EUFIC Communication Lab #2 on emulsifiers: 9 recommendations for clearer communication

Last Updated : 08 September 2026

In May 2026, EUFIC held its Communication Lab #2 on emulsifiers, a closed, expert-led workshop bringing together ten specialists from across the EU Food Safety System. The aim: to co-create practical, usable recommendations for everyone who communicates about food emulsifiers, from journalists and science communicators to public authorities, scientific institutions, learned societies and industry associations.

Unlike a traditional panel discussion, the workshop's format focused on turning real, concrete communication obstacles into actionable guidelines, while keeping deliberate science reductionism, media sensationalism and industry defensiveness in check.

See the full report.

Why a Communication Lab on emulsifiers?

Emulsifiers, a broad group of food additives used to keep ingredients like oil and water blended together, have become a recurring subject of media and social media attention. Coverage often swings between reassurance and alarm, leaving journalists, healthcare professionals and the public with a confusing picture.

This second lab built directly on EUFIC's Communication Lab #1 on emulsifiers, held in November 2025, which combined consumer perception data with industrial and safety expertise. That first session pointed to three recurring issues: people often confuse ‘processed’ with ‘toxic’, there is a trust gap around industry-funded safety data, and journalists struggle to translate toxicology and epidemiology findings into clear headlines.

Since then, new scientific publications have added further layers to the debate. These include animal studies linking specific emulsifiers, such as carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), polysorbate 80 and carrageenan, to changes in gut barrier function, as well as small, early human randomised controlled trials (RCTs) suggesting possible benefits of reducing emulsifier intake for people living with Crohn's disease (see references in the full report). Communication Lab #2 set out to translate this fast-moving evidence base into guidelines that communicators can actually use.

The expert group included representatives from academia, emulsifier manufacturers, user industries, independent research bodies and science communicators. No active journalists or patients were able to join. To keep the discussion grounded in their realities, the methodology built in ‘persona cards’ representing these missing voices, so the group could test its ideas against simulated media and patient reactions throughout the process.

About the Communication Lab: a co-creation methodology

The workshop followed four steps:

• Collective reflection. Participants revisited the key findings from Communication Lab #1 alongside recent, high-profile publications on emulsifiers and gut health, setting a shared, up-to-date starting point for the discussion.
• Simulating missing voices. Working in two balanced breakout groups, participants each took on two of five persona cards, including ‘the sensationalist journalist’, ‘the busy editor’, ‘the confused parent’, ‘the medical nutrition patient’ or ‘the Crohn's patient’.
• Identification of obstacles and solutions. For each persona, groups first identified a concrete obstacle before drafting a matching guideline, ensuring every recommendation solved a problem the experts had defined themselves.
• Prioritisation. In a final plenary session, all obstacle-guideline pairs were reviewed for consistency, then narrowed down through dot-voting to the recommendations judged most likely to change communication practice and improve public understanding.

Generating practice-fit recommendations to support communicators in addressing emulsifiers

Rather than adding more expert opinion to an already crowded conversation, Communication Lab #2 on emulsifiers set out to turn the everyday obstacles facing media and communication professionals into workable guidelines.

Participants discussed communicators’ practical pressures behind emulsifier coverage: tight deadlines, limited time and resources to verify claims, the pull of clickable, sensational headlines over nuanced, weighed science reporting, etc.

These pressures also combine with two deeper challenges raised repeatedly throughout the workshop: public scepticism towards the food industry, and a wider lack of scientific literacy in how media outlets interpret and convey evolving research.

Working from these real-world constraints, experts across academia, industry and science communication co-created and refined a set of 9 practice-fit guidelines addressing each obstacle in turn.

9 recommendations to communication professionals when addressing emulsifiers

1. Always communicate the weight of the new evidence. Preliminary or exploratory findings, particularly from cell or animal studies, are often reported as if they were definitive. Clearly state what a piece of evidence can and cannot show, using existing weight-of-evidence infographics and simple explanations of study design to help prevent extrapolation (see Young, 2026). For journalists, editors and science communicators.
2. Provide as much scientific context as possible. Reducing emulsifiers to a ‘safe versus harmful’ story overlooks exposure levels, the size and severity of observed effects, the uncertainties built into any study design, and the statistical strength of results. Where possible, include this context alongside any claim about health effects. For journalists and science communicators.
3. Acknowledge converging evidence across different study designs. When cellular, animal and human research start to point in the same direction, such as findings on CMC, polysorbate 80 and carrageenan and gut health, communicate that progression transparently, alongside the type of study, its design and its limitations, rather than either overstating a single new finding or dismissing an established one. For journalists, science communicators, public authorities, learned societies and industry associations.
4. Help improve access to reputable, reliable resources. Journalists and healthcare professionals often lack a quick way to check the state of the evidence. Shared, open resources, such as expert directories, myth-busting fact sheets, FAQs and bibliographic databases with clearly cited sources, can fill that gap. For media organisations, public authorities, regulators, scientific institutions, learned societies and industry associations.
5. Help build and maintain trusted expert networks. Scientific inaccuracies can creep in when complex evidence is interpreted without independent expert input. Encourage peer review of technical content and facilitate collaboration between journalists and scientists before publication. For journalists, editors, media organisations and scientific institutions.
6. Use visuals to explain the EU regulatory process for emulsifiers. Many consumers are unfamiliar with where emulsifiers come from and how thoroughly they are assessed before approval. Visual analogies and infographics can help explain the diversity of emulsifier sources and functions, and how EU food additive evaluations work, including the fact that safety assessments are updated as new evidence emerges and re-evaluated at least every 10 years. For public authorities, science communicators, scientific institutions and learned societies.
7. Put the NOVA classification in context and challenge the ‘naturalness’ bias. Media coverage often treats NOVA 4 as a direct health warning, overlooking the nutritional quality and functional role of many emulsifier-containing foods. At the same time, ingredients seen as ‘natural’ are often assumed safe regardless of the evidence, while those seen as ‘chemical’ are assumed harmful. When reporting on NOVA-based research, distinguish processing category from nutritional and safety profile, give concrete counter-examples, such as wholegrain staples, plant-based alternatives and medical nutrition, and avoid using ‘ultra-processed’ as a shorthand for ‘harmful’. For journalists, editors, science communicators, public authorities, consumer organisations and learned societies.
8. Tailor tools, content and tone to today's media environment. Findings from dietary exposure studies are often too technical or too long for short-form content and strict word counts. Concise glossaries, infographics, illustrated graphs and interactive data visualisation tools can help convey complex emulsifier science accurately within these constraints. For science communicators, regulators, industry associations and media organisations.
9. Increase transparency across all stakeholders in the EU Food Safety System. Across the sector, stakeholders are often perceived as having competing agendas, which fuels mistrust. Promote transparent declarations of interest, open Q&A opportunities, editorial frameworks that make room for expert input while limiting perceptions of bias, and clear channels for responding to contested claims. For industry and sector organisations, learned societies, scientific institutions and public authorities.

The full Communication Lab #2 on emulsifiers report sets out each recommendation in detail, alongside the obstacles it responds to and its intended audience.
If you need us to illustrate these recommendations through examples of content, please contact us to organize a walkthrough with you and your teams