Food news—it’s everywhere. It’s in an article in the newspaper as you ride the train to work, it comes as advice from a magazine at the supermarket checkout, or it’s in a quick news flash as you doze in front of the evening news just before bedtime.
Not surprisingly, consumers repeatedly cite the news media as the primary source of nutrition and food safety information. In fact, a 1999 study by Princeton Research Associates for Rodale Press found that health news was the number one topic that consumers follow very closely, more so than local events/people news, sports news, national events/people, or business or consumer news. However, the same survey found that half of all adults say that nutrition news and news about vitamins and supplements are two of the most confusing news topics, more so than health news about cancer, heart disease, depression, or diabetes.
With this backdrop, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation commissioned its third biannual analysis of food news, Food for Thought III. To provide a sense of the typical food news consumers digest, the study examined the nutrition, diet, and food safety news issued by print, broadcast, and on-line media in May, June, and July 1999. The sample of media included a cross section of national and local daily newspapers, network and local television news, newswire services, and monthly magazines. These traditional media outlets were also supplemented by four news media websites in acknowledgment of the growing popularity of online news for consumers.
The results of this new 1999 Food for Thought III research can be compared directly with those of two earlier Food for Thought studies completed in 1997 and 1995. All three studies are based on quantitative and qualitative content analyses, conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs on behalf of the IFIC Foundation. Each study provides a snapshot of food news, yet the results enable food and health professionals to see general themes and trends in news reporting and understand how to better communicate with journalists about food and health science issues.
The findings of the 1999 study show changes over the past four years; however, the background, major themes, and patterns remain fairly consistent.
Food is Big News
A staggering 1,260 nutrition, health, and food safety stories were printed and aired during the three months in 1999. This represents a 53 percent growth compared with the 1997 study and 31 percent over the 1995 benchmark study. Although some of the increase was attributed to better sample collection, it reflects a significant increase in coverage and confirmation of the public appetite for food news.
Food as Friend, Not Foe
In a marked departure from the two preceding studies, the latest Food for Thought III analysis revealed a shift in the overall media portrayal of food as friend rather than foe. Twenty nine percent of all coverage focused on general wellness and the health boosting aspects of food the role of food in disease prevention, foods’ functional components such as the antioxidants, vitamins and minerals, and fiber in foods.
The topic of functional foods made up a large part of the disease risk reduction discussions, with certain food components’ ability to reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease, and other medical conditions winning specific praise. These discussions produced stories that tended to extol the benefits associated with foods instead of claims of the harms associated with consuming too much or too little of a food. In fact, in the 1999 study the number of stories with claims of benefits clearly outweighed the number with claims of harms (57 versus 43 percent respectively), whereas in the earlier studies the number of stories with claims of harms outweighed benefits (55 versus 45 percent respectively). Despite a surprising consistency in the list of benefits and harms, for the first time stories focused less on the possible negative consequences associated with foods. Instead, stories tended to herald the carrot of health benefit without including the stick warning of harm to those who failed to follow the advice. IFIC Foundation president Sylvia Rowe commented, Consumers tell us that they respond best to positive reinforcement rather than negative messages. I am encouraged that the shift in reporting wellness and health promotion may elicit a very positive response in terms of public understanding, and perhaps even behavior change over time.
What’s in a Food
With the portrayal of food as a friend and not a foe, came an increased tendency of the media to mention the specific nutrients and other attributes (e.g., vitamins, fat, fiber, minerals, calcium, flavor, protein, calories, carbohydrates) that characterize a food. The 1999 Food for Thought mentioned almost 2,000 attributes whereas the 1997 study mentioned approximately 1,500 attributes and the 1995 study mentioned just less than 1,000. Identifying specific attributes helped food news become more consumer friendly by turning abstract concepts, such as functional food components for wellness and disease risk reduction, into specific shopping lists.
Other News
Food safety and food-borne illness made up a 7 percent share of all coverage. Although prominent in the three months analyzed, this placed it as the number two topic following disease prevention, a drop from the number one topic in 1997, when it was the topic of 10 percent of discussions about food. Brand new to the list of top discussions and in third place was the subject of food biotechnology. During the months studied by the IFIC Foundation in 1999, however, U.S. media reporting on food biotechnology was still very general and rarely mentioned a specific food or what traits had been improved with the technology.
Doctors Speak up:
A review of the sources quoted in food news revealed a significant rise in the number of independent scientific researchers and experts. Food producers, including trade associations and chefs, were the second most quoted group, followed by governmental sources, environmental and consumer groups, and medical sources. According to Dr. Sharon Friedman, Iacocca professor and director of the Science and Environment Writing Program of Lehigh University, the media’s increased use of scientific and medical experts as sources adds to the credibility of the articles they produce. This good practice bodes well for better public knowledge about food and nutrition as long as reporters include at least several sources in the story to provide various viewpoints.”
Missing Information
One consistent yet troubling finding across all three Food for Thought studies was the relative absence of some contextual details. Advice offered by news stories rarely specified how much, how often, or to whom advice applied. When discussing a potential benefit or harm of food, only one in five stories mentioned the frequency of consumption (how often), and only one in eight included the amount consumed (how much) or a particular risk/benefit group.
Many media stories failed to link the food news to specific scientific research but relied on the vague, uninformative phrase studies show. However, when media reported on emerging nutrition, food safety, and health research, their accounts did include some key details (e.g., method of exposure, dosage levels, basic research design, and use of a control group), even if other details (e.g., statistical significance or causal associations) were omitted. Including contextual information about food and nutrition research provides important information for readers and viewers to use to evaluate the significance of the findings themselves, Dr. Friedman said. That the media are including some key details is a step in the right direction, but they need to do it more often, she concluded.
The Food for Thought research series clearly documents that food is news. The public appetite for food and health news has not diminished over the past five years and continues to prompt media outlets to devote considerable space and attention to food and health news and information. Rowe concluded, We hope the findings may help food and health professionals recognize that they may need to prioritize or emphasize certain details with journalists in order for context to be included for consumers.
