Lisa Olivo, Associate Editor05.20.15
With the global population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, food industry experts are searching for innovative ways to feed the planet. Many see food technology as an essential component in ensuring human health and nutrition in the future. With this in mind, those in the biotechnology, nanotechnologies, flavor and food processing industries are developing novel ways to feed and nourish the global community.
However, as consumers push for “clean label” and “natural” foods, biotech and processed food have fallen out of favor with the public. The science of food often leads to increased concern among consumers.
To address these apprehensions and better educate the public, The New York Institute of Food Technologists (NYIFT) hosted a panel at its 2015 Supplier’s Day in Apri. Experts included Rickey Yada, PhD, expert in food nanotechnology and Dean of Faculty of Land and Food Systems at the University of British Columbia; Marie Wright, vice president and chief global flavorist at WILD Flavors; and Kaitlin Yarnall, executive editor for National Geographic and leader of the Future of Food initiative. The group discussed the pros and cons of technology in the food chain, how to better inform the public on its importance, and how food consumption and production will change looking toward 2050.
Overcoming Fear
It’s no secret that food technology has a bad reputation in the minds of the public. Dr. Yada suggested the tech industry needs to do a better job of educating consumers about the benefits of science in the food chain, starting from an early age. “We really need to do a better job of communicating and educating the public on not only the benefits, but the risks of new technology,” he said, “and this is going beyond nanotechnology.”
He stressed that the biotech industry did a poor job communicating with the public about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and we are seeing the fallout today.
The education process, he said, needs to start with children, even as early as kindergarten, all the way through K-12 education. “I think a big issue with some of the public, is a fear of the unknown. Current science would say that much of the technology today has found no evidence of a detrimental health effect [from biotech in food]. But as I said, people fear that if they continue to consume these products, will something bad happen in the future?”
Ms. Wright of WILD Flavors noted a similar level of fear in her market. From a flavor perspective, she said, it’s the same; people are suspicious of artificial ingredients. This general mistrust around technology is far reaching with some of it grounded, and some of it misplaced, she explained.
“In the U.S. we have this philosophy where we don’t prove something is safe before it’s used. We wait until it’s found unsafe.” This, she said, has established a distrustful consumer base.
“I think tech is essential for the future of feeding the world, but I think we need to perhaps take a different approach to how we communicate it,” Ms. Wright said. She added that leaders in food science need to begin taking part in this debate, where in the past they’ve taken a more passive role.
Hungry for the Truth
In light of the controversy going on in the food industry, National Geographic developed the Future of Food initiative to engage in a dialogue with its readers around their concerns over this pressing issue. Fears about the food supply, in addition to climate change, globalization, and urbanization, have elicited a huge response from the publication’s audience, according to Ms. Yarnall. “People are hungry for the truth.”
National Geographic is a science-based publication and respected source, so it is viewed as an impartial communication platform to present a diverse array of opinions on this complex issue. In using this medium to present scientifically validated arguments on both sides of the issue, the magazine’s objective is to help readers draw their own conclusions.
Julie Meyer, RD, the panel’s moderator and the founder of Eat Well Global, pointed to the popularity of documentaries such as Food Inc. and Fed Up leading much of the debate on this issue. Ms. Wright suggested there are kernels of truth in the arguments of some food alarmists, but some of their arguments are distorted.
“You have two sets of people who are opposing the food industry,” Mr. Wright said. “Half are looking for truth and concerned about health, wellness and safety; and the others are sensationalists, that are making money on this, these movies and books. And they’re easy to digest. National Geographic is lovely, but it’s for a more educated audience. We need to perhaps bring this issue down to the People Magazine level.” Making this issue more palatable and easy to understand would help the general public become more accepting of technology in the food chain, she suggested.
Lessons Learned
As new science emerges in food production, how can leaders in this space ease concerns and elicit public acceptance?
Dr. Yada believes there is much to be learned from the mistakes of the GMO debate, especially in the area of nanotechnology. “When GMO technology was launched in the general public it expounded all these wonderful benefits. And then I think certain segments of the population were suspicious,” he said. By lauding the benefits and not discussing potential risks, the industry cultivated many skeptics. As a lesson learned from this mistake, Dr. Yada suggested, “We need to be open and transparent about the science going into the development of this science for food applications.”
Ms. Wright pointed to the uncertainty surrounding GMOS as a key issue holding back technology in food. “The GMO debate is still up in the air; we don’t know if it’s safe, and we don’t know that it’s unsafe. But we do know the level of insecticides used is higher than ever. Roundup [glyphosate] resistance and other trickle down effects of GMOs is a big question. It’s the trickle-down effect of GMOs that I think is a big concern. There’s also the concern of who’s controlling it and who's making money from this…. I still think the technology has merits, but perhaps I don’t think it’s been used correctly.”
Ms. Yarnall called for a better title for the technology, since it’s become such a hot-button term. “I think so many people think ‘You’re putting fish genes in my tomato,’ and that’s not necessarily what we’re doing when we’re genetically modifying food. So I think better communication is needed around what genetic modification really means. What are the different ways of doing it? Which processes have been around for thousands of years, and which ones are relatively new? And which ones have been proven and tested, and which ones are still cutting edge and haven’t even left the laboratory?”
Silver Bullet vs. Silver Buckshot
Despite the potential problems technology may pose in the food chain, the threat of a hungry global population still looms.
In discussing how to tackle this dilemma, Ms. Yarnall quoted her colleague from National Geographic Jonathan Foley. “He said to me, ‘Kaitlin, the way that we feed 9 billion people is not going to be with a silver bullet. It’s silver buckshot.’ And so we need all of these approaches.”
Ms. Yarnall said she worries about shutting the door on certain technologies that may benefit certain populations when dealing with big food security issues, even though they might not be necessary or responsible in all environments. “We need to leave the doors open for potential problems like salinity of soil and climate volatility. We need to leave the doors open for research and development and technology to serve those problems. It’s not a potential. We know this is coming.”
Dr. Yada added that he encourages his faculty to get out and talk to the general population and educate people on the science behind the technology, and then leave it to them to decide if they’re going to accept the technology or be cautious about it. “For us to take an opinion on a subject matter, I think, puts us into the same category as those people that are expounding the detriments of a technology, or alternatively, only the benefits of a technology. So it’s about giving the public a balanced opinion, and giving the power of ownership back to the public to make a decision.”
Challenges Ahead
Harnessing the power of food technology in a responsible way will have huge impacts down the road, the panelists suggested.
“The choices we make in the next 10-20 years are going to affect the next 50, 75, 100 years,” claimed Ms. Yarnall. “When we look at deforestation, for example, what happens if we continue to deforest to expand our agricultural footprint? How we address this will totally impact our weather system. If we continue to deforest and consume fossil fuels in the way we do, that is going to impact our climate, which is going to impact how we grow food.” However, if we can freeze our agricultural footprint, or better yet, shrink it, then there could be profound changes in terms of what needs to be accomplished through food technology.
“Are we going to have to spend all of our technology resources figuring out how we grow rice in salt water?” she asked, “Or how we can move food quickly as the climate changes? Is that going to be the resource, or is the resource going to be deployed toward how do we upscale vertical urban farming? Or how do we use UV light technology in Costco warehouses? I think those are going to be our future questions.”
She suggested society is at a tipping point with respect to establishing how much will there is globally to solve problems like deforestation, food waste, and shifting diets. Once that will is established technology can be deployed in exciting new ways, such as urban farming and 3D printing. Once global leaders tackle the more essential, and basic necessities surrounding agriculture, the truly exciting innovation can begin.
However, as consumers push for “clean label” and “natural” foods, biotech and processed food have fallen out of favor with the public. The science of food often leads to increased concern among consumers.
To address these apprehensions and better educate the public, The New York Institute of Food Technologists (NYIFT) hosted a panel at its 2015 Supplier’s Day in Apri. Experts included Rickey Yada, PhD, expert in food nanotechnology and Dean of Faculty of Land and Food Systems at the University of British Columbia; Marie Wright, vice president and chief global flavorist at WILD Flavors; and Kaitlin Yarnall, executive editor for National Geographic and leader of the Future of Food initiative. The group discussed the pros and cons of technology in the food chain, how to better inform the public on its importance, and how food consumption and production will change looking toward 2050.
Overcoming Fear
It’s no secret that food technology has a bad reputation in the minds of the public. Dr. Yada suggested the tech industry needs to do a better job of educating consumers about the benefits of science in the food chain, starting from an early age. “We really need to do a better job of communicating and educating the public on not only the benefits, but the risks of new technology,” he said, “and this is going beyond nanotechnology.”
He stressed that the biotech industry did a poor job communicating with the public about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and we are seeing the fallout today.
The education process, he said, needs to start with children, even as early as kindergarten, all the way through K-12 education. “I think a big issue with some of the public, is a fear of the unknown. Current science would say that much of the technology today has found no evidence of a detrimental health effect [from biotech in food]. But as I said, people fear that if they continue to consume these products, will something bad happen in the future?”
Ms. Wright of WILD Flavors noted a similar level of fear in her market. From a flavor perspective, she said, it’s the same; people are suspicious of artificial ingredients. This general mistrust around technology is far reaching with some of it grounded, and some of it misplaced, she explained.
“In the U.S. we have this philosophy where we don’t prove something is safe before it’s used. We wait until it’s found unsafe.” This, she said, has established a distrustful consumer base.
“I think tech is essential for the future of feeding the world, but I think we need to perhaps take a different approach to how we communicate it,” Ms. Wright said. She added that leaders in food science need to begin taking part in this debate, where in the past they’ve taken a more passive role.
Hungry for the Truth
In light of the controversy going on in the food industry, National Geographic developed the Future of Food initiative to engage in a dialogue with its readers around their concerns over this pressing issue. Fears about the food supply, in addition to climate change, globalization, and urbanization, have elicited a huge response from the publication’s audience, according to Ms. Yarnall. “People are hungry for the truth.”
National Geographic is a science-based publication and respected source, so it is viewed as an impartial communication platform to present a diverse array of opinions on this complex issue. In using this medium to present scientifically validated arguments on both sides of the issue, the magazine’s objective is to help readers draw their own conclusions.
Julie Meyer, RD, the panel’s moderator and the founder of Eat Well Global, pointed to the popularity of documentaries such as Food Inc. and Fed Up leading much of the debate on this issue. Ms. Wright suggested there are kernels of truth in the arguments of some food alarmists, but some of their arguments are distorted.
“You have two sets of people who are opposing the food industry,” Mr. Wright said. “Half are looking for truth and concerned about health, wellness and safety; and the others are sensationalists, that are making money on this, these movies and books. And they’re easy to digest. National Geographic is lovely, but it’s for a more educated audience. We need to perhaps bring this issue down to the People Magazine level.” Making this issue more palatable and easy to understand would help the general public become more accepting of technology in the food chain, she suggested.
Lessons Learned
As new science emerges in food production, how can leaders in this space ease concerns and elicit public acceptance?
Dr. Yada believes there is much to be learned from the mistakes of the GMO debate, especially in the area of nanotechnology. “When GMO technology was launched in the general public it expounded all these wonderful benefits. And then I think certain segments of the population were suspicious,” he said. By lauding the benefits and not discussing potential risks, the industry cultivated many skeptics. As a lesson learned from this mistake, Dr. Yada suggested, “We need to be open and transparent about the science going into the development of this science for food applications.”
Ms. Wright pointed to the uncertainty surrounding GMOS as a key issue holding back technology in food. “The GMO debate is still up in the air; we don’t know if it’s safe, and we don’t know that it’s unsafe. But we do know the level of insecticides used is higher than ever. Roundup [glyphosate] resistance and other trickle down effects of GMOs is a big question. It’s the trickle-down effect of GMOs that I think is a big concern. There’s also the concern of who’s controlling it and who's making money from this…. I still think the technology has merits, but perhaps I don’t think it’s been used correctly.”
Ms. Yarnall called for a better title for the technology, since it’s become such a hot-button term. “I think so many people think ‘You’re putting fish genes in my tomato,’ and that’s not necessarily what we’re doing when we’re genetically modifying food. So I think better communication is needed around what genetic modification really means. What are the different ways of doing it? Which processes have been around for thousands of years, and which ones are relatively new? And which ones have been proven and tested, and which ones are still cutting edge and haven’t even left the laboratory?”
Silver Bullet vs. Silver Buckshot
Despite the potential problems technology may pose in the food chain, the threat of a hungry global population still looms.
In discussing how to tackle this dilemma, Ms. Yarnall quoted her colleague from National Geographic Jonathan Foley. “He said to me, ‘Kaitlin, the way that we feed 9 billion people is not going to be with a silver bullet. It’s silver buckshot.’ And so we need all of these approaches.”
Ms. Yarnall said she worries about shutting the door on certain technologies that may benefit certain populations when dealing with big food security issues, even though they might not be necessary or responsible in all environments. “We need to leave the doors open for potential problems like salinity of soil and climate volatility. We need to leave the doors open for research and development and technology to serve those problems. It’s not a potential. We know this is coming.”
Dr. Yada added that he encourages his faculty to get out and talk to the general population and educate people on the science behind the technology, and then leave it to them to decide if they’re going to accept the technology or be cautious about it. “For us to take an opinion on a subject matter, I think, puts us into the same category as those people that are expounding the detriments of a technology, or alternatively, only the benefits of a technology. So it’s about giving the public a balanced opinion, and giving the power of ownership back to the public to make a decision.”
Challenges Ahead
Harnessing the power of food technology in a responsible way will have huge impacts down the road, the panelists suggested.
“The choices we make in the next 10-20 years are going to affect the next 50, 75, 100 years,” claimed Ms. Yarnall. “When we look at deforestation, for example, what happens if we continue to deforest to expand our agricultural footprint? How we address this will totally impact our weather system. If we continue to deforest and consume fossil fuels in the way we do, that is going to impact our climate, which is going to impact how we grow food.” However, if we can freeze our agricultural footprint, or better yet, shrink it, then there could be profound changes in terms of what needs to be accomplished through food technology.
“Are we going to have to spend all of our technology resources figuring out how we grow rice in salt water?” she asked, “Or how we can move food quickly as the climate changes? Is that going to be the resource, or is the resource going to be deployed toward how do we upscale vertical urban farming? Or how do we use UV light technology in Costco warehouses? I think those are going to be our future questions.”
She suggested society is at a tipping point with respect to establishing how much will there is globally to solve problems like deforestation, food waste, and shifting diets. Once that will is established technology can be deployed in exciting new ways, such as urban farming and 3D printing. Once global leaders tackle the more essential, and basic necessities surrounding agriculture, the truly exciting innovation can begin.
