Food and nutrition make for compelling reading. The public's appetite for stories about it is almost insatiable while not a week goes by without a food study grabbing media headlines.

How emerging science is reported has a powerful influence on the public's understanding, behaviour and well-being. Although the scientific world welcomes the increased reporting on food-related issues, high media coverage has not brought the improved understanding about food that one might expect. Confusion prevails and science, instead of being portrayed as evolutionary, is often depicted as revolutionary by the media. Presenting the latest study as the ultimate truth, upending all previous scientific findings, could be misleading.

Based on the premise that it is possible to communicate food-related science effectively, The Harvard School of Public Health and the International Food Information Council Foundation (IFIC) developed a set of guiding principles entitled Improving Public Understanding: Guidelines for Communicating Emerging Science on Nutrition, Food Safety and Health. Developed and recommended by an advisory board of more than sixty experts, the guidelines strike a balance between improving consumers' understanding and satisfying communicators' objectives. As nutritional and food safety information is vulnerable to misinterpretation, the objective of the guidelines is to help communicators identify key questions that distinguish which specific answers will best inform the public. A member of the advisory board, Harvey V. Fineberg, Provost of Harvard University and former Dean of the School of Public Health says, "...these guidelines can help communicators focus on the most vital information the public should have in order to from the most useful net impression of a particular study's findings". The multi-tier guidelines target five principal communication groups - general guidelines for all parties and more specific ones for scientists, journal editors, journalists, consumer and other interest groups.

Expressed as questions rather than imperative statements, the wording of the guidelines encourage self-inquiry and suggest measures of effective and responsible communication. One pertinent question related to the communication of food-related studies is whether single studies should be communicated to the general public. The information is often preliminary and not conclusive, consequently it does not always warrant a change in public policy or behaviour. Nonetheless, when given additional context and background, the average consumer can then judge a single report on its own merits.

The guidelines suggest how to provide this context. They outline the necessary data, disclosure and contextual qualifiers to help the public evaluate a study's relevance and importance. Ultimately, publishing a finding based on sound science should raise public awareness on key nutrition, health and food safety issues. These guidelines are now in place to facilitate this.

EUFIC fully subscribes to them and encourages others who are involved in communicating information on food safety and nutrition to consider adopting them.

General Guidelines for the Communications Process

• Will your communication enhance public understanding of diet and health?
• Have you put the study findings into context?
• Have the study or findings been peer-reviewed?
• Have you disclosed the important facts about the study?
• Have you disclosed all key information about the study's funding?
• Have you publicly disclosed all funding sources for the study?

Scientists

• Have you provided essential background information about the study in your written findings, or to journalists or others requesting it, in a language that can be understood?.
• Have you clarified dietary risks and benefits?
• Have you met the needs of the media?

Journal Editors

• Does your embargo policy enhance public communication?
• Do you encourage responsible media reporting on study findings?
• Have you considered the effect of the study findings on consumers?
• Does your submission policy permit scientists to clarify results of abstract presentations with the media?

Journalists

• Is your story accurate and balanced?
• Have you applied a healthy scepticism in your reporting?
• Does your story provide practical consumer advice?
• Is your reporting grounded in basic understanding of scientific principles?

Industry, Consumer and Other Interest Groups

• Have you provided accurate information and feedback to the media?
• Do you adhere to ethical standards in providing diet and health information?

J. National Cancer Institute, Feb. 4, 1998, Volume 90, Number 3; 194-99

FOOD TODAY 12/1998