In these times, when advances in science and technology have generally allowed us to live better and longer lives, scientific dissemination has become part of what we read and hear about scientific discoveries.
Regarding food, we have discussed here the mutable nature of this knowledge: although it is produced under the scientific method, the partitioning of knowledge and the way it originates leave many blind spots, and what was once considered good to eat for certain beneficial properties may today be seen as the worst food.
Last week, two news items were announced regarding the dangers of specific foods. The first warned about the danger of grilling, toasting, or frying foods, because these processes produce a substance called acrylamide, which is a carcinogen. Then came the news that the FDA confirmed chicken meat contains arsenic, also considered carcinogenic. If we add last year's WHO warning about the carcinogenic agents in red meats and processed meats, we have a scenario where we are bombarded with warnings about the dangers of consuming certain foods. Faced with this news, it is almost normal for anyone to be alarmed by what they are eating, even to the extreme of considering a diet of raw vegetables, no charred sauces, no toasted cereals, no red meat or chicken. Will this diet meet all nutritional requirements, as well as provide pleasure, social satisfaction, and accessibility? Everything depends on context.
Science and technology have permeated daily life, as scientific dissemination is a task that requires clarity and assertiveness in the messages communicated. From the previous news, we retain, then, that chicken, red meat, toasting, frying, and grilling cause cancer. But scientific discoveries do not work so simply. For example, there are methods that establish causal relationships: a substance is the unique and direct cause of a condition. Other studies establish associative relationships, meaning that while a substance is not established as the direct cause of something, it is associated with a specific consequence. In addition to these scientific designs, there is a whole differentiation in the type of dose, the type of experimental design, how exposure to a substance is studied, how the effect can be modified if combined with other substances, and even the dose at which it is determined to be harmful or not.
Scientific research is valuable, as is the role of the FDA or WHO in warning of potential risks and spreading the message. However, the relativity of how the message is transmitted must be considered. The WHO has an entire coding system that denotes risks in different ways, although it aims to be understandable to the population. The problem is that, often, messages are simplified and warn of dangers that do not affect everyone in the same way. Furthermore, the complexity of food is that we do not only consume substances from meat, chicken, or those derived from culinary processes. We eat that chicken in mole, with a salad, with soup. Considering how all these elements interact is complex. Beyond all these considerations, we must remember that in the art of communication and scientific dissemination, variables studied by social psychology come into play. It has been shown that one of the invariable characteristics of eating is producing a certain anxiety about “putting” a foreign substance into our bodies. Whereas in the past anxiety came from the edibility of a certain herb, today that anxiety is caused by all those unidentified substances that could make us sick.
— This article was originally published in Spanish by Liliana Martínez Lomelí. Translation generated with AI from the original text.