Food news—it's everywhere. In magazines, newspapers and on television, reports about food and nutrition news are hard to miss. Yet, even though we hear and read a lot about it, how much and what kind of information are we receiving? To find out, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation commissioned a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of food and nutrition reporting in the national media during the months of May through July 1997.

Food For Thought II is a "snapshot" study of food and nutrition media coverage. It is extremely interesting in that it gives us a picture of what consumers are hearing and reading about food and nutrition. For example, it reveals which topics were reported on more or less frequently, and gives insight into the extent of that coverage. It can show what the impetus of the story was and who the sources were that lent perspective. It can tell us many things, but unfortunately it can't tell us everything, such as the reasons why the reporters chose the topics or whether the information presented was accurate.

Thirty-eight national and regional media outlets, including metropolitan newspapers, wire services, national magazines, network and local television news and syndicated talk shows were analyzed. By comparing the results from a similar study conducted during the same time period in 1995, we can examine which aspects of diet, nutrition and food safety news are transient and event-driven, and which ones have staying power. And now, the results... Food For Thought II's highlights:

• Just as in 1995, the media often neglected to provide the context necessary for consumers to make informed choices about their own food selections. For example, news reports with advice on what foods to eat more or less of rarely specified how much, how often, or to whom the advice applied.
• Scientists were much more frequently quoted, becoming the second most cited group of experts and relegating government officials to the #3 spot. Culinary groups and food producers remained in the #1 position.
• Discussions of food safety topics rocketed in popularity, making foodborne illness the #1 topic overall.
• The focus on fat consumption faded, with a 50 percent reduction in coverage from 1995. Nevertheless, dietary fat was still the #1 nutrition topic.
• Functional foods received a great deal of attention from the media, which focused on their possible roles in reducing the risk of cancer, heart disease and other health conditions.

A Matter Of Context

The report revealed that, as was the case in 1995, nearly one-third (30%) of discussions about the beneficial or harmful effects of foods did not reference any of the following contextual elements: amount consumed, frequency of consumption, whether effects were cumulative, and whether there were differences in its effects on particular groups of people (such as children, pregnant women or older people). Almost a quarter (24%) of the stories mentioned two or more contextual elements, seven percent mentioned three or more, and a mere two percent mentioned four or more. Only medical and health reporters bucked the no-context trend, and included some context in 84 percent of their stories.

Providing context not only increases the accuracy of stories, but helps the consumer judge whether a report is relevant to his or her life. For instance, in 1997 only 14 percent of stories about the benefits and harms of food mentioned how much of the food consumers needed to receive the benefit or harm (versus 31% of stories in 1995). Without this information, consumers are unable to use the information, if desired, to make dietary changes or improvements.

One improvement in the use of contextual information was an increased tendency to cite scientific evidence in conjunction with a claimed harm or benefit. Approximately one-third (34%) of the stories included this link in 1997, compared to only 15 percent of stories in 1995. Disappointingly, most of these citations were vague, such as "Studies show...," or "Researchers have found..."

Independent Sources Increase

By far the biggest change in sources in 1997 was the increased use of independent scientific experts (most of whom were based at academic institutions) who replaced government officials for the #2 spot. Similar to 1995, reporters continued to turn to culinary professionals, such as chefs, and food producers more than any other group for quotes and information.

"The finding that reporters are increasingly quoting independent researchers in their food and nutrition stories is a really good sign," noted Sharon M. Friedman, M.A., Iacocca Professor and Director of the Science and Environmental Writing Program at Lehigh University. "Too often in the past journalists have relied on government officials for quotes, even when the officials were not directly involved in a study. Going to the most knowledgeable source, which frequently means an academic researcher, shows a more responsible effort by journalists." Interestingly, the media's increasing reliance on independent scientists did not stem from heavier coverage of scientific studies. On the contrary, reporting on new studies actually decreased in 1997 (as did coverage of food and nutrition news in general). Rather, the growing use of academic sources may reflect an attempt by media to report their stories with more scientific accuracy.

Food Safety Gives Fat A Fight For #1 Topic

In 1995 dietary fat was it, receiving nearly twice as much coverage as any other topic. In 1997, however, foodborne illness discussions shot up, while attention to fat significantly declined. Both food safety and dietary fat each accounted for about 10 percent of all discussions, representing a near doubling of the prominence of foodborne illness and a 50 percent reduction in the prominence of fat consumption in the news. Despite the decline, fat intake remained the leading nutrition topic in the news with 163 stories.

"Concern with dietary fat will never disappear because preoccupation with body fat is here to stay," said Delia Hammock, M.S., R.D., director of nutrition at the Good Housekeeping Institute, and nutrition editor of Good Housekeeping magazine. In addition, according to Hammock, the media got extra mileage out of the fat issue by pumping up the shock value. "Many people know—or at least think they know—a lot about fat already, so the media turned to exposé-type stories about fat in order to evoke a sense of surprise. Some showed consumers that fat-free isn't equal to calorie-free, while others revealed the startlingly high fat content of some seemingly healthful foods." What's more, Hammock said the backlash to the anti-fat movement provided a contrarian twist that gave the media yet another way to focus on fat-as a subject of controversy.

Functional Foods Find Their Niche, Fiber Makes A Comeback

Specific characteristics of food, or food attributes such as vitamin C content, calcium content or flavor, were mentioned in stories 60 percent more often in 1997 than in 1995. As a result, food news was made more consumer friendly by linking health advice to specific food items. Carolyn O'Neil, M.S., R.D., host of CNN's "On The Menu," explained that weaving nutrition advice into a food story is often more effective than just presenting a straight nutrition report. "Many people are burned out on research stories about what they shouldn't eat. Inserting nutrition information into general food stories is more entertaining for the audience, and also makes the information more meaningful to them."

Functional foods—those foods which are thought to provide health benefits beyond basic nutrition—in both years were frequently part of discussions about disease prevention. In fact, in terms of health benefit mentions, functional foods were referred to more frequently than any other single food attribute. Soy products, red wine, garlic and various plant compounds, for example, phytochemicals, were some of the functional foods identified most often.

The most popular food attributes mentioned in news stories follow directly from the most popular topics. So naturally, fat content of food was the most mentioned food attribute—both in 1995 and 1997. Believe it or not, the #2 attribute of this most recent study was fiber. According to Hammock, it is really not that surprising. "It's not a mystery why fiber is back and is being pushed into America's nutritional consciousness by the media. Fiber is familiar to both consumers and reporters, making it an easy topic to write about. Also, recently there were a number of news 'hooks' for fiber including books, new research and a new FDA-approved health claim," noted Hammock.

Following fiber in terms of frequency of mentions were carbohydrate content (which was practically nonexistent in the 1995 study), vitamins, minerals, protein and flavor. Calcium, calories and vitamin C round out the top 10 list. While there is no doubt that flavor is still of extreme importance to consumers, it is interesting to note that flavor was mentioned much less in 1997, falling from its #4 spot in 1995 to the #7 spot. O'Neil surmised that at least in the general broadcast media, this may be an indicator that there is less reporting on cuisine and more on health and nutrition-harder news topics. Nevertheless, she is positive about importance of cuisine stories in general. Said O'Neil, "Stories about how to get the best flavor from low-fat and healthful foods will always be a topic of interest to consumers. Reporting on food is not just about cholesterol, fat and sodium anymore—it's about breakfast, lunch and dinner."

The media research commissioned by the IFIC Foundation was conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-profit media research organization based in Washington, D.C., and appears in a report entitled, Food For Thought II. To purchase a copy of the full report, use the order form on Page 7. Single copies of the executive summary are free.