Food Protection Trends - September/October 2024 - 355

I just don't think there was enough information and that
could just be due to the fact that they said that more information
needs to be gathered before even a solid conclusion
could be made. So, that's probably part of it. But I just think
that there wasn't enough detail on what the possible negative
side effects could've been in order for me to honestly
really care.
To counter uncertainty, Participant 6-2 suggested that
another approach to information was needed:
I think the amount of information that we would need to
be given would need to be like factual but also scary enough
for people to be like, oh, dang. Like, I shouldn't be doing this
because Americans and society just don't really care about
small things like this in my opinion.
Participant 6-4 was less influenced by the information
presented in the video and relied more on personal observation
and experience to address the uncertainty, saying simply,
" I definitely don't think it will change my consumption, and
that is only because I haven't seen like harmful effects on my
own body. So, it is honestly not hurting me that much. "
Motives
When asked about their confidence in the agencies
providing the information, participants were often supportive
of the FDA. For example, participant 3-4 said, " I don't know
enough about the process that the FDA goes through to
verify things, and maybe that is naïve of me. But my general
instinct would be to trust it because I can't do the research
myself. " In contrast, participant 5-1 expressed greater trust in
the European Union:
As simple answer as it could be is I would probably trust
the EU a little more than I would trust our own government
just based of where the money would be coming from
[company names mentioned]. All these guys are all American
funded companies or yeah, American based companies. So,
that's probably where their research is coming from if it's
FDA backed.
Participant 4-2 had similar confidence in the European Union:
I feel like at least in safety trends the European Union has
historically tended to be 3 or 4 years ahead of the United
States, and so I am at least a little concerned. I don't know if it is
concerned enough to stop eating [candy], but I am concerned.
Clearly, some respondents found the information provided
not only insufficient but also questionable.
Although trusting, some respondents also emphasized the
need for consumers to remain diligent in seeking additional
content before making their decisions. Participant 6-4
emphasized the active role consumers need to play in making
decisions about the foods they consume:
I kind of put the same stock in all studies from all of the
governing bodies that are over food and drugs. ... It is not
that I don't trust them [the EU], or I don't believe them, but
I don't just like blindly believe them as well. I do the same
thing with the FDA.
Participant 6-4 shared similar sentiments:
So, it just depends, but I trust them. I mean I think that they
are a government agency, and they are responsible for making
sure that people in Europe are safe, so they have credible people
that are doing these things, but that doesn't mean that, as I
think someone said, we should blindly trust them. You know,
you should do some more work before you make a decision.
Although some participants expressed a combination of
trust and personal responsibility, others emphasized the bias
mentioned in participant 5-1's comparison between agencies
in more vivid detail.
The objectivity of those within the agencies making policies
about titanium dioxide were questioned by some study participants.
Participant 1-5, for example, questioned the motives of
those who are sounding the alarm about titanium dioxide:
To me, it's why are you putting out this information. What
is your bias in this? What's your stake in this and then too,
what are you basing the research on. ... I don't know and I just
don't trust anybody with a Ph.D. behind their name. It seems
credible, but I need more information about the person too.
What do they study? Where are they currently researching
at? What is their sort of bias too?
Participant 2-4 also expressed reservations about the bias
of the agencies making decisions about the safety of titanium
dioxide:
But some of it-just kind of thinking outside the box-I
think some of that is cultural in terms of Europe banning
something and America not. I just think that those officials
look at European's banning stuff and they just automatically
have this kind of bias perception of " Oh, great. Something
else they banned and didn't fully research. "
These concerns over bias were accompanied by further
suspicion of motives.
In addition to questions of bias, some participants also
emphasized the likelihood that participating agencies and the
company mentioned in the lawsuit had a hidden agenda of
some sort. For instance, participant 1-3 questioned the " true "
role of titanium dioxide in food:
So, when I heard it, I was like, " Oh. There must be an
addictive characteristic beyond sugar, " which is one of the
most addictive things in the world. But I said, " Oh. This must
enhance or help kind of becoming addicted to it. " That's why
we're keeping it, so people will buy more of it.
Participant 1-3 was suspicious that monetary gain might
have played a role in decision making by agencies:
There has to be an instance, or a reason, or multiple reasons
I would hope that a large government body would ban a
certain product for. Signs of hospitalization or something that
definitely maybe hopefully biologists, and chemists, and all of
these things got together like, we should probably bring this up
because maybe it's for monetary gain.
Participant 5-3 had similar concerns asking, " Well, why
did they not approve it there and approve it here? Is it being
more business instead of health safety, that type of thing? "
September/October Food Protection Trends 355
Food Protection Trends - September/October 2024

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - September/October 2024
