[Insight & Opinion] Bogus Food Information Fuels Consumer Anxiety

Consumers sitting at the most abundant and lavish tables in history are trembling with anxiety because they cannot trust the safety of food. Processed foods laden with harmful additives or mechanically prepared fast food are simply unbelievable. Even neatly packaged fresh foods cause discomfort. This is because consumers are thoroughly excluded from the production and distribution of food, and the government, media, corporations, and experts have lost the trust of consumers.

Consumers suffering from poor-quality food and food-related rumors cannot be blamed. Corrupt food companies that abandon ethics for short-term profit and experts who emphasize dubious “science” mobilized to paralyze consumers’ rationality must be corrected from yellow journalism. Now, consumers worry about carbohydrate “addiction” like a drug and feel compelled to seek “zero” desserts. Many consumers believe carcinogens are scarier than pufferfish poison.

The claim that consumers should be allowed to “feel safe” rather than blindly shouting “safety” is an empty phrase. No one has found a practical way to reassure consumers. The only thing available in the noisy market where politicians and high-ranking officials shout “it’s safe to eat” are embarrassing tasting events.

False food information that even a cow would laugh at must be clearly organized. Claims that “certain foods or ingredients are good for the body” are inevitably absurd. The claim that our bodies still remain in the Paleolithic era is not a proper conclusion of evolutionary theory. Consumers cannot be reassured by scientifically and ethically unreliable bogus academic papers. We must not forget the timeless common sense that the effects of food do not appear the same for everyone.

The “Sikyakdongwon (食藥同原)” claim shouted by some experts is an illegal assertion violating the “Food Labeling and Advertising Act.” A food company that claimed yogurt was a special remedy for COVID-19 was found guilty. In fact, revealing the medical efficacy of food is not within the realm of food science. The effects or side effects of coffee should not be misunderstood as food science. Moreover, under our current laws, “food” intended for nutritional supply and “medicine” used for disease prevention and treatment are clearly distinguished. Even internet advertisements emphasizing the medical efficacy of local specialty agricultural products are subject to regulation.

The “health functional food” system, which confuses consumers at the boundary between food and medicine, also needs to be drastically revised. The claim that unreliable, shoddy academic papers provide scientific evidence to reassure consumers is inevitably an overreach. The “Food Code,” which defines sun-dried salt and bamboo salt as traditional salts and even regulates soy sauce manufacturing methods, must also be revised. The “Food Additive Code,” which distinguished between “chemical additives” and “natural additives” and worsened consumers’ perception of food additives, should be treated similarly.

There is no special trick to make consumers “feel safe.” The starting point is to clearly organize bogus food information in food science. Corrupt food companies that enthusiastically engage in noise and fear marketing must be decisively eliminated, and unqualified charlatans who spread forced rumors and incite yellow journalism must be boldly dealt with. This means that healthy food science with solid expertise is the core of risk communication.

Deokhwan Lee, Professor Emeritus, Sogang University