I recently read a new report on consumer’s attitudes about food technologies.  The report was done by the Food Standards Agency (an independent UK Government department aiming to protect the public’s health and consumer interests in relation to food).

“Overall, the public was found to be wary, uneasy and uncertain about emerging food technologies. Having said
this, emerging food technologies tend not to be top-of-mind concerns”

I’m not all that surprised, but it set me to thinking about our attitudes toward “new” in food and how it’s changed since the 50s and 60s.
Over at Texas Locavore, I saw a video of a new short film on slow food:  “Slowing Down” by Adrian Tapia

The film blames our fascination with new technology as a big part of the reason we got so far away from “slow food” and became that infamous fast-food nation.But if we were so anxious to try everything new “back when’; from microwaves to Mel-mac dinnerware (remember when plastic was “cool”?) what’s changed?  I think there are several reasons:

• “New” is no longer new; technology is advancing so rapidly that we are being overrun with ‘new’ every day.  Perhaps we are feeling out of control?
• Trust; I suspect that those making food purchase decisions in the 50s and 60s had a much greater trust level in government and the media than consumers do now.
• Balance: Personally, I think we’ve gotten out of balance with consuming in many ways.  There is increasing nostalgia for simpler times and new technologies don’t fit in with that.
• Emotional Arguments: In our web-enabled age, consumers are bombarded with information and emotional arguments against technologies (often with slanted science) abound.  The report found that emotion was a primary driver in opinions about food technologies.

All of this begs the question which prompted the report in the first place:  Should consumer opinion shape government policy on food technology?

1. Rebecca T. of HonestMeat Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 10:53am

   Considering we are a democratic nation, it is the citizens, a.k.a. consumers, that should dictate how our government runs. If our citizens are poorly informed, ignorant, etc. that is because they have chosen to let their government dumb down the education system and chosen to let corporations determine just how informed we are. For example, we let our last president bankrupt our country for war instead of investing in education.
   Also, when our government agencies such as the FDA (that are supposed to protect us and that are supposed to make well-informed, scientifically-based decisions)approve drugs that then turn out to be dangerous and deadly, our citizens rightfully step back and say, “hmm, I don’t know if I can trust their decision-making abilities. I will have to do my own investigating or I might have to refrain from using newer drugs (technologies) that don’t have a long history of scientific review.” So we go back to things that we do know, that have been around for millenia, things like whole foods, natural healing methods, etc.



2. Sara Says:
   April 3rd, 2009 at 9:05pm

   Those are really good points, Rebecca. Especially about the public’s erosion of trust in the FDA’s science-based decision making abilities. It sounds to me like you are in favor of scientifically-based decisions, though, just not sure the FDA has made good ones. Am I correct?

   If not the FDA, who can we trust? I get so much inaccurate information through the web, e-mails, etc., sometimes from people that are garnering a huge following (like Dr. Mercola), and many of who have their own very mercenary motivations.

   Where to turn?