This piece is part of the weekly series “Growing Forward: Insights for Building Better Food and Agriculture Systems,” presented by the Global Food Institute at the George Washington University and the nonprofit organization Food Tank. Each installment highlights forward-thinking strategies to address today’s food and agriculture related challenges with innovative solutions. To view more pieces in the series, click here.
For my doctoral research, I studied how graphic cigarette warning labels effectively convey health risks. The premise behind these warnings is deeply rooted in cognitive psychology and behavioral marketing—an understanding that humans are fundamentally poor at conceptualizing abstract dangers or anticipating the long-term impacts of their actions without concrete visual cues. This cognitive limitation applies just as strongly to our food system today.
Close your eyes and imagine grocery stores where produce costs triple, with a sparse selection and visible insect damage. This isn’t dystopian fiction—it’s a likely future if we turn away from the technologies that misinformation campaigns routinely demonize. While people readily fear ingredients in conventional foods after seeing alarming social media posts, they rarely visualize what abandoning modern agricultural practices would actually mean. The consequences would hit lower-income populations hardest, forcing even more difficult choices between malnutrition and unaffordable food.
The current wave of food anxiety stems, in large part, from a misunderstanding of hazard versus risk. A substance can be hazardous at high doses but pose minimal risk at typical exposure levels. Yet social media influencers often highlight studies where ingredients caused harm in animals—at doses hundreds or thousands of times higher than any human would consume. You’ve seen the social media posts? A person frantically running around a grocery store, reading the ingredient lists, and throwing around words like “toxic,” “artificial,” “cancer-causing,” etc.—the reality is, unless you are a rat being exposed to a football field worth of aspartame, you probably needn’t worry about artificial sweetener causing cancer in adults. In that same vein, a 2019 IFIC survey found that 20 percent of U.S. consumers avoid certain produce due to pesticide concerns, even though residues are far below safety thresholds—pushing people to pricier organic alternatives, despite the fact that organic produce is grown with pesticides, too!
The irony is that many practices under attack actually reduce environmental and health risks. Take genetically modified organisms: A meta-analysis of 147 studies found that GMO adoption has reduced pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent, and improved farmer profits by 68 percent. Without modern pesticides, global crop losses would be staggering: an estimated 78 percent for fruits, 54 percent for vegetables, and 32 percent for cereals. These figures represent millions who can currently afford healthy food—thanks to technologies we risk abandoning.
Our nostalgia for a simpler food era glosses over key facts. Raw milk is romanticized for its natural quality, yet it’s 150 times more likely to cause foodborne illness than pasteurized milk, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pasteurization has virtually eliminated diseases like brucellosis from milk—a major public health victory. Similarly, while not perfect, industrial-scale farming enables us to feed a global population that has more than doubled since 1960, using less land per calorie produced.
Food processing isn’t inherently harmful; it enables nutrient fortification, longer shelf life, and greater food safety. For example, iodized salt has nearly eliminated goiter in the United States, and fortified cereals play a key role in reducing nutrient deficiencies. Even food dyes, which serve no nutritional function, influence how we experience food at a neurological level—affecting our perception of freshness and ultimately reducing food waste.
The binary of natural equals good and processed equals bad oversimplifies a complex food landscape. As my research on risk perception shows, people gravitate toward simple narratives—but food safety, sustainability, and nutrition require nuance. We can champion local and organic options while also acknowledging the essential role of conventional, technology-driven agriculture in feeding the world.
The U.S. has one of the safest food supplies in human history, supported by extensive regulatory oversight. Still, the growing tide of food misinformation is becoming a public health risk of its own—discouraging fruit and vegetable consumption, undermining trust in food safety systems, and inflating grocery costs.
We need a new approach to food communication—one that makes the costs of misinformation visible. Just as graphic warnings help smokers grasp the realities of tobacco use, we need visual, accessible tools that show what’s at stake when we reject evidence-based agricultural advances.
This could include developing standardized risk communication frameworks that clearly distinguish between hazard (a substance’s inherent ability to cause harm) and risk (the actual likelihood of harm at typical exposure levels). We also need more transparent labeling systems that provide context rather than just ingredient lists—helping consumers understand the function, safety testing, and benefits of food technologies alongside potential concerns.
Broader public educational campaigns could visualize the trade-offs involved: for example, showing side-by-side comparisons of food availability, affordability, and safety with and without modern agricultural practices. If we want people to make informed food choices, we must help them see not just the scary-sounding ingredients—but also the benefits those ingredients make possible.
Photo courtesy of Markus Spiske, Unsplash
