Food Safety Messaging

Anyone who knows me (or listens to the Food Safety Matters podcast) knows how much I love talking about science. I’m very much a “show me the data” type of person. But what happens when we need to reach a consensus and make decisions? How does a group of scientists with different approaches, backgrounds, and biases work together to arrive at the best solution to a problem?

This was a topic on prominent display at the recent Consumer Food Safety Education Virtual Conference put on by the Partnership for Food Safety Education. As someone immersed in communications, I was particularly intrigued by the session “Scientists Weigh In: Consumer Food Safety Message Review.” 

Now, to be clear, our primary target at Food Safety Magazine is not the consumer. But as a publication with a robust following in social media and podcast circles, we obviously reach more than just food safety professionals. And it was a great topic with a great panel! I tuned right in!

This session asked what I first thought was a straightforward question that turned into a more complicated risk-benefit analysis (a scientific analysis of science messaging! Love it!): How much should food safety messaging to the consumer change based on changes in the underlying science?

Of course, scientists herald advances in science and prefer, by and large, that consumer-facing messages follow suit. But in an industry where such messaging can have very direct, and sometimes nearly immediate, life or death consequences, when the latest science shows a change in the risk associated with a certain food product or behavior around food handling (from “Yes, a risk” to “No, not a risk,” for example), should we not just leave well enough alone and let the more conservative (and often long-lived) message persist? The rationale for leaving the messaging alone was that keeping up with the latest science by changing the messaging to reflect those changes could lead to confusion among consumers, especially those for whom science is not their primary language. 

I’d never thought about the risk-benefit balance of food safety messaging before, but keeping the primary goal of safe food top of mind means that this type of analysis is essential. For the record, the consensus was that we should not immediately change the messaging, confirming for me that while consumers are full partners in the journey toward a safer food system, we can’t overwhelm them with constant news updates. We at Food Safety Magazine and in the industry owe consumers our continued best to provide the information and perspectives they need to make safe food choices.