Food may be about identity, but journalism around food should not be. My Agricultural Communications degree required me to take journalism classes. This was pounded into our head: journalism is not about bias; a journalist’s job is to report all angles. This likely won’t surprise you, but I was reprimanded more than once for inserting opinion into a piece. “Where are the ethics in journalism?” is a question I frequently ask while looking at today’s media.

There are few better examples of media-led food fads than eggs. A couple decades ago it was how eggs were bad for you because of cholesterol. There were even cholesterol-free bananas, which carried a premium price. Now it’s about housing for chickens.

Mainstream media coverage of the cage-free movement paints happy chickens pecking at the ground. Animal rights organizations, such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) or Mercy for Animals (MFA), are often used as the source rather than farmers working with the chickens every day. These animal rights organizations, which should be called out by media for their multi-million dollar budgets and spin campaigns, are often quoted, while there is little or no mention of the practical science involved in animal care. Part of that blame is on farmers who want to avoid the media, but celebrity food journalists aren’t keen on practical perspective instead of sensationalized claims.

Being mislead by media bias or celebrities doesn’t seem like the best way to make food and nutrition choices to me. Does it to you?

Subjective truth is sexier than science

Media bias is a significant concern today, as summarized by former L.A. Times reporter Alisa Valdes “As one who worked in the belly of the mainstream media beast for nearly a decade, let me explain this phenomenon clearly. For those who make editorial decisions in America’s newsrooms, truth is entirely subjective.” Valdes points to a finding from the nonpartisan organization Reporters Without Borders a few years ago. “Our nation, which has long held ‘freedom of the press’ to be among our many important liberties, currently ranks 47th in the world for true freedom of the press. With nearly every news outlet owned by just six multinational conglomerates, our editorial content is increasingly controlled (CENSORED) by advertising dollars and internal corporate conflicts of interest.” Shenoted that in a world where Niger and Estonia rank higher than the United States in press freedoms, we might be smart to ask ourselves the following questions upon reading any news story at all: If this weren’t true, who would suffer? If it were true, who stands to benefit?

Consider these questions when it comes to reporting around farm animals. If the claims made by media and animal rights organizations aren’t true, it is the animals who suffer, along with the farmers and ranchers tending to them – and the food buyers spending more on food. If the claims are true, the coffers of HSUS stand to benefit.

Don’t be fooled by anything less than valid science. It’s not as sexy, sensational, or emotional as many of the diet claims out there, but science is reliable. As the Center for Food Integrity explains, science should be objective. Science is data driven, repeatable, measurable, and specific.

Dianne Mccomb, has experienced variety of housing options for chickens and has thousands of laying hens in her care, summed it up. “The media goes where the story is and not for the regular day-to-day reality. The great improvements in agriculture are not news. We are fortunate in eggs that the cholesterol story has been proven false and eggs are affordable protein. This whole move to free run housing of hens will increase the cost to consumers. Food buyers won’t get it until they see the price of their eggs rise. That is the cost and the average Walmart family will only be able to purchase eggs less and less.”  Science does support a variety of housing options for chickens, see www.sustainableeggcoaliton.org. Both consumers and farmers deserve that choice, rather than being mislead.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of issues surrounding the food in our grocery store. Between animal welfare, health and nutrition – it’s downright overwhelming.  We are on a dangerous path that devalues science and overvalues opinion. 

Don’t fall prey to fear tactics around your food. Look to those with firsthand expertise – the people raising your food, like Dianne – if you want to fully understand what claims really mean. The same is true with nutrition claims – rely on a dietitian instead of a food diva, Dr. Google or a journalist without dietetic training.

In short, keep the junk journalism at bay by considering all angles, ask questions and seek out those with expertise. That’s honest food.