drama given such phrases as “pink slime’ and “yoga mat chemicals," and the oft-repeated narrative that “Big Food" and “Big Ag" is in cahoots with the devil, or at least Dr. Evil?
So I posed the question to one of the study’s researchers, Aner Tal, Ph.D., Post-Doctoral Research Associate, Food and Brand Lab Dyson School of Applied Economics, Cornell University: Who would be best to communicate the science behind food/ingredients in terms of believability—and w
His answer: “Well, it depends. Different audiences may attribute credibility differentially to different sources. For example, government sources are more credible to some people, less to others. For some, the opinion of their faith healer might represent the epitome of truth. There might not be a consensus as to what source is the most credible. That said, science and modern medicine still hold some weight in current American society, and so knowing that information comes from a scientific source might help boost its believability. That’s because there is a lot of trust in science as the best ‘source of truth,’ so that if something appears scientific, it’s more credible." He mentioned that the Cornell group has an article coming out later in the year about this topic.
Science is great. I love science. Most of my favorite people love science. But what happens when it’s industry-funded science? After all, we know Food Babe is not bankrolling research. And it’s not just the Food Babes of the world given the accusatory tone of Marion Nestle’s “Guess Who Funded the Study" column. (By the way: Props to commenter Henry Chin on the “Food Politics" site comments as well as to our guest blogger Kevn Klatt for their explanation and analysis of the science.)
Tal replied: “Replication. Accumulated evidence by different parties. Knowledge is not absolute, and as the blog entry you provided says, we sometimes see contradictory results. And sometimes how results are presented is a matter of representation—numbers rarely tell a story on their own—it’s the words you use to describe them that do. I’m all in favor of people being skeptical consumers of information: it’s good to ask: ‘What’s the basis for a particular claim?’ ‘How were particular studies behind it conducted? “So how do we trust that a phenomenon is real? By seeing repeated evidence from credible sources. And by being a critical reader of scientific reports. If the researchers behind particular findings are credible, they are hopefully not lying (though there have historically been cases of that as well). Most researchers would not risk their reputation by publishing poor quality work. But there is still room to critically read their results to see how studies were conducted and how results were interpreted. And there is room for continued debate in follow up research —always. Science is a continuous process, not the arbiter of absolute truth. Claims should be supported by multiple sources and from multiple angles, while adhering to the standards of scientific research.
“And to answer your question more concretely, I think transparency is a possible solution (allowing people to assess the basis for claims), as well as critical examination by disinterested parties. That is what the peer review process is for, although it certainly doesn’t vouch absolutely against errors," Tal concluded.
While I agree wholeheartedly with Tal’s reply, that still leads to a number of questions that have no easy answers. Where exactly would the study funding for “multiple sources" come from in this age of austerity? And how do we encourage people to be “critical readers of scientific reports"?
-Lynn A. Kuntz
Yesterday, in this blog, I discussed a recent Cornell study published in the journal Food Quality and Preference(“Ingredient-Based Food Fears and Avoidance: Antecedents and Antidotes," May 20, 2014), that examined the concept of food fears among consumers (mothers in particular) and what can be done to correct misperceptions regarding the safety and health implications of various ingredients in the market today. The study’s authors suggested countering misinformation with education and making the consumer more familiar with the ingredients’ history and use.
But is that as simple as it sounds, particularly given the relentless publicity and drama given such phrases as “pink slime’ and “yoga mat chemicals," and the oft-repeated narrative that “Big Food" and “Big Ag" is in cahoots with the devil, or at least Dr. Evil?
So I posed the question to one of the study’s researchers, Aner Tal, Ph.D., Post-Doctoral Research Associate, Food and Brand Lab Dyson School of Applied Economics, Cornell University: Who would be best to communicate the science behind food/ingredients in terms of believability—and w
His answer: “Well, it depends. Different audiences may attribute credibility differentially to different sources. For example, government sources are more credible to some people, less to others. For some, the opinion of their faith healer might represent the epitome of truth. There might not be a consensus as to what source is the most credible. That said, science and modern medicine still hold some weight in current American society, and so knowing that information comes from a scientific source might help boost its believability. That’s because there is a lot of trust in science as the best ‘source of truth,’ so that if something appears scientific, it’s more credible." He mentioned that the Cornell group has an article coming out later in the year about this topic.
Science is great. I love science. Most of my favorite people love science. But what happens when it’s industry-funded science? After all, we know Food Babe is not bankrolling research. And it’s not just the Food Babes of the world given the accusatory tone of Marion Nestle’s “Guess Who Funded the Study" column. (By the way: Props to commenter Henry Chin on the “Food Politics" site comments as well as to our guest blogger Kevn Klatt for their explanation and analysis of the science.)
Tal replied: “Replication. Accumulated evidence by different parties. Knowledge is not absolute, and as the blog entry you provided says, we sometimes see contradictory results. And sometimes how results are presented is a matter of representation—numbers rarely tell a story on their own—it’s the words you use to describe them that do. I’m all in favor of people being skeptical consumers of information: it’s good to ask: ‘What’s the basis for a particular claim?’ ‘How were particular studies behind it conducted? “So how do we trust that a phenomenon is real? By seeing repeated evidence from credible sources. And by being a critical reader of scientific reports. If the researchers behind particular findings are credible, they are hopefully not lying (though there have historically been cases of that as well). Most researchers would not risk their reputation by publishing poor quality work. But there is still room to critically read their results to see how studies were conducted and how results were interpreted. And there is room for continued debate in follow up research —always. Science is a continuous process, not the arbiter of absolute truth. Claims should be supported by multiple sources and from multiple angles, while adhering to the standards of scientific research.
“And to answer your question more concretely, I think transparency is a possible solution (allowing people to assess the basis for claims), as well as critical examination by disinterested parties. That is what the peer review process is for, although it certainly doesn’t vouch absolutely against errors," Tal concluded.
While I agree wholeheartedly with Tal’s reply, that still leads to a number of questions that have no easy answers. Where exactly would the study funding for “multiple sources" come from in this age of austerity? And how do we encourage people to be “critical readers of scientific reports"?
-Lynn A. Kuntz
No comments:
Post a Comment