PDF Version A Journalist’s Road Map: Tips for Reporting on Food Safety, Nutrition & Health
Journalists are often faced with the challenge to write stories that are balanced, credible, and consumer friendly. To complicate matters even more, the landscape is cluttered not only with complex research studies, but also with significant differences of opinion within the scientific community. Putting new science-based reports into perspective and explaining the implications are far from easy tasks. Scientists may reach different conclusions from the same or similar data, and special interest groups may interpret study results in conflicting ways. It’s the job of the reporter to filter through the varying conclusions and approach the story in such a way that consumers get it—i.e., that they can figure out how a given study relates to their lives. It may not be an easy job to communicate all that, but someone’s got to do it!
One tried and not very true method for including all the disparate scientific viewpoints is to resort to the old “He said, she said” approach (also known as the “two-handed” approach—“on the one hand, while on the other …”) An example might be (fictitious, though not without some solid basis in recent experience):
“Scientists from Kathmandu State University report that eating a diet rich in kumquats can aid in weight management by increasing a person’s sense of satiety; however, University of Nepal obesity expert Dr. Roland Poly argues that the Kathmandu research involved too limited a sample size and an inappropriate animal model (he points out that only one weasel was actually fed kumquats in the study).”
In the cited example, readers/viewers are left to wonder what, if anything, is the point of the research, is it truly valid, and most importantly, does it have any implications for their own behavior.
At least one journalist organization, the Foundation for American Communications (FACS), is critical of the “he said, she said” approach, and International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation consumer research supports the finding that consumers are confused and agitated by news reports that either contradict each other or, worse, contradict themselves (by including, as equally valid, research assertions and refutations.) It’s not that science needs to speak with one voice, but that the scientific issues have to be made understandable and in a way that makes it clear to consumers what changes, if any, they should make in their dietary or lifestyle habits.
To explain a new study properly, reporters should ideally understand the basics of scientific research, such as study design and methodology. They need to be able to determine a study’s relative importance and meaning, and to pose to their expert sources the most significant questions about a study's findings in order to present each study in an interesting, understandable, and meaningful manner for consumers.
So how can journalists write stories that best help consumers make sense of it all?
To facilitate responsible scientific reporting here are some questions and tips to consider that may help put science-based food studies into perspective and effectively communicate nutrition and food safety information to consumers.
Tips for Navigating a Winding Road
Have you applied a healthy skepticism in your reporting?
- In talking to sources and reading news releases, it’s a good idea to challenge assumptions and be hard on the reasoning of scientists, being especially sensitive to distinguishing fact-based arguments from emotional arguments.
- Ask yourself: are the study findings reasonable on their face or do they look weird?
- Consider the effect of the study conclusions on consumer confusion – does it really help consumers to understand the science, when research conclusions seem to refute themselves from week to week; maybe it’s better not to communicate perpetual contradictions!
Does your story provide practical consumer advice?
- The most important thing here is to translate the findings into everyday consumer advice – use the language of everyday consumers rather than the jargon of the scientists.
- Is there an answer to the question, “so what?” in your story; in other words, try putting the research findings into actionable context for consumers (e.g., telling them what they’re supposed to do or change, if anything, based on the research conclusions).
- Provide credible national, state, or local resources where consumers can obtain more information or assistance on the diet and health topic.
Consider this: Putting risk into terms the average consumer understands can be tricky indeed. For example, an overemphasis on the risk of foodborne illness from, say, seafood, may result in consumers’ avoidance of seafood altogether—when in fact, the health risk of avoiding seafood may be far greater than the risk from the foodborne pathogen in the first place. Or, another example: overestimating the health risk of ingesting trans fat could conceivably lead consumers to choose foods with greater quantities of saturated fat and the result could easily be a less healthful (i.e., even riskier) diet.
Are you utilizing a variety of expert sources?
- Most issues aren’t a matter of all or nothing—using an expert on one side of the argument and another on the opposite side is intrinsically misleading; but quoting several experts would convey a sense both of the nuances of the issue and the fairness of the reporting.
- Speaking to several experts with a similar background will help ensure that the study in question is seen from more than one point-of-view.
How much do you rely on using the Internet as a primary resource?
- Learn as much as you can about an organization before relying on its Web information as credible. For example,
- Look at the mission of the organization—does it sound responsible? Reasonable? Logical?
- Look at the affiliations and/or partners of the organization—have you heard of them? Are they reputable?
- Read some of the material on the Web site—are there verifiable references to sources or links to statements, documents, authorities, etc. supporting the material?
- Be skeptical of extravagant claims, especially about health and disease.
- While the Internet can be a one-stop shop for information, make sure the Web content being utilized is up-to-date (or at least dated) and that it references facts (research, journals, recognized health or scientific authorities, etc.), as opposed to claims or arguments, to back-up assertions.
A Tough Job, but Someone’s Got to Do it
Journalists given the task of communicating science to consumers have received both an honor and a burden from their editors. The honor is in being entrusted to impart to consumers an ever more important, more needed, more appreciated body of knowledge about health. The burden is that news cycles have become unrelenting—a 24/7 demand for information—that traditional resources, time, and staff, are being relentlessly reduced—and that the body of scientific research is ever growing, both in size and complexity.
Nonetheless, consumers are counting on the accuracy and usefulness of the information, even as they have access to a seemingly unending stream of it.
For further guidance and tips on reporting the often complex health research that seems to emerge daily, check out Improving Public Understanding: Guidelines for Communicating Emerging Science on Nutrition, Food Safety, and Health—for Journalists, Scientists, and Other Communicators. (http://www.ific.org/publications/brochures/guidelinesbroch.cfm) and How to Understand and Interpret Food and Health-Related Scientific Studies (http://www.ific.org/publications/reviews/scientificir.cfm)
Originally printed in the 2007-2009 IFIC Foundation Media Guide on Food Safety and Nutrition
