1 00:00:06,760 --> 00:00:12,400 JEREMY: Hello and welcome to another episode of Eat This podcast with me, Jeremy Cherfas. 2 00:00:15,240 --> 00:00:20,680 I've been reading a really interesting book called Real Food Real Facts, 3 00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:25,080 subtitled Processed Food and the Politics of Knowledge. 4 00:00:25,600 --> 00:00:30,280 It's by Charlotte Biltekoff, a professor at the University of California, 5 00:00:30,280 --> 00:00:36,760 Davis. Now, UC Davis is really big in industrial agriculture and food science. 6 00:00:37,040 --> 00:00:40,280 So you might expect the book to put that point of view. 7 00:00:40,640 --> 00:00:48,880 It doesn't, because Charlotte Biltekoff spends half her time in American Studies and half her time in Food Science and Technology. 8 00:00:49,280 --> 00:00:58,760 And her book is an effort to bridge the gap between what food science thinks of the American people and what American people think of food 9 00:00:58,920 --> 00:00:59,640 science. 10 00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:04,240 CHARLOTTE: I was really struggling to understand what was going on around me. 11 00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:10,640 Um, you know, in the sort of mid like, say around 20 14, 2015. 12 00:01:10,680 --> 00:01:16,120 I just felt that I was immersed in this really confusing landscape, where on the one hand, 13 00:01:16,160 --> 00:01:20,720 a lot of people I knew were concerned about processed food and trying to avoid processed food, 14 00:01:20,760 --> 00:01:22,880 preferring real or natural food. Right. 15 00:01:22,880 --> 00:01:26,040 That that was pretty normal in my milieu. 16 00:01:26,480 --> 00:01:35,120 And then in my other life, my work life and my sort of professional relationships in food science and in the food industry, 17 00:01:35,120 --> 00:01:42,320 I heard a lot of people saying that those views were misinformed and based in irrational fears. 18 00:01:42,680 --> 00:01:50,920 And ultimately, I decided that what I was really seeing was a contest between two different ways of thinking about the same thing: 19 00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:57,520 processed food. And that on the one hand, we had this, what I call the real food frame, 20 00:01:57,600 --> 00:02:03,160 which is an articulation of public concerns about what's in processed food, 21 00:02:03,160 --> 00:02:10,360 its effects on health, its relationship to the environment and overall sense that it's like a troubled product of a troubled food system. 22 00:02:10,400 --> 00:02:13,480 All of that comes together to make this real food frame. 23 00:02:14,040 --> 00:02:19,680 And then, on the other hand, we have this other completely different way of thinking about the problem, 24 00:02:19,960 --> 00:02:27,360 a point of view in which the problem isn't processed food itself, but consumers' misinformed ideas about it. 25 00:02:27,400 --> 00:02:34,440 Misperceptions, lack of scientific literacy, and an assumption that those can be corrected, 26 00:02:34,440 --> 00:02:37,080 right, with better education and facts and that kind of thing. 27 00:02:37,520 --> 00:02:40,000 So I call that the real facts frame. 28 00:02:40,160 --> 00:02:47,560 And so the book really tries to make sense of the sort of friction between these two very different ways of thinking about the same 29 00:02:47,560 --> 00:02:48,000 thing. 30 00:02:48,360 --> 00:02:55,440 JEREMY: You talk about a kind of a deficit model that the food industry thinks that the public has. 31 00:02:55,600 --> 00:03:01,280 Well, actually not just one, but lots of deficits and that's what's getting in the way. 32 00:03:02,200 --> 00:03:08,320 CHARLOTTE: Yeah. So looking at, you know, the food industry, communication with the public, 33 00:03:08,560 --> 00:03:16,680 and food industry communication with itself, food industry magazines and other ways in which the food industry 34 00:03:16,720 --> 00:03:26,360 talks to itself. I realized that there was this really pervasive assumption that public concerns about really food 35 00:03:26,360 --> 00:03:30,480 technologies and the food system at all -- but I focused on processing technologies, 36 00:03:30,480 --> 00:03:38,200 and processed food -- came from like, not understanding the science, not understanding the benefits of the 37 00:03:38,200 --> 00:03:41,680 science, not understanding what science is and does. 38 00:03:41,720 --> 00:03:45,485 And its, you know, beautiful imperfections. 39 00:03:45,485 --> 00:03:49,440 And being emotional. There's a lot of language about consumers use ... 40 00:03:49,520 --> 00:03:52,520 Being driven by emotions rather than being rational. 41 00:03:52,960 --> 00:04:02,880 This all of this just really echoes a long standing assumption among experts that skepticism or hesitancy around science and 42 00:04:02,880 --> 00:04:06,720 technology is driven by knowledge deficits or trust deficits. 43 00:04:06,920 --> 00:04:10,000 Social scientists have long argued that that's not the case. 44 00:04:10,880 --> 00:04:15,440 Not that we don't have deficits. Like, nobody understands all of this perfectly. 45 00:04:15,480 --> 00:04:19,600 Scientists themselves have plenty of knowledge deficits in their fields even, 46 00:04:19,600 --> 00:04:24,680 let alone others. But the argument here is that that's not what drives the ... 47 00:04:24,680 --> 00:04:32,760 That's not the main driver of any kind of like, you know, overarching skepticism or hesitancy around the uses of 48 00:04:32,760 --> 00:04:40,520 technology. So, yes, deficits exist, but no, they don't explain widespread public concerns about certain 49 00:04:40,520 --> 00:04:43,160 technologies, such as food processing. 50 00:04:43,560 --> 00:04:49,560 JEREMY: And addressing the deficits doesn't have any impact either. 51 00:04:49,960 --> 00:04:54,200 All that they do is tell us how safe it is and and the benefits. 52 00:04:54,440 --> 00:04:58,560 And people still don't trust them or want the products. 53 00:04:59,640 --> 00:05:02,800 CHARLOTTE: Right. It doesn't work because it misdiagnoses the problem. 54 00:05:02,800 --> 00:05:10,200 And in fact, I would argue that it leads to greater mistrust and alienation because it is such a misdiagnosis of the problem. 55 00:05:10,240 --> 00:05:12,840 Right. My argument really is that ... 56 00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:20,080 Also really building on long standing social science arguments about like public concerns about technology. 57 00:05:20,120 --> 00:05:28,680 A) they're not anti science and B) they're not based in deficits, but rather they're about big important questions like in the case of 58 00:05:28,680 --> 00:05:36,280 processing like to what ends like what are the aims and the purposes and the values that the kind of technologies we're developing and 59 00:05:36,280 --> 00:05:39,560 deploying serve. Those are big, important questions. 60 00:05:39,600 --> 00:05:44,040 Who gets to decide the kinds of questions we ask, the technologies we develop, 61 00:05:44,040 --> 00:05:49,080 and towards what end? Who gets to decide what's safe and who regulates? 62 00:05:49,080 --> 00:05:54,160 And it's about power dynamics, and it's about big questions about the aims and trajectory of the food system. 63 00:05:54,280 --> 00:06:01,040 But the the discourse, both among experts and in popular discourse, really focuses on this question of risk. 64 00:06:01,560 --> 00:06:05,720 You know, this assumption that, like, the public is just concerned about their own safety or their, you 65 00:06:05,720 --> 00:06:10,640 know, pocketbooks. A nd again, it's a misunderstanding of the public. 66 00:06:10,920 --> 00:06:13,320 And it just leads to more alienation. 67 00:06:13,720 --> 00:06:21,920 JEREMY: But now one of the interesting responses by the food industry was this Center for Food Integrity , 68 00:06:22,080 --> 00:06:28,360 and they kind of tried quite hard to change the nature of the discussion, 69 00:06:28,760 --> 00:06:32,080 saying that, "no, no, no, you know, you've got it all wrong. 70 00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:35,800 food industry, you need to be more transparent. 71 00:06:35,800 --> 00:06:37,880 You need to understand what people are ...". 72 00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:39,760 Did it have any impact? 73 00:06:41,400 --> 00:06:45,080 CHARLOTTE: Well, that's a good question. S o the Center for Food Integrity comes along, 74 00:06:45,080 --> 00:06:49,400 and they say this facts forward approach to communicating with the public is not working. 75 00:06:49,400 --> 00:06:51,400 We need a new approach. And here it is. 76 00:06:51,400 --> 00:06:59,280 H ere's our trust model. Trust depends more on, you know, a sense of confidence and shared values rather than on, 77 00:06:59,280 --> 00:07:05,920 you know, facts and expertise. So let's shift how we're doing this and connect through transparency and a sense of shared values. 78 00:07:07,200 --> 00:07:14,800 So what I learned from really looking carefully with the Center for Food Integrity is doing in terms of trying to retrain the food 79 00:07:14,800 --> 00:07:19,000 industry and how they're communicating with the public, is that it is a new approach, 80 00:07:19,040 --> 00:07:22,480 like it's values focused. They're bringing in multiple stakeholders. 81 00:07:22,480 --> 00:07:28,000 They're opening, you know, the conversation to include, you know, that values matter, 82 00:07:28,280 --> 00:07:31,800 that people ... a little more empathy, right, for where the public is coming from, 83 00:07:31,800 --> 00:07:36,440 rather than just dismissing them as a bunch of irrational, like, misguided, 84 00:07:36,480 --> 00:07:44,480 you know, ignorant publics. Right? But ultimately with the same kind of dynamics in terms of like, 85 00:07:44,480 --> 00:07:48,850 well, we know best, we've already decided what the outcome of our communication should be, 86 00:07:48,850 --> 00:07:52,890 which is that we need to convince you to accept these technologies so you can, 87 00:07:53,050 --> 00:07:56,730 can and will consume them. With that being the end point, you know. 88 00:07:56,770 --> 00:08:01,690 Yes, fiddling around with what the communication looks like and looking for trusted communicators, 89 00:08:01,690 --> 00:08:08,370 you see a lot of female scientists reassuring the public that they also care about sustainability in the environment, 90 00:08:08,410 --> 00:08:13,810 you know. So yeah, it looks and sounds different, but the endpoint is still predetermined. 91 00:08:13,970 --> 00:08:18,090 And behind it all is still the assumption that the public has some kind of deficit. 92 00:08:18,130 --> 00:08:23,930 There's a little bit of a different kind of deficit. It's like, yeah, their thinking is really shaped by like their relationships and 93 00:08:23,930 --> 00:08:26,410 their psychology and these social factors. 94 00:08:26,450 --> 00:08:30,370 So a little less dismissive, but it still is really deficit driven. 95 00:08:30,370 --> 00:08:33,450 And there's a lot of that real facts frame still in there. 96 00:08:34,090 --> 00:08:43,610 JEREMY: And the impression you get is still that, we determine what questions we're going to answer 97 00:08:43,970 --> 00:08:48,290 And we keep answering the questions we want to answer. 98 00:08:48,730 --> 00:08:53,650 The fact that you're not asking those questions becomes kind of lost in the mix somehow. 99 00:08:54,570 --> 00:08:59,130 CHARLOTTE: Oh, absolutely. I mean, in a way, you're describing the paradox of transparency, 100 00:08:59,130 --> 00:09:06,650 right? This idea that, you know, transparency is kind of now almost taken for granted as like how you need to communicate around these 101 00:09:06,650 --> 00:09:11,410 technologies. B ut transparency can only be paradoxical, right? 102 00:09:11,450 --> 00:09:16,970 It promises to reveal everything, but it can't possibly reveal everything , 103 00:09:16,970 --> 00:09:22,330 so it reveals something. And again, the communicators decide what's included within, 104 00:09:22,370 --> 00:09:25,650 you know, in the .. within the frame, so to speak, of transparency. 105 00:09:25,650 --> 00:09:31,890 A very narrow set of questions, like you said, leaves out all the big questions about the power dynamics that shape 106 00:09:31,890 --> 00:09:35,290 that conversation. And those are the ones that the book is really trying to point to. 107 00:09:35,730 --> 00:09:40,210 JEREMY: One of the one of the interesting distinctions you make in the book is between, 108 00:09:41,290 --> 00:09:48,010 trade lobbying groups who you kind of expect to put an industry point of view -- 109 00:09:48,050 --> 00:09:51,450 I mean, that's their purpose -- and front groups. 110 00:09:51,450 --> 00:10:00,530 And I think the Center for Food Integrity is a front group, which is essentially it looks like a disinterested 111 00:10:00,850 --> 00:10:04,330 party, but it isn't. Can you expand on that? 112 00:10:05,690 --> 00:10:15,370 CHARLOTTE: Yeah. So one of the the helpful ways of thinking about the difference between a trade association and what 113 00:10:15,370 --> 00:10:17,810 critics would call a front group is in the name. 114 00:10:17,810 --> 00:10:20,330 That's like a great way to think about it. Like they're ... 115 00:10:20,450 --> 00:10:24,410 The book looks at hundreds of trade associations. 116 00:10:24,450 --> 00:10:29,890 And so this would be something like the Corn Refiners Association or the Sugar Association. 117 00:10:29,930 --> 00:10:33,330 Dairy Foods Association. Frozen Foods Association, Snack Foods. 118 00:10:33,610 --> 00:10:39,730 They tell you what they are, and they tell you what they're about. But something like the Center for Food Integrity in the name. 119 00:10:39,770 --> 00:10:45,650 Right? It just, it's very ... It doesn't tell you anything about whose interests it serves. 120 00:10:46,050 --> 00:10:53,330 And in the case of the Center for Food Integrity, they explicitly state that they don't lobby on behalf of any 121 00:10:53,330 --> 00:11:02,090 particular food company, which is true because they're, in a sense, because their role is to represent interests across many 122 00:11:02,090 --> 00:11:04,010 different sectors of the food industry. 123 00:11:04,010 --> 00:11:11,770 When it comes to the question of communication with the public, the Center for Food Integrity is unique in that most of what they do 124 00:11:12,250 --> 00:11:20,730 is facing the food industry. So they have webinars and workshops and training sessions and conferences and reports, 125 00:11:20,730 --> 00:11:27,050 all of which are meant to help the industry better understand the the public and how to communicate with them. 126 00:11:27,050 --> 00:11:34,410 They develop, you know, seven -step transparency model and an engaged training system for literally how to have conversations with people 127 00:11:34,410 --> 00:11:41,610 about controversial topics. Right. They also have a have a public facing website. 128 00:11:41,610 --> 00:11:45,130 I believe it's called Best Food Facts and that is public facing. 129 00:11:45,130 --> 00:11:51,450 And it says, you know, we gather the best expert experts in the field to answer your questions about food and health, 130 00:11:51,450 --> 00:11:56,970 basically. And it does present as extremely neutral and science driven , 131 00:11:56,970 --> 00:12:04,250 which is how ... So largely how the food industry represents itself as science driven, 132 00:12:04,250 --> 00:12:14,050 evidence based, really deploying science as a sort of a way of claiming objectivity and neutrality in a 133 00:12:14,050 --> 00:12:16,170 situation where that's really not the case. 134 00:12:16,170 --> 00:12:19,810 They're not objective or neutral, they're using science in their own interests. 135 00:12:19,890 --> 00:12:29,210 JEREMY: But coming back to the real food thing, we've said that industry doesn't understand what is really driving the 136 00:12:29,210 --> 00:12:39,450 real food approach. It seems to be very much a question of anxiety and fear, 137 00:12:40,130 --> 00:12:44,250 and in some respects the real food people stoke that fear. 138 00:12:44,250 --> 00:12:51,370 So they, they are also working on emotions. 139 00:12:51,570 --> 00:12:59,370 They're working on people's deficit, if you like, of comfort with industrial food. 140 00:12:59,650 --> 00:13:01,730 There is a problem there, don't you think? 141 00:13:02,450 --> 00:13:07,090 CHARLOTTE: Certainly. I mean, real food as a frame. 142 00:13:07,170 --> 00:13:09,730 Similarly, the same is true for real ... 143 00:13:09,730 --> 00:13:11,290 the real facts frame the way I use it. 144 00:13:11,330 --> 00:13:13,890 It's extremely general and generalizing. 145 00:13:13,890 --> 00:13:19,050 And both of these things include a lot, a lot of variation, a lot of perspectives, 146 00:13:19,090 --> 00:13:22,650 voices, actions, behaviors. So it's a gross generalization. 147 00:13:22,930 --> 00:13:25,930 Very useful nonetheless, but important to acknowledge that. 148 00:13:26,330 --> 00:13:30,970 A nd so you're pointing to a piece of this, right, that is important to talk about. 149 00:13:31,010 --> 00:13:34,210 So yes, I think that's true. There's deficit thinking on both sides. 150 00:13:34,210 --> 00:13:38,370 There's a lot of, you know ... The whole concept of like lifting the veil. 151 00:13:38,370 --> 00:13:43,610 So, you know, if they only knew, you know, if people only knew where their food came from, 152 00:13:43,650 --> 00:13:49,330 they would be more responsible. They would make better choices. We could change the food system by voting with our forks. That's like the 153 00:13:49,330 --> 00:13:51,690 fundamental thing of the food movement, right? 154 00:13:51,730 --> 00:13:54,970 That is like a deficit model in a sense. 155 00:13:55,010 --> 00:13:55,490 Right? 156 00:13:55,530 --> 00:13:55,970 JEREMY: Yeah. 157 00:13:56,050 --> 00:14:05,890 CHARLOTTE: B ut it, you know, it's a deficit model in the interest of getting people to engage as active participants in shaping the 158 00:14:05,890 --> 00:14:11,250 food system. Very different from a deficit model on the real facts frame, 159 00:14:11,570 --> 00:14:20,850 being used in a purely commercial sense to prepare people to accept technologies and be passive consumers. 160 00:14:21,170 --> 00:14:27,170 That's what I'm trying to do for real food is to get past the yes, afraid of ingredients we can't pronounce. 161 00:14:27,170 --> 00:14:30,890 We've heard over and over again that that's what the public's really afraid of, right? 162 00:14:31,250 --> 00:14:38,450 Ingredients they can't pronounce. Great. So that that gets everybody engaged and teaching people not to be afraid of ingredients they can't 163 00:14:38,450 --> 00:14:42,290 pronounce. There's a hundred examples I can give you of people trying to do that. 164 00:14:42,770 --> 00:14:49,090 But I'm really trying to say, look, the reason why people are concerned about ingredients they can't 165 00:14:49,090 --> 00:14:56,690 pronounce, etc., when it comes to processed food, is because of a confluence of historical factors that change the way 166 00:14:56,690 --> 00:15:00,930 we think about good food starting in the early 21st century. 167 00:15:01,650 --> 00:15:08,050 We have, you know, a sociocultural way of thinking about, what the so-called obesity epidemic. 168 00:15:08,050 --> 00:15:14,570 We have a whole host of new environmental concerns and sustainability concerns related to food production. 169 00:15:14,570 --> 00:15:16,370 And a confluence of those two things. 170 00:15:16,610 --> 00:15:22,610 We have an explosion of technologies, lax regulation, increasing concern about risks from technologies. 171 00:15:22,770 --> 00:15:30,810 All of these things converge, and increasing awareness of how the food industry manipulates the informational environment by funding science, 172 00:15:30,810 --> 00:15:37,410 etc. All of these converge on the idea that the answer is to eat less processed food or avoid processed food. 173 00:15:37,450 --> 00:15:47,250 So it comes from these like really legitimate concerns about the food industry and the food system that all come together 174 00:15:47,690 --> 00:15:50,450 to say you should try not to eat processed food. 175 00:15:50,450 --> 00:15:54,570 And then, yes, in the grocery store, that can look like I'm not buying this because it has more than five 176 00:15:54,570 --> 00:15:59,330 ingredients. But taking a step back, zooming out, that's what I'm really trying to do. 177 00:15:59,690 --> 00:16:09,690 JEREMY: Yeah, I mean, the five ingredient thing is interesting as a diversion because all it really did along with unpronounceable ingredients is it 178 00:16:09,730 --> 00:16:13,010 kind of gave manufacturers a new target. 179 00:16:13,130 --> 00:16:15,090 Can we make this with four ingredients. 180 00:16:15,330 --> 00:16:21,570 Can we can we make those unpronounceable chemicals that we're putting in, 181 00:16:21,770 --> 00:16:28,450 can we make those pronounceable? I mean, it moves the goalposts, but the game remains the same. 182 00:16:29,210 --> 00:16:31,290 CHARLOTTE: Absolutely. It was very fascinating. 183 00:16:31,290 --> 00:16:35,290 One of the things that I did was read hundreds of articles in the food industry press, 184 00:16:35,650 --> 00:16:39,890 and that includes advertisements, the food industry, business to business advertising. 185 00:16:40,210 --> 00:16:47,770 And I just watched the whole, you know, opportunity explode, the opportunity right, 186 00:16:47,810 --> 00:16:51,410 being to to make these same products somehow. 187 00:16:51,450 --> 00:16:57,250 Right. Because the public still wants their food to taste good and have the right texture and be shelf stable, 188 00:16:57,570 --> 00:17:00,130 but also ingredients we can pronounce, right. 189 00:17:00,170 --> 00:17:07,850 So all these ingredients companies went into overdrive, coming up with new ingredients that that could have the same function 190 00:17:07,850 --> 00:17:10,010 but be called something different, right. 191 00:17:10,050 --> 00:17:14,210 So instead of modified food starch, now we have corn starch. 192 00:17:14,930 --> 00:17:17,410 And it sounds less modified, right? 193 00:17:17,450 --> 00:17:26,650 And so, but that ... You know, amplify that times a thousand like it was a boom in product development 194 00:17:27,050 --> 00:17:32,730 especially ingredient development to meet these supposed needs, you know. 195 00:17:32,770 --> 00:17:36,650 JEREMY: Mhm. Um, let's talk about natural. 196 00:17:37,010 --> 00:17:39,490 CHARLOTTE: Um, let's talk about natural. 197 00:17:42,930 --> 00:17:52,250 JEREMY: It's one of the crucial identifiers for quote, real food unquote is that it's natural, 198 00:17:52,290 --> 00:17:54,690 but that doesn't actually mean anything. 199 00:17:55,050 --> 00:18:00,490 And in the US, the FDA monitors these things. 200 00:18:00,530 --> 00:18:04,690 They had a big hearing to decide what natural meant. 201 00:18:05,370 --> 00:18:10,410 O n the one hand, look, natural means not tampered with. 202 00:18:10,410 --> 00:18:14,490 Natural means stuff you can do yourself if you like. 203 00:18:14,810 --> 00:18:18,250 So, A) what was the point of the hearing? 204 00:18:18,610 --> 00:18:22,570 And B), was there an outcome? What was the outcome? 205 00:18:23,890 --> 00:18:27,370 CHARLOTTE: Yeah. So natural, all natural claims are ... 206 00:18:27,730 --> 00:18:33,210 Became, in the wake of these changes and our ideas about good food, natural claims just became extremely lucrative, 207 00:18:33,210 --> 00:18:39,050 natural and all natural just was. It was a huge boom in in product development and marketing. 208 00:18:39,810 --> 00:18:49,410 But it was squishy. It was on unstable ground because the FDA didn't have a clear definition and didn't regulate the use of the term very 209 00:18:49,450 --> 00:18:59,210 strictly. And so there were a series of class action lawsuits accusing companies of labeling things natural when in 210 00:18:59,210 --> 00:19:04,690 fact their ingredients didn't comport with what the public would expect from something called natural. 211 00:19:05,050 --> 00:19:11,570 And so as a result of this, like the food industry actually started lobbying the FDA to to better regulate. 212 00:19:12,130 --> 00:19:20,970 Yeah. And the initial request, one of the initial petitions that set the whole thing in motion was from this big trade association called 213 00:19:21,010 --> 00:19:23,650 at the time, Grocery Manufacturers Association. 214 00:19:24,930 --> 00:19:32,370 And their petition asks the FDA to regulate natural in a way that it would include ingredients produced through biotechnology. 215 00:19:33,010 --> 00:19:37,730 That was what they wanted. The Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Report, 216 00:19:37,730 --> 00:19:43,850 which ... you know, also wrote a petition very much arguing for a more narrow definition of natural. 217 00:19:43,850 --> 00:19:50,370 So it was a result of all this that the FDA opened a public comment period in 2014 -15. 218 00:19:50,410 --> 00:19:54,850 They never did go to a hearing, but they did collect over 7000 comments, 219 00:19:54,850 --> 00:19:57,010 which I analyzed for that chapter of the book. 220 00:19:57,490 --> 00:20:02,650 A nd the arguments for what natural should mean were all over the place. 221 00:20:02,890 --> 00:20:09,050 In general, the industry was claiming that their ideas about what it should mean were evidence based and science based, 222 00:20:09,050 --> 00:20:12,890 but they were all over the map. Every argument you could imagine, you know, 223 00:20:12,890 --> 00:20:19,770 different companies were making so that the language would include their products because it was so lucrative. 224 00:20:19,770 --> 00:20:25,610 Right. A nd then you have the public and their representatives like Consumers Union, 225 00:20:25,610 --> 00:20:28,290 arguing for a much narrower definition. 226 00:20:28,330 --> 00:20:33,090 My sense from reading the comments was that the public really did want natural to mean something, 227 00:20:33,370 --> 00:20:38,770 to mean that the product was healthier, more responsible or sustainable, 228 00:20:39,290 --> 00:20:41,330 aligned with their values in some way. 229 00:20:41,890 --> 00:20:46,730 A nd so they wanted a narrow, stricter definition and regulation around that. 230 00:20:47,330 --> 00:20:54,370 And in the end, nothing changed. The FDA never ruled on it, never changed their regulation. 231 00:20:54,770 --> 00:20:58,730 Part of the result of all of that, including those early class action lawsuits, 232 00:20:58,730 --> 00:21:05,650 was less and less use of the actual terminology of natural, but all kinds of other ways of signaling natural. 233 00:21:05,650 --> 00:21:08,930 Like we talked about the short ingredients list, the words you can pronounce, 234 00:21:08,930 --> 00:21:14,410 the various kinds of like, you know, imagery or packaging that suggests that something is simpler or 235 00:21:14,410 --> 00:21:18,090 natural. It's called, we call that clean label, right? 236 00:21:18,130 --> 00:21:21,930 It doesn't use the language of natural. It doesn't have to have to, to convey the same thing. 237 00:21:22,170 --> 00:21:31,570 JEREMY: It's very intriguing, really, that there's a sort of equivalence in both directions on almost all of these things. 238 00:21:31,570 --> 00:21:37,290 So, for example, the people talk about the public mistrust of science. 239 00:21:37,450 --> 00:21:41,530 You could equally well talk about the scientists' mistrust of the public. 240 00:21:41,570 --> 00:21:45,770 I mean, they just don't want to know what the public is really concerned about. 241 00:21:46,090 --> 00:21:56,050 Do you see any chance of a rapprochement between the public that wants real food and food industry companies 242 00:21:56,050 --> 00:21:58,650 that want sales from a willing public? 243 00:22:05,890 --> 00:22:13,410 CHARLOTTE: Um, well, I mean, I do think that this is 244 00:22:13,450 --> 00:22:21,500 a, you know, a long standing and ongoing source of tension and friction that has, 245 00:22:21,540 --> 00:22:26,380 like you said, at the heart of it, a double misunderstanding, right? 246 00:22:26,620 --> 00:22:33,340 W e know well about the public's supposed misunderstanding of science and of the industry. 247 00:22:33,340 --> 00:22:39,140 This is a major obsession, right, of experts who are trying to improve science communication. 248 00:22:39,700 --> 00:22:47,100 B ut so much less attention and discussion about the ways in which experts misunderstand the public. 249 00:22:47,300 --> 00:22:54,460 So I hope that the book helps these, you know, helps these two different frames, 250 00:22:54,460 --> 00:22:59,980 these people who are immersed in them, so immersed in them that the other one just seems completely foreign. 251 00:23:00,220 --> 00:23:05,180 I do hope to have at least helped these two groups better understand each other. 252 00:23:05,380 --> 00:23:15,060 And that is an opening of, you know, possibly an opening of some movement towards more 253 00:23:15,060 --> 00:23:19,660 collaboration and less misunderstanding in terms of ... 254 00:23:19,820 --> 00:23:25,140 Like this is an urgent moment, clearly, right, in terms of how we ... 255 00:23:25,380 --> 00:23:30,380 what, you know, really what kind of food system do we want for the future? 256 00:23:31,100 --> 00:23:34,860 What kind of questions should we be asking about the food system? 257 00:23:34,900 --> 00:23:43,580 Who, whose questions matter? What kind of questions matter, and what kind of expertise is considered relevant to the question of 258 00:23:43,580 --> 00:23:45,460 what the future of food should be like? 259 00:23:45,460 --> 00:23:52,060 These are urgent matters, right? And I hope to have, like, really shed light on how important those issues are. 260 00:23:52,100 --> 00:24:00,300 Like, let's maybe step back from this "should I or shouldn't I eat processed food?" question for a minute and look at all these ... 261 00:24:00,460 --> 00:24:05,740 That's kind of what the book is trying to say, is that we need to zoom out to these larger questions, 262 00:24:05,740 --> 00:24:10,620 and I hope by doing that, I've contributed a little bit to some movement in the right direction. 263 00:24:10,980 --> 00:24:16,580 JEREMY: You know, I have a long memory for this stuff and yeah, way back in the early 80s, 264 00:24:19,620 --> 00:24:28,940 exactly the same dynamic played out with respect to GMOs, genetically manipulated organisms in the food system. 265 00:24:29,300 --> 00:24:33,420 And again, anti-GMO was all about risk. 266 00:24:33,580 --> 00:24:36,940 Pro-GMO was all about: there is no risk to human health. 267 00:24:38,060 --> 00:24:42,340 Europe has sort of maintained an opposition to GMOs. 268 00:24:42,340 --> 00:24:47,620 I don't know how long that's still going to last, but it has maintained it because of the larger questions. 269 00:24:47,740 --> 00:24:52,660 But America seems to me to have kind of rolled over and given up. 270 00:24:53,340 --> 00:24:53,780 CHARLOTTE: Mhm. 271 00:24:54,180 --> 00:24:56,380 JEREMY: Yes. There are pockets of resistance. 272 00:24:56,380 --> 00:25:02,900 Organic is a pocket. But basically, the industry ... 273 00:25:03,900 --> 00:25:05,540 I mean, I hate to put it in these terms. 274 00:25:05,580 --> 00:25:11,060 Basically the industry won on the question of genetic engineering. 275 00:25:13,860 --> 00:25:18,260 Maybe it'll win on the question of processed and industrial food. 276 00:25:18,980 --> 00:25:23,220 CHARLOTTE: Yes. Yes. Maybe. I hear what you're saying. 277 00:25:23,260 --> 00:25:28,380 The issues are in many ways mirrors of each other. 278 00:25:29,060 --> 00:25:35,820 A lot of what I've worked out in relationship to processed food applies and builds on scholarship that tried to understand what was 279 00:25:35,820 --> 00:25:45,260 going on with GMOs. Y ou know, there's a real sea change happening right now in the in the conversation about processed food in the US, 280 00:25:45,300 --> 00:25:49,860 and I think elsewhere, because we now have this language of ultra processed food, 281 00:25:50,340 --> 00:25:54,580 UPF, which was designed with this exact intent in mind. 282 00:25:54,620 --> 00:26:02,980 Like the Brazilian public health researchers who came up with the NOVA classification gave us the language of ultra processed food because 283 00:26:02,980 --> 00:26:12,900 they wanted to enable researchers to investigate the impact of ultra processing and a high percentage of ultra processed foods in our diets 284 00:26:13,060 --> 00:26:18,940 on public health. A nd researchers are picking up that tool and using it. 285 00:26:19,220 --> 00:26:23,180 And the the results are quite convincing that there's something going on there. 286 00:26:23,180 --> 00:26:33,100 Right? A nd so there is some momentum in the direction of being able to establish some 287 00:26:33,100 --> 00:26:39,780 negative health impacts, in particular of ultra processed foods, that could take this in a different direction. 288 00:26:40,180 --> 00:26:46,740 JEREMY: Yeah. And I think that's the big difference between this debate and the GMO debate, 289 00:26:46,740 --> 00:26:50,900 is that I still haven't seen anything on human health. 290 00:26:50,900 --> 00:26:55,780 I haven't seen anything to suggest that GMOs pose a particular problem. 291 00:26:56,500 --> 00:26:58,820 Right. Whereas on on UPFs ... 292 00:26:58,860 --> 00:27:08,740 CHARLOTTE: Yeah, exactly. And our regulatory agencies are only set up to respond to questions of risks to human 293 00:27:08,740 --> 00:27:17,060 health. A nd as you know, one of the big differences in the European and the US context is that the European framework is one of 294 00:27:17,100 --> 00:27:20,780 precautionary principle. You know, it has to be proven safe. 295 00:27:20,780 --> 00:27:24,420 Things have to be proven safe. Whereas in the US we work on a proof of harm model. 296 00:27:24,580 --> 00:27:29,260 It's much more generous towards industry because you have to prove harm, 297 00:27:29,260 --> 00:27:32,500 which is much harder to do, in order to regulate. 298 00:27:32,620 --> 00:27:38,900 S o, very different systems. And I do think that that, you know, they've really shaped the trajectory of GMOs. 299 00:27:39,580 --> 00:27:42,500 But we'll see what happens with UPFs. 300 00:27:43,340 --> 00:27:49,620 JEREMY: Charlotte Biltekoff. Her book, Real Food, Real Facts: Processed Food and the Politics of Knowledge, 301 00:27:49,860 --> 00:27:55,060 is published by the University of California Press, and you can download it online. 302 00:27:55,300 --> 00:27:59,340 I'll put a link in the show notes at EatThisPodcast.com. 303 00:28:00,940 --> 00:28:05,500 I hope you enjoyed our chat and if you did, please spread the word. 304 00:28:06,020 --> 00:28:07,940 And I'd love to know what you think. 305 00:28:08,220 --> 00:28:12,980 Is the food industry ever going to acknowledge the public's real concerns? 306 00:28:13,420 --> 00:28:19,340 And for that matter, are people ever going to take food industry reassurances at face value? 307 00:28:19,700 --> 00:28:22,940 Drop a line to Jeremy @ eat this podcast.com. 308 00:28:27,140 --> 00:28:34,780 And you may have noticed, depending on how you listen, you may have noticed that there's a transcript available along with 309 00:28:34,780 --> 00:28:39,980 the audio. And that's in addition to the more written one you can download from the site. 310 00:28:40,380 --> 00:28:45,260 And both are thanks to the good people who donate to the show and Eat This Podcast. 311 00:28:48,220 --> 00:28:50,780 It's a really simple business model. 312 00:28:50,820 --> 00:28:54,380 Some people pay so that everyone has access. 313 00:28:54,740 --> 00:28:57,300 I hope you'll join them if you can. 314 00:28:57,660 --> 00:29:03,900 For now though, from me, Jeremy Cherfas and Eat This Podcast, goodbye and thanks for listening.