The latest news, trends, analysis, interviews and podcasts from the global food and beverage industry

From viral misinformation to reactionary health policies, consumer trust in food and drink is under growing strain. Jessica Steier, DrPH, founder and CEO of Unbiased Science, calls for a reset — one that places evidence-based science and long-term food security at the heart of the conversation around modern food production and agriculture.

From concerns about sugar, fat and dairy to questions around the right level of protein, health-conscious consumers – and those simply trying to do the best for their families – are bombarded with often contradictory advice about what’s good for them.

Are they getting enough calcium? Are their preferred foods too processed? What about use-by dates? And will burnt toast really cause cancer? Then there’s bagged lettuce, ‘forever chemicals,’ synthetic food dyes, microplastics…the list goes on. For every question, there is a flood of reels, podcasts and sponsored explainers offering the latest popular thinking, leaving consumers with more noise than clarity.

Fact vs opinion

All of this conflicting information is doing the real harm, causing consumers to question what they put on their plate or the ingredients they use. The fallout of this can be devastating. In the midst of worrying about the soaring cost of living, hard-pressed families are feeling pressure to pay a premium for designated 'organic' produce or buy special supplements or protein products. Others are shunning entire food groups, suspicious of fresh vegetables or fish.

It is concerning, to say the least. This is because in so many cases, assertions are being made without robust scientific evidence or they are being blown out of all proportion in terms of the benefit/risk ratio.

For instance, across the Atlantic, Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, has called for eight artificial food dyes to be eliminated from US food supply by the end of 2026, reigniting discussions about synthetic versus natural dyes around the world. This is despite a lack of data on evidence of risk to human health (often the foods in question have more worrying concentrations of sugar or sodium) and without considering the trade-offs and costs that will come with switching to natural colourings.

Controversies like this can be costly, not only to the food industry, which must adapt to changes in food safety standards, but also to wider consumer wellbeing. On top of general food anxiety and decision fatigue, including 'analysis paralysis' when grocery shopping, experts are seeing a rise in 'chemophobia' (an irrational fear of chemicals/additives). The most common unprompted concerns in a recent UK consumer food safety and consumer confidence survey related to food production methods and nutrition and health.

Fighting fear with good data

So, how should the industry respond? Transparency is paramount, but the challenge lies in showing not only a commitment to food safety at the highest level, but also to consumer wellbeing and public health.

One of the biggest hurdles is that consumers often struggle to distinguish between the presence of something in food and the actual likelihood of it causing harm. With negative stories travelling faster than credible information, misinformation dominates the conversation.

To counter this, companies must take a more strategic approach to communication. Instead of relying on defensive claims ('our ingredients are safe'), they should focus on proactive, value-driven education. That means openly explaining why certain additives, pesticides or genetically modified crops are used, and emphasising their specific benefits, rather than downplaying or avoiding them.

Bringing to life any trade-offs visually can help significantly here (because people typically need concrete visual cues to understand abstract risks). Tackling the grey areas head-on with education can be especially impactful, for instance, to clearly distinguish between a substance's ability to cause harm vs the actual likelihood of harm with typical exposure.

Parenting groups tend to follow trends closely, regularly questioning whether the latest headlines are credible and worth acting on. Their conclusions often call for greater clarity and clear signposting.

Citing robust, independent sources can be particularly persuasive. Consider building coalitions with reputable health organisations and supporting independent science communication, rather than relying solely on industry-funded messaging. Educational partnerships – such as collaborating with schools or healthcare providers on nutrition science – also offer opportunities to engage with younger generations in a meaningful way.

Overall, the goal should be to restore sanity and perspective by replacing fear with evidence-based understanding. As part of this, there are likely to be important adjacent messages about the role and growing importance of food system innovation, including modern agriculture methods. That’s in ensuring that all consumers retain access to healthy, safe and affordable food as populations continue to grow and as the climate continues to change.