As states entertain GMO labeling requirements and the USDA considers environmental impact in its nutrition guidance, food marketers are increasingly finding the complexity of supply chains intruding on their branding efforts.

Complicating matters is that while food and beverage production is a highly sophisticated process rooted in science, by and large U.S. consumers are not that science-literate. In fact, a recent study by Pew Research Center found that there are wide gaps in understanding between the public and scientists on many issues, including GMO foods.

Pew surveyed 2,200 U.S. citizens and a representative sample of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Of the issues explored in the Pew study, the widest margin of disagreement was in regard to the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food. Nearly 90 percent of scientists believe GMO foods are safe to eat, but only 37 percent of consumers believe that to be true.

Interestingly, consumers are largely passing judgment on an issue they know little about. In a survey of U.S. consumers conducted in 2013 by Rutgers University, more than half (54 percent) said they know very little or nothing at all about genetically modified foods, and 25 percent said they have never heard of them.

Don’t Complicate Complexity

Speaking at the Conscious Consumer Conference presented by Gibbs-rbb strategic communications, Dr. Puvan Selvanathan, head of food and agriculture at the UN Global Compact, said that presenting complex issues in a complicated manner is the wrong approach.

“It is unreasonable and irresponsible to pass the necessity of understanding [food production] complexity onto consumers,” he explained at the Feb. 26 event in New York City. “If I needed to understand the inner workings of an internal combustion engine, wire harnesses and jet propulsion in order to take a flight that would be a problem for me,” said Dr. Selvanathan. Similarly, consumers don’t need to understand the entire food production process to make confident decisions.

Instead, Selvanathan said that brands need to work harder on building trust with consumers, but not by adding to their product labels. “Presenting consumers with a myriad of labels and expecting them to understand what they mean and which labels are not present in order to be assured a product is safe is an unreasonable position,” he said. He urged companies to go back to the basics of brand communications and tell the benefit story in simple terms.

Let Women Tell the Story

Ambassador Kenneth M. Quinn, president of the World Food Prize Foundation, joined Dr. Selvanathan in the panel discussion. He noted that women are more trusted spokespeople when it comes to food issues and encouraged companies to support programs that encourage young women to pursue science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and careers. STEM training for the next generation is something the Pew study suggests is sorely needed. Just 16 percent of AAAS scientists and 29 percent of the general public ranked U.S. K-12 STEM education as above average or the best in the world.

Ambassador Quinn said he worries that consumers are slowly moving away from accepting science as the validating principle when it comes to food production issues. However, he believes the two greatest unifying issues for people of all backgrounds is the production of healthful foods and elimination of hunger. He sees this as a possible opportunity for brands to leverage their collective contributions and address these twin challenges in order to build trust.

In the end, there are no short-term fixes to building trust and understanding around complex food production issues, but what’s clear is that getting mired in the science will not help improve either.