Food Labelling as Science Communication (Health and Nutrition) - Insights from Science and Technology Studies.

By Thanasis Stathopoulos

Science Communication and STS studies (Science - Technology - Society)

Massimiano Bucchi (Ph.D. Social and Political Science, European University Institute, 1997) is Full Professor of Sociology of Science and Communication, Science and Technology at the University of Trento, teaching at the School of Innovation.  By July 2019 he made a conference article contribution to the EFSA Journal, called “Facing the challenges of science communication 2.0: quality, credibility and expertise”. In this contribution, he attempts to depict historical transformations of the field of Science Communication, and pinpoints the following descriptions in regard: “The theme of credibility and reliability of information is obviously central for science communication and public understanding of science. However, some themes deserve more attention in this context. We live in a communication environment that is radically different from the past, and nevertheless we paradoxically continue to invoke traditional forms of certifying the trustworthiness of information. In the age of ‘science communication 1.0’, if we wish to call it that, the reputation of the source or journal brand was enough to reassure us (for good or for ill) of the credibility of content. ‘I read it in the newspaper; it was on TV news’, were expressions often used to close a discussion. Nowadays, such guarantees seem no longer viable…..The quality of public communication of science is even more than in the past highly dependent on the quality of research produced and published in specialised contexts. In the context that I have described elsewhere as a ‘crisis of mediators’, new research is increasingly pushed in real time into the public domain without being ‘filtered’, as was the case in the past decades, by professional mediators and popularisers. This inevitably connects science communication at large with trends causing major concerns in the world of research policy and academic publishing: a significant rise in the number of retracted papers (an estimated 1,000% in the last 10 years, rising from 30 cases in 2002 to more than 600 only in Medline, 2016); the emergence of ‘predatory journals’ available to publish any content regardless of its quality; and lack of and failure in replicating studies and experiments…Today, with scientists publicly debating in real time through their Twitter accounts and blogs and users being able to access new research in real time, science communication (as well as the distinction between experts and non-experts) has never been so fluid and porous. This opens new opportunities for scientists’ visibility, as well as risks of pushing rushed conclusions and even fraudulent content into the public discussion. But, it also paves the way for a new circularity, opening the scientific debate to the input and scrutiny of quasi-experts, amateurs, citizen scientists and eventually foreshadowing a new role of former mediators, e.g. investigative science journalism. Historically, discussion on science communication largely started in the post-war decades as the scrutiny of the quality of science journalism and popularisation; one could provocatively ask if contemporary discussion on science communication could foster a ‘scrutiny of the quality of science communication at large’, including that produced by the specialists. For scholars in our field, this also implies rethinking the very meaning of key terms like ‘quality’ and ‘accuracy’. Accuracy of science communication was traditionally defined as adherence to the specialist message, but is this still the case? We probably need a new notion of accuracy; we certainly need a broader notion of quality, encompassing not only accuracy but openness to scrutiny and dialogue, independence and fairness” (Bucchi, 2019).

But let’s delve into the field of Science Communication in a more explanatory and guiding manner, especially through STS perspectives offered in literature, concerning all topics of institutional or other, science communication applications.

Scholars Burns, O’ Connor and Stocklmayer have published an article in the “Public Understanding of Science” Journal in 2003, in which they initially define Science Communication as: “the use of appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue to produce one or more of the following personal responses to science (the AEIOU vowel analogy): Awareness, Enjoyment, Interest, Opinion-forming, and Understanding. The definition provides an outcomes type view of science communication, and provides the foundations for further research and evaluation.”  In their article, though, they claim that there has to be gained some consensus with regard to the involved terms. Some “foundational terms” as they name them, have to be mentioned and their meaning has to be agreed upon. In this sense, they enumerate the following (Burns et al, 2003):

1. The public (Burns et al, 2003):

• Scientists: in industry, the academic community and government.
• Mediators: communicators (including science communicators, journalists and other members of the media), educators, and opinion-makers.
• Decision-makers: policy makers in government, and scientific and learned institutions.
• General public: the three groups above, plus other sectors and interest groups. For example, school children and charity workers.
• Attentive public: the part of the general community already interested in (and reasonably well-informed about) science and scientific activities.
• Interested public: is composed of people who are interested in but not necessarily well informed about science and technology.

 While they add that two other terms that are also commonly used, are: 

• The “lay public” identifies people, including other scientists, who are non-expert in a particular field.
• The “science community” or “science practitioners” are people who are directly involved in some aspect of the practice of science.

2. Participants (Burns et al, 2003): 

Participants are those members of the public who are directly or indirectly involved in science communication. 

3. Outcomes and responses (Burns et al, 2003):

There is always at least one outcome for every reaction, and outcomes may be defined as the outcome of some action. The definition of response is "action, feeling, movement, change”, etc., elicited by stimulus or influence. Outcomes that are useful for evaluation or research are typically limited to measurable, fairly short-term, and, in some sense, quantifiable results. Utilizing qualitative techniques, a deeper knowledge of scientific communication may be provided. 

4. Science (Burns et al, 2003): 

Concerning science, Burns, O’ Connor and Stocklmayer provide terminologies that were proposed by The Panel on Public Affairs of the American Physical Society, even though –as they claim- some describe as pure science: “Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.”The precise definition of science has been greatly debated in the literature; in most cases, the term "science" has assumed a much "broader contemporary meaning than just "pure science", either expressly or implicitly. The majority of justifications for scientific literacy and the majority of evaluations of its degree at least mention components of technology and medicine. Science is understood to encompass "pure science" (as described above), mathematics, statistics, engineering, technology, medicine, and allied subjects when used in the context of scientific communication.  

5. Awareness (Burns et al, 2003):

The quality of people’s relationship to science as being “conscious, not ignorant” 

6. Understanding (Burns et al, 2003):

Authors make an important remark here that Understanding is not a binary condition, rather, it is a growing awareness of the consequences of some information, an action, or a process based on pertinent generally accepted principles. The proper generally recognized principles for scientific understanding would include the theories, laws, and methods of science that are mentioned in the science section, together with an awareness of their implications. 

7. Communication (Burns et al, 2003): 

The process of scientific communication is not well captured by simple linear models (transmission of information from sender to receiver via a medium) or diffusion models (disperse the knowledge broadly and let it soak in). More modern models have been more effective in addressing the intricacies of communication since they take into their consideration the contextual and social negotiation of meaning. A definition is suggested by Schirato and Yell (1997) based on this viewpoint. They state clearly that communication is "... the practice of producing and negotiating meanings, a practice which always takes place under specific social, cultural, and political conditions." 

8. Public Awareness of Science (PAS) (Burns et al, 2003):

Public awareness of science (PAS) is defined as a collection of favorable attitudes toward science (and technology), as shown by a number of abilities and behavioral intentions. A confidence to investigate its implications will be infused by the abilities to access scientific and technical information and a sense of ownership of such knowledge. This will eventually result in a grasp of important concepts and how they were developed, as well as an assessment of the state of knowledge in the fields of science and technology and their relevance to daily life on a personal, societal, and economic level. The main focus of PAS is attitudes toward science. It is possible to view PAS as a requirement—indeed, as an essential element—of PUS and scientific literacy. 

9. Public Understanding of Science (PUS) (Burns et al, 2003):

As mentioned by Burns, O’ Connor and Stocklmayer, the basic definition of the public's understanding of science according to the House of Lords' "Science and Society" report is the "understanding of scientific matters by non-experts." Of course, this cannot imply a thorough understanding of all scientific disciplines. However, it could also involve comprehension of the nature of scientific procedures as well as knowledge of recent scientific developments and their ramifications. Authors mention that in order to effectively sum up the public's understanding of science, Millar offered three components of a scientific understanding: 1. Understanding of science content, or substantive scientific knowledge (known as content). 2. Understanding of the methods of enquiry (so-called process). 3. Understanding of science as a social enterprise. (Awareness of the impact of science on individuals and society; an extensive dimension summarized by the label of social factors).      

10. Scientific Literacy (SL) (Burns et al, 2003):

Over time, the definition of scientific literacy has evolved a little, focusing more on comprehending and applying scientific ideas to daily life as opposed to simply being able to read and comprehend articles about science. In this sense, authors mention that in 1975, Shen proposed three broad categories. 

1. Practical scientific literacy is scientific knowledge that can be applied to help solve practical problems. (Maienschein et al. called this science literacy.)
2. Civic scientific literacy enables a citizen “. . . to become more aware of science and science-related issues so that he and his representatives would not shy away from bringing their common sense to bear upon such issues and thus participate more fully in the democratic processes of an increasingly technological society.”
3. Cultural scientific literacy, is an appreciation of science as a major human achievement,”. . . arguably the greatest achievement of our culture.”

While they complement that this thesis served as the foundation for Miller's proposal that civic scientific literacy (category 2 above) "... should be viewed as involving three connected dimensions: 

• a vocabulary of basic scientific constructs sufficient to read competing news stories in a newspaper or magazine (content)
• an understanding of the process or nature of scientific inquiry (process)
• some level of understanding of the impact of science and technology on individuals and on society.” (social factors)

Burns et al add that according to Hacking, Goodrum, and Rennie's (see below), scientific literacy is more generally defined in terms of associated contexts, abilities, and "ways of thinking" and behaving. The concept that science education in the mandatory years of schooling should be centered on fostering scientific literacy is fundamental to the ideal vision. All citizens should place a high priority on developing their scientific literacy because it enables them to be curious about and understand the world around them, participate in discourses about science, be skeptical of claims made about science by others, be able to identify questions, conduct investigations, and draw conclusions based on the available data, and make informed decisions about the environment as well as their own health and well-being.

Authors try to support this choice of definition in the sense that it emphasizes how crucial it is for modern society to have universally high levels of scientific literacy, even though this is now a "ideal" that cannot be achieved in practice.

11. Scientific Culture (SC) (Burns et al, 2003):

 Scientific culture is discussed by authors in the exact following terms: 

• Scientific culture may be considered as the set of “. . . values, and ethos, practices, methods and attitudes based on universalism, logical reasoning, organized skepticism and tentativeness of empirical results” that exist within the scientific/academic community.
• Godin and Gingras proposition: “. . . scientific and technological culture is the expression of all modes through which individuals and society appropriate science and technology.” The preceding definition of scientific culture as a value system belonging exclusively to scientists and academics (sub-groups within society), is a striking contrast to this denotation that depicts scientific culture as the means by which any member of society may access science and technology.
• Most European nations use the words “scientific culture” (culture scientifique) to describe a field known in the UK as “public understanding of science” and USA as “scientific literacy.” There is, however, an important additional emphasis on the cultural environment in which science and the society interact. Scientific culture is an integrated societal value system that appreciates and promotes science, per se, and widespread scientific literacy, as important pursuits.

At this point, it is important to mention that according to the authors (Burns et al,2003) , the third definition of scientific culture “represents the most generally accepted and useful interpretation of the term”. 

Despite the effort to enumerate all “foundational terms” of Science Communication and the related need to a grasp of consensus upon them, authors point out that “surveys suggest that the public does not know much about science, and it appears that scientists don’t know much about the public”. In their effort to discuss the “fitting in” of Science Communication between Science and Society, they complement that recent surveys reveal a persistently high level of interest in science but a persistently low level of measurable comprehension. This is despite the fact that there are several government-sponsored initiatives for scientific promotion and education, particularly in the USA and UK. The so-called deficit model of public knowledge of science was created as a result of the term "public understanding of science," together with an interpretation of early surveys of scientific literacy. According to this approach, science possesses all necessary information whereas the general population has insufficient knowledge. However, and according to Burns et al, surveys that promote the public’s lack of scientific literacy, according to critics, may not sufficiently address the issue's underlying complexity.

So, Burns et al wonder: Why should the public be expected to be more literate in scientific matters than others; for example politics, art, music or literature? And how do social and cultural factors influence the results? 

And they suggest that the contextual method was introduced around ten years ago as a result of works by Wynne, Irwin, Latour, Collins, and Pinch, Jenkins, Layton, Yearley, McGill, and Davey.  The contextual model examines the implications of its very different root metaphor, the interaction between science and its publics. In contrast, the deficit model portrays communication as “a one-way flow from science to its publics”. The contextual model is therefore symmetrical: It presents communication between science and its audiences as a two-way street. The contextual approach presupposes an engaged public since it calls for a language of reconstruction in which scientific and local knowledge are combined to create public understanding. Communication in this concept is not just cognitive; ethical and political issues become also relevant.

But, authors move beyond this to suggest that even though some terms have considerable commonality between them, they really should not be used in an interchangeable manner. In this sense, and in essence, they propose the following terminologies and distinguishable meanings:

• Public awareness of science aims to stimulate awareness of, and positive attitudes (or opinions) towards science.
• Public understanding of science, as the name suggests, focuses on understanding science: its content, processes, and social factors.
• Scientific literacy is the ideal situation where people are aware of, interested and involved in, form opinions about, and seek to understand science.
• Scientific culture is a society-wide environment that appreciates and supports science and scientific literacy. It has important social and aesthetic (affective) aspects.

At this point, the authors introduce us with the concept of “human response” to science communication, and they claim that there are five general human responses to science that may be used to summarize the goals of scientific awareness, knowledge, literacy, and culture. When a large enough number of people demonstrate similar reactions, they may be taken to apply to the whole population. These individual responses can be categorized under the heading AEIOU (the vowel analogy): Awareness of science; Enjoyment of or other emotional reactions to science; Interest in science, the development, revision, or confirmation of scientific Opinions, and Understanding of science. The acronym AEIOU is a short term that expresses the goal of science communication by personalizing the impersonal ideals of scientific awareness, knowledge, literacy, and culture. By looking for definitions to address “the how and why” of science communication, the authors highlight Bryant’s viewpoint that science communication is “the processes by which the culture and knowledge of science are absorbed into the culture of the wider community”. And to support this choice they claim that “the strength of this denotation is that it identifies the intangible cultural aspects of science communication, it maintains the continual process that it flows through, rather than a linear and one-off condition. Having “predetermined and appropriate aims”, as they complement, will help Science Communication to be effectively assessed and evaluated. 

One the most important parts of Burns et al article, though (and apart from the “mountain-climbing analogy” that will be not discussed in this essay), is a list of common misconceptions that according to the authors, flow around the concept and the discussion of Science Communication. In their exact words, the following are to be recognized as such cases: 

• Science communication will not always cause an immediate increase in scientific literacy. Many participants will experience an increased interest in, or a change of attitude toward, science that may at some later time lead to enhanced scientific literacy.
• It is often incorrectly assumed that science communication is solely for the benefit of the lay-public, but this is not the case. Science practitioners and mediators, as well as other science-related groups including scientific businesses, politicians, decision makers and members of the media, may benefit from using the tools of science communication to share scientific messages. Furthermore, the need to explain complex issues in lay terms can lead to new perspectives on a topic and a deeper understanding of the field by the professional.
• Science is actually an expansive mountain range (i.e., multiple literacy’s), not a single peak. There are many different areas of S&T as well as other cultural literacy’s scattered across the horizontal plane of domains, and each one could be considered a mountain in its own right. For example, Paisley¹ identified at least 44 major topical literacy’s in US journals and popular media covering such areas as business, computers, health, information, media, politics, religion and technology. 
• A person’s mountain range profile (the extent of literacy, in a variety of domains) is unique but will change over time as the individual “. . . learns, or forgets science skills and knowledge, or comes to value different areas in new ways.”
• Scientists are not at the top of the mountain and the lay public at the bottom. While some scientists may be at the top of one or two mountains, they will be at the foot of many more. “Indeed, given the current state of scientific specialization, ignorance about a particular domain of science is almost as great among scientists working in another domain as it is among lay people.”All people are somewhere between a plain and a peak.

 (Burns et al, 2003, p. 192-193)   

In a short description of their mountain metaphor, they sum up their concept in that Public Awareness of Science is what begins the scientific literacy ascent, which is the very high objective. Scientific culture is that “all-encompassing atmosphere” that gives motives to people that want to be involved, while Science Communicators are the “guides” that provide pathways in which Science Communication has to allow access “between people at different levels”. They conclude that Science Communication is a discipline that is worth of ongoing practice and research, because it aims to construct AEIOU responses to its participants and involve individuals in the public scientific awareness, understanding and literacy. In this sense, they claim, Science Communication has a “vital role to play in modern society”.

Andrea Gursky’s famous photograph “99 cent”. Mostly famous for its social worth embedded in its auction at Sotheby's, on February 7, 2007, for a price of US$3.34 million.

Moving on to the 2021 Routledge Handbook in Public Communication of Science and Technology (third edition) and in their Chapter “Science communication research Themes and challenges”,  Massimiano Bucchi and Brian Trench have argued on the issues that have arised over the last decades with regard to research practices. Initially, they draw attention to the idea that the interaction between science and society is frequently framed in terms of misunderstandings, gaps that need to be filled, and bridges that need to be constructed. According to this long-held misconception, science is different from society in terms of its organizational structures, institutional goals, and communication methods. Accordingly, some translation is necessary to create a bridge between science and society as a whole, making aspects of the science domain approachable, intelligible, and ultimately appealing. Further on, they claim that over the last decades, scholars and critics have drawn attention to relevant changes in research methodology, organizational structure, and dynamic engagement of science with society. Recent studies and reflections, in particular, have highlighted the growing interaction and permeability of boundaries between science and society. For instance, heterogeneous networks integrating scientific specialists with non-experts and quasi-experts (patient organizations, citizen groups, consumers) are rapidly replacing traditional expert communities in fields like biology or information technology.  The very dynamics of scientific communication are included by and reflected in these shifts. 

So, Bucchi and Trench provide with an outline of some of the challenges these transformations present to researchers, but first, they offer a “highly synopsized review of the current state of the art through an examination of the usage of terms that recur frequently as demanding the attention of practitioners and researchers”. In a list of almost their exact words, the following terms are highlighted: 

• Popularization, describes a wide range of practices in making scientific information accessible to general, non-expert audiences.
• Model of Communication, is the the mental construction of relations between the actors in the communication process. A kind of  top-down and hierarchical model, pointed to the assumption that the target public was defined by a deficit of some kind.
• Deficit, is a central concept in identifying the intellectual (or ideological) foundations of certain science-in-society ideas and practices and enabling their critique. Two assumptions often underlie this concept: public opinion and political decision-makers are misinformed about science and the issues raised by its development.
• Dialogue, is the acceptable alternative to the deficit model from the late 1990s as public concern over certain science and technology issues became evident.
• Engagement, is a prevalent term to describe a wide range of science-in-society practices in policy, education, information or entertainment contexts.
• Participation, represents a stronger form of engagement by the public both with scientific ideas and with the governance of science. The term has acquired specific meaning in science in society through association with ideas of participatory democracy and participatory communication. In these contexts, participation implies strongly active citizens who can engage at many levels, including in deliberation on the very topics for negotiation and communication.
• Publics, is a common term in discussion and study of science in society, indicating in shorthand that the public is diverse, even fragmented. Because it is not a common, much less every day, word, publics often has to carry the quote marks around it that draw attention to its deliberate use. Adopting the plural form was an important part of recognizing that generalizations about the public – specifically in terms of its deficits – are very rarely valid, and often seriously misleading (Einsiedel 2000).
• Expertise, is the most common form through which scientific knowledge and actors enter the public domain, i.e. when scientists take on public roles validating, interpreting and commenting on developments in science, and advising governments and other social institutions and their implications.
• Visible Scientists, as the public explainers in the direct or indirect presence of publics.
• Scientific Culture, refers to the standing of science in the general culture of a country or other cultural context.

Bucchi and Trench point out that there are some significant shifts in relations that call for new approaches and perhaps new terms, even though the use of concepts like those discussed above will continue to develop and greater understanding of the range of their applications will help research in this field. They mention that the idea of mediatization has been put up to characterize how science actors and institutions are sensitive to and close to the practices and logics of the general media (Weingart 1998; Peters et al. 2008; Rdder et al. 2012). They support that this may be a useful method to rethink communicational dynamics and, more importantly, to abandon the idea that science and society are two different, independent entities. Adding to that, they believe that the co-evolution of science, society, and communication mediums presents additional hurdles, yet this is still perhaps the primary obstacle facing modern scientific communication research. 

So, trying to pinpoint some of the most significant of these difficulties, they enumerate the following (Bucchi and Trench, 2021): 

• Plural Science, Plural Public

  Science and society's varied networking and permeability collide with the publics, media, and their social applications' growing fragmentation. It is difficult to continue using traditional expressions like "scientific community," which implies internal homogeneity and a shared commitment to specific norms and values, because science institutions and actors are diversifying their attitudes and practices, also in the communication domain (Bucchi 2009, 2014). But considering and researching the variety and articulation of scientific communication publics is just as significant. The word "public" has always brought up images of compliant, target-like readers and viewers who are frequently addressed and defined paternalistically. It is clear that social transformations, as reflected in depictions of contemporary society as pervaded by a sense of uncertainty, risk, or distrust, along with changes in media technology and use are playing significant roles in redefining and multiplying public spaces for science. While it is important to keep in mind that significant portions of the public may still be potentially excluded from interactions and participatory processes with regard to science, Due to these modifications, scientific communication studies must create more intricate maps of the relationships between publics and the sciences. 

• New Mediations

 Digital media enable research institutions and actors to provide end users with an unprecedented number and diversity of information, such as movies, interviews with scientists, and carefully chosen news articles, among other things. This leads to processes that can be characterized as the "crisis of mediators" in the context of wider, increasingly aggressive public relations initiatives by research institutes. Despite being extensively debated in science journalism and not being exclusive to science communication, this dilemma is particularly pertinent to this industry. Newspapers, periodicals, television and radio shows, scientific museums, and science centers, which have historically served as filters and assurances of information quality, are losing their traditional prominence as mediators of science communication. Although some of the hopes that the public would be able to observe scientific processes through digital media (Trench 2008a) may have been unrealistic or premature, the widespread use of digital media necessitates that researchers consider media as much more than just vehicles for disseminating scientific information. 

• Quality and Evaluation

 Professional mediators used to ensure quality through their medium's reputation and brand recognition. The content printed in the science sections of the New York Times or Il Corriere della Sera, or broadcast by the BBC, or displayed in a significant science exhibition could generally be relied upon to be a high-quality extract of findings and ideas filtered from the scientific community. However, the current information saturation necessitates new definitions of quality and increased user competence. The public communication of science ought to have developed sufficiently at this point to go from a heroic phase in which everything is done for the sake of conveying science to a phase in which quality requirements are important to everyone engaged. This requires creating performance metrics and benchmarks, particularly for institutions, and gives the evaluation problem more weight. New relationships of trust for the evaluation of scientific knowledge may arise when social networks of evaluation in other fields grow. This indicates that it is unlikely to be beneficial to rely just on peer-reviewed science to provide authenticity and legitimacy. It also poses a significant challenge for scientific organizations' public relations efforts and, in turn, for the examination of their position in society. 

• Collapsing Communication contexts

 The didactic and public presentation of science is no longer only a static and preserved page (according to Kuhn's thesis) created by the victorious parties in the fight to build a new scientific paradigm (Kuhn 1962). Even science museums, the epicenter of "extinct" science, are now hosting displays on current scientific subjects in the making. Users of scientific information have increased access to the research behind science as well as extremely contentious expert discussions. Instances like Climategate 2009 have brilliantly illuminated some of the ramifications of this new reality. Internal communication dynamics that were previously hidden in the background of knowledge production processes were made public during Climategate in 2009 when emails between climate change researchers were made available online. Similarly, the debate over the discovery of the so-called fast neutrinos in 2012 featured a dispute among experts that was being watched by the general public in real time. More and more, it is necessary to analyze public communication in order to understand how and by whom the content and form of such communication are decided in discussions within and between sciences. 

• Science in Society and Science in Culture

 It may be helpful to reframe the goal of scientific communication research as how society communicates about science in order to better comprehend these scenarios. This necessitates investigating the cultural circumstances of such communication, including the scientific, artistic, daily, and other situations. The increasingly ambiguous boundaries between communication contexts ought to inspire researchers to bravely explore conceptual affinities and potential sources of inspiration in the humanities, arts, and culture, which have received little attention from science communication scholars despite the expanding science/art practice. For instance, ideas like style may be pertinent to comprehending both the variation in science communication and the difficulty of quality (Bucchi 2013). This is consistent with long-standing calls to 'bring science into culture' (e.g. Lévy-Leblond 1996), emphasizing its links with other fields rather than its segregation from society and culture as articulated in models and visions of knowledge translation and transmission. It also challenges us to acknowledge the significance of a culture of science that extends beyond technical content knowledge and include knowledge of its function, ramifications, goals, potentials, and limitations. It finally asks that science problematize its own cultural presumptions in addition to society, the general public, and culture in connection to science. As a result, scientific communication, both in practice and research, can promote more reflection in both society and science.

• Global Trends and Challenges

Science public outreach has evolved into a worldwide endeavor with both universal themes and particular regional characteristics. This increases the possibilities for experimenting with communication formats and for conducting comparative analyses of, for instance, the use of comparable strategies in other circumstances. Additionally, it highlights how closely scientific communication practices intersect with larger cultural, social, and societal contexts. Finally, it emphasizes how difficult and even misleading it would be to anticipate a singular, straightforward solution to the current issues with science communication, such as those mentioned above, or to realize the expectation of eventually discovering the best and most suitable, one-size-fits-all model of science/public interaction. The tendency to consider various analytical models of interactions between professionals and the general public as a progression of phases, where the new forms overshadow the old, is lessened by adopting a global perspective. In the past, science communication arrangements tended to focus on uniformity and standardization of procedures, often by tying quality to a single or central requirement or standard, like accuracy in message delivery, adherence to scientific sources, or mediator independence. By concentrating on science in culture and culture in science, we may better understand the ongoing presence of many patterns of scientific communication that may converge or diverge depending on the circumstances and the challenges at hand. This should prompt us to reconsider national disparities, for instance, in terms other than how close or far they are from an arbitrary gold standard.

Food Labelling

The focus of the current essay is laid upon the case of food labeling. Food Labeling has been one of the most debated issues in food packaging regulations across the EU and of course, within the history of food industry in the US as well. Considerations on food labeling discussed in the discipline of Science Communication, have been widely dealt as a case of Health Communication in the context of Nutrition (often referred to as “Nutrition Communication”). In this essay, one main article/publication will be discussed. It is an original research by Kate Scott titled “Nutritional Labelling, Communication Design, and relevance”, published in the Frontiers in Communication journal in April 2023. Laying down the important details of Scott’s research, Scott explains the relative efficiency of three different nutrition labeling systems in conveying information and influencing consumer food choices using relevance theory. Nutritional information is presented in several front of pack (FOP) styles, including Facts Up Front [also known as Reference intake (RI) or Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA)], traffic light systems, and warning labels. Comparing warning labels to the Facts Up Front and traffic light systems, her research comments on the efficiency of these systems and reveals that customers are better able to recognize dangerous items when they see warning labels. When participants were asked to choose the healthiest product, however, warnings and traffic signal systems both functioned well. Scott claims to show how these findings might be interpreted in terms of the processing work and inferential procedures a consumer must perform in order to obtain pertinent contextual suppositions and derive implications in decision-making situations. And she does it by demonstrating the connection between the various labeling systems' effectiveness and their applicability to interpretation. This approach has implications for communication design and policy more broadly and demonstrates the relevance theory's ability to explain visual communication. For the purposes of a comprehensive presentation of Scott’s arguments, the exact structure of her article will be discussed in original order.

1. Introduction 

Public health-related behavior can be affected by how well governments and advisory organizations communicate (Hornik, 2002; Wakefield et al., 2010) (cited by Scott, 2023). Food and drink labeling is one area in which many nations have laws, regulations, or guidelines. Different regions and nations have different laws governing food packaging and how nutritional information is displayed. Numerous forms are used to present nutritional information on food packaging, and a ton of study has been done on how well these systems work at informing consumers and influencing their behavior. However, generalizations continue to apply to the reasons why certain systems provide better results than others. When discussing the apparent efficacy of two of the systems, for instance, Temple (2020; p. 5) (cited by Scott, 2023) comes to the conclusion that "the most likely reason for this is that these designs are fairly easy for shoppers to understand." Scott examines the interpretive procedures that consumers go through while understanding a label using a pragmatic paradigm. Thus, she explores what "easy for shoppers to understand" would entail in terms of the mental operations required to interpret the nutritional information. The numerous labeling systems were utilized as a test case for the application of pragmatic principles in communication design since they provided, as she supports, the same fundamental information in diverse ways. Pragmatics is the study of communication in context. The framework of relevance-theoretic pragmatics (Wilson and Sperber, 2012; Sperber and Wilson, 1995; Carston, 2002; Wilson and Sperber, 2012) (cited by Scott, 2023) provides an explanation of how purposeful actions of communication are perceived. Future design practice and communications policy decisions should be informed by an awareness of the interpretive processes that drive consumers' involvement with nutritional labeling. According to Scott, this would pave the way for pragmatic concepts to influence work in communication design.

2. Relevance and Communication Design 

Scott argues that human cognition is focused toward maximizing relevance, according to the cognitive principle of relevance. If an input produces cognitive consequences, it will be relevant to the individual. We may conceive of cognitive consequences as modifications to our cognitive environment, which includes our set of presumptions. An input may be pertinent if it makes us more confident in an existing presumption. It can be significant because it disproves a presumption we have and prompts us to rule it out. Finally, an input could be significant because it interacts with a belief we already hold to produce a fresh belief that wasn't previously available to us. Some inputs will be more relevant than others in terms of degree of relevance. All other factors being equal, an input will be more important the more cognitive consequences it produces. The relevance of an input depends on both the environment in which it is processed and the person doing the processing. Something that is extremely important to one person could not be relevant at all to another. The definition of optimum relevance is provided: (a)The ostensive stimulus is relevant enough to be worth the audience’s processing effort, and (b) It is the most relevant one compatible with the communicator’s abilities and preferences (Wilson and Sperber, 2006; p. 612). (cited by Scott, 2023) The relevance-theoretic comprehension technique is provided and is a combination of this characterisation of optimum relevance and the communicative principle of relevance: Follow a path of least effort in computing cognitive effects: Test interpretive hypotheses (disambiguations, reference resolutions, implicatures, etc.) in order of accessibility. Stop when your expectations of relevance are satisfied (or abandoned)  (Wilson and Sperber, 2006; p. 613). (cited by Scott, 2023) Scott claims that communicators must forecast the presumptions their target audience will hold and how firmly they will hold them. For instance, if a behavior is founded on assumptions that are considered to be true with a high degree of confidence, changing that habit will be considerably more difficult. Additionally, if a message's contents cannot be integrated with an assumption that the target audience already has, communication is likely to fail. If there are no specific addressees or the communication is meant for a large audience, it is more difficult to forecast the assumptions of the audience. A communicator may not be aware of the precise audience the message will reach or the potential biases they may own. Public service announcements may be made with the intention of reaching a sizable and varied audience, each of whom may perceive the message differently. The significance of a message depends not just on the information it contains, but also on how easily the audience can access and process this information, which is another result of this model of utterance interpretation. The accessibility of the information itself (Can it be read clearly? Can it be accessed quickly? Is the language used in writing one that the audience can understand? Does it employ language that the viewers are accustomed to hearing? How difficult is the content to understand verbally or logically? etc.). The accessibility of the contextual presumptions that the information interacts with to produce cognitive consequences will also have an impact on the processing effort required by the audience. Assumptions that are regularly accessed or those that have recently been used will be easier to reach than assumptions that are only seldom used in an individual's interpretation processes. The less relevant the message is, the more effort is required, the more likely it is that the audience member will give up looking for relevance entirely. The definitions that support the relevance principles offer a foundation for comprehending how we take in and make sense of new knowledge. We can interpret disparities in the relevance of inputs in terms of the processing effort they need and the cognitive outcomes they produce since relevance is comparative (Scott, 2023). 

3. Nutritional Labelling and Consumer Perception 

3.1 – An overview of labeling policies and systems 

Depending on the nation where the food and drink product will be sold, different rules and regulations apply to nutritional labeling. All pre-packaged goods are frequently required by law to provide nutritional information, which is most frequently shown on the rear of packaging. Front of pack (FOP) labeling regulation varies more considerably and is frequently optional. For instance, manufacturers are required to offer a nutritional statement in the European Union in a certain format, but they are also permitted to repeat that information for specific nutrients (energy, fat, saturates, sugar, and salt) on the front of the food package (European Union, 2/11/22).  Front of pack labeling may be divided into two primary groups, according to Hersey et al. (2013): nutrient specific systems and summary systems. Nutrient specific systems provide information about various key nutrients in the product. Summary systems, on the other hand, “use an algorithm to provide an overall nutritional score” (Hersey et al., 2013; p. 2). This summary could be a logo endorsing the product or it could be a rating system of some kind, like the Guiding Star system that assigns products one, two, or three stars based on whether they are "good," "better," or "best" (Guiding Stars Licensing Company). Several EU nations employ the summary method known as Nutriscore. Products are graded from A to E according on their nutritional value. According to Scott, Hersey et al. (2013; p. 13) have drawn the conclusion that "consumers more easily identify healthier foods using nutrient specific schemes compared with the summary systems" in their comprehensive analysis of investigations into food labeling systems. According to how much guidance they provide the customer, Hodgkins et al. (2012) argue that labeling systems may be split into three sub-categories. They come in the forms of non-directive, semi-directive, and directive. Scott's study compares the performance of labeling systems throughout this three-way classification, and it uses relevance theoretic hypotheses about how humans interpret ostensive stimuli to explain the findings. It is therefore helpful, at this point, to give a quick overview of the three categories and the schemes that fit into each (Scott, 2023).

3.2 – Schemes of Labelling 

3.2.1 – Schemes of Labelling: The Directive Systems 

Direct statements on labels concerning a product's healthfulness (or lack thereof) are often supported by a third party, such as a regulator, charity, or governmental agency. Some directive labels include summaries, indicating that a meal has been categorized as satisfying a specific general need. Others could offer specific details regarding one or more nutrients. Nutrition-specific directive labels offer broad statements about a nutrient (e.g., "low in fat," "high in sugar") but do not provide precise information about the amounts present. Consumers do not require these information with summary systems since "the decision has already been made for them in terms of [the product's] health utility," according to Hodgkins et al. (2012; p. 813). FOP labeling uses warnings as a directive type of labeling when a product contains high quantities of a nutrient that should only be ingested in small amounts. In various parts of the globe, attempts to lower obesity and excessive consumption of processed foods, have involved the use of food labelling warning systems.

3.2.2  – Schemes of Labelling: The Non-directive: facts up front/reference intake/guideline daily amount 

Non-directive systems provide comprehensive details regarding the product's nutritional composition. However, it is not explicitly stated if the food is a healthy option or not. The amount of each nutrient is stated per portion (or per 100 g), as shown in Figure 1, and the label also displays the percentage of the recommended daily intake for adults. Because of this, these methods are also known as RI (reference intake) or GDA labeling.

3.2.3  – Schemes of Labelling: Semi directive: Traffic light systems 

Finally, according to Hodgkins et al. (2012) (p. 814)(cited by Scott, 2023), semi-directive systems "contain information on nutrient content but also communicate decisions on healthfulness." This is frequently accomplished using labels in the Facts Up Front style with additional color-coding, as seen in Figure 2. The most popular systems distinguish between red, green, and amber traffic lights. These labels are commonly referred to as Multiple Traffic Lights, or MTL, because each nutrient is labeled independently. Each nutrient may be designated as "high," "medium," or "low" in addition to, or instead of, color-coding in certain semi-directive schemes.

According to Hodgkins et al. (2012) (cited by Scott, 2023), the majority of food items will have a combination of red, green, and/or amber throughout the various nutritional categories. An item rarely has a red or green color all to itself. As a result, unlike with directive systems, the guidance provided to customers is not as simple and straightforward. Consumers are required to choose between a specific nutrient and the overall traffic light profile. Scott, after outlining these three types of labelling systems, has moved on to provide a summary of the studies on the efficacy of their adoption.

3.3  Effectiveness of the labeling systems: empirical evidence 

The goal of several studies and tests has been to determine the best effective method of informing customers about nutrition and changing their behavior to prefer healthier food and beverage selections. The arguments in Scott's article are based on three systematic evaluations of research in this field (Hawley et al., 2013, Hersey et al., 2013, and Temple, 2020) (cited by Scott, 2023). Through her evaluation, she has reached a first and foremost finding that semi-directive methods seem to be more successful than non-directive messages. According to a comprehensive assessment of the literature on the efficacy of food labeling conducted by Hawley et al. (2013), "the MTL [multiple traffic light] label has the most consistent support" (p. 437) (cited by Scott, 2023) in terms of being advantageous to consumers. Consumers can more easily understand nutrition information using FOP schemes that incorporate text and color to indicate "high," "medium," or "low" levels of nutrients as opposed to FOP labels that only display numeric information including %GDA and/or grams, according to Hersey et al. (2013) (p. 12). As a result, both evaluations reach the same conclusion: Facts Up Front systems are less successful than semi-directive traffic light systems. These reviews, however, were conducted before the adoption of warning labels in nations like Chile, thus they do not compare directive systems. In order to close that gap, Temple (2020) (cited by Scott, 2023) carried out a literature search on studies published after 2011. His analysis only includes papers that were left out of the two prior evaluations (Hawley et al., 2013; Hersey et al., 2013). Temple found in his assessment that the "designs for FOP labels that appear to be most successful are MTL, warning labels, and Nutriscore" despite the fact that he cites a significant level of variance across the trials. Labels "based on GDA... were much less successful" Temple (2020, 5) (cited by Scott, 2023). As Scott has firmly put it “Given these general patterns, we can look more closely at the findings of individual studies to explore the effectiveness of the labeling in more detail”. Response times for GDA labels were noticeably higher than for the traffic light system and warning labels in a high salt identification investigation comparing three labeling systems (Arrua et al., 2017). Response times for warning labels were the quickest of all. Adasme-Berrvos et al. (2022) found that the influence of warning labels was restricted in other respects, even if they appear to have the most impact when it comes to detecting harmful alternatives. When warning labels were added, their study found "no evidence for effects on nutritional knowledge" (p. 1547). Therefore, despite the fact that warning labels may be most useful for influencing individual choices, they did little to inform customers about nutrition and health in general. In a follow up study, Arrua et al concluded that when participants were asked to choose the healthiest food, labels with warnings and traffic light icons worked equally well (Scott, 2023). A health tick logo directive label was compared to traffic lights and a Facts Up Front nutrition table by Herpen and Trijp (2011), and the results led them to the conclusion that "the logo seems to have an advantage, both in terms of the likelihood of attention to the label and the influence on choice. When Roberto et al. (2012) compared consumer comprehension of the non-directive Facts Up Front approach with the semi-directive multiple traffic signal scheme, they found a comparable outcome. They discovered that traffic lights were "substantially more helpful" (p. 140) than Facts Up Front for determining the amount of nutrients in a product(Scott, 2023).

Machin et al. (2017) compared GDA labels to two versions of the semi-directive traffic signal system as part of their study. One version was monochrome, while the other made use of the standard red-amber-green multicolored coding. In the multicolored version, red denoted high amounts of a nutrient and green, low levels. In the monochrome form, high was represented by black, and low by white. The study contrasted low-, middle-, and high-income individuals' judgments of the healthfulness of ultra-processed foods. The semi-directive systems outperformed the non-directive system, which was consistent with the findings of earlier investigations. Individuals in both traffic light systems gave ultra-processed foods a lower healthfulness perception than the GDA system for individuals with modest incomes (p. 336). However, and as mentioned by Scott, Machin et al. found that for some items, there was a difference between the two traffic light schemes. When a product featured certain nutrients in low concentrations alongside others in high concentrations, the monochrome labelling occasionally led to a reduced perception of healthfulness. In other words, consumers evaluated the same items as being less healthy when the nutritional information was provided in black and white rather than in color. According to Machn et al., this may be the case because the color green, which is used to indicate low nutrient content in the colored system, is associated with healthfulness, as opposed to the more impartial color white in the monochrome system (Scott, 2023).   At this point, Scott concludes that when it comes to identifying items that should be avoided or used sparingly, warning labels seem to be the most effective technique overall. When it comes to recognizing healthy alternatives, semi-directive systems like the many traffic signals seem to be more successful than the non-directive Facts Up Front approaches and just as effective as warnings. In terms of customer behavior and shopping preferences, the type of goods also affects how successful the labeling is. Flowingly, Scott has examined how customers interpret various types and categories of labels in order to better understand these trends. Her conclusions were drawn from this relevance-theoretic approach (Scott, 2023).  

3.4  Relevance – Theoretic analysis 

Directive warning labels and semi-directive traffic signal systems, according to Scott’s review and research, appear to be the most successful strategies for persuading customers to stay away from harmful foods. Non-directive Facts Up Front style labeling seems to be the least effective technique for conveying health-related information and influencing customer behavior. Scott presents a number of scenarios with assumptions and looks at how the information in the various labels interact with these assumptions to produce cognitive effects in order to determine how the various label formats could be read by a certain consumer. A person can reach a conclusion if an input and an assumption can interact. This is the inferential approach, and the more direct it gets, the easier it is to draw the conclusion—whether to purchase or not. The variations in efficiency and simplicity of interpretation across the three methods may be seen, Scott argues, when comparing a person's interpretive procedures in each situation. The Facts Up Front approach requires more processing than warnings and traffic signals to direct to a healthfulness evaluation and ultimately a buying choice. This is because the latter need fewer inferential processes and simpler, more approachable assumptions (Scott, 2023).   Other cases have highlighted the importance of the food itself. To further clarify the distinctions noted by Araya et al. (2019)(cited by Scott, 2023), Scott suggests that a relevance-based interpretive procedures can be followed. In this case, it was found that the likelihood that a client would purchase a morning cereal with a warning label was lower, while cookies and chocolate were unaffected. Scott therefore argues that It is helpful to consider the presumptions that customers are likely to have about various items in order to comprehend why the impact on them may differ. Most customers are probably aware of how heavy in calories, sugar, and fat cookies and chocolate items are. Customers are therefore likely to hold the presumptions – in some cases- even before they see the package. Therefore, adding warning labels to these items won't have much of an impact. Only when new knowledge interacts with our presumptions to have a cognitive effect can it be considered significant. However, in this instance, the buyer has preconceived notions about the specific foods that are quite definite. The label's information is therefore unlikely to support the notion any further. In more ambivalent cases though, and If the consumer views the warning labels as a trustworthy source of information, she will re-evaluate her presumptions. The warning labels can alter behaviors exactly because consumers either have no beliefs about the healthfulness of some products or may hold inaccurate assumptions about it. In situations like these, warning labels are necessary. The label won't have any cognitive consequences and will thus be irrelevant if the buyer already knows the product is harmful (Scott, 2023, p.08).

3.5  Discussion and implications for communication design 

The relevance-theoretic pragmatic framework may be utilized to comprehend the interpretative processes customers go through when they come across front of pack nutritional labels, as shown by Scott. The relevance of the labeling schemes in terms of cognitive impacts and processing effort helps us to understand why there are differences in how successful they are. This can have an impact on labeling policy and design as well as the more general practice of communication design. Warnings outperformed the other methods when it came to detecting harmful alternatives, as has been observed by Scott. From the standpoint of health policy, nutritional labeling must be as direct as possible in leading a customer to a "buy" or "don't buy" decision. Additionally, it should rely on as few contextual hypotheses as possible, and those hypotheses should be very accessible or simple to infer. Only if the information on a label may have cognitive consequences when combined with contextual presumptions will it be meaningful. Less information is provided on the directive warning labels than on traffic light or Facts Up Front systems, but the information that is provided is highly combineable. Even a customer with little to no nutritional knowledge and no interest in healthy eating will be able to recognize a warning sign as designating something that should be avoided or treated with caution. Warning labels require the least amount of previous knowledge in health and nutrition to process. Similar to this, it is not necessary to be interested in or knowledgeable about healthy lifestyle choices to perceive the avoidance and danger connotations of the red color-coding (and similarly, the healthy "go" associations of the color green). In fact, it's not even required to read the warning wording when it comes to warning labels. Warnings only appeared on labels when the level of the target nutrient was high, as Arra et al. (2017; p. 2315) note, according to Scott. At this point, Scott has then firmly argued that simply having a warning-style label on anything is enough to influence a buyer to believe it is unhealthy. Scott argues that the more effort required the more probable it is that the buyer will give up looking for relevance and base their purchase choice on something else. When presenting health (or other) information, more information does not always equate to better information. The easiness of processing for as many customers as possible is crucial. When combined with widely held assumptions, new information is easier to comprehend, and the more individuals who share those assumptions, the more widely the message will be received. But it's not just a question of what presumptions a customer may or may not have. 

Scott argues that Communication designers must also take into account the degree to which a customer holds an assumption and the kind of information that would persuade them to either confirm or refute that assumption, producing a cognitive effect. Malam et al. (2009)(cited by Scott,2023),  in a report made for the Foods Standards Agency, have found that certain users who are certain of their understanding of what is and is not healthy may not utilize labels at all, Even if people could be concerned about their health, if they already have a lot of faith in their presumptions, the information on the label is less likely to matter to them. When we are completely certain of anything, we cannot further support that belief, and it is far less probable that additional knowledge would refute and disprove it. According to Malam et al (cited by Scott,2023),  customers who are not interested in healthy eating typically steer clear of FOP labeling because they view it as "an unwelcome attempt to control their behavior". In order to persuade consumers to accept the source of the information, planners of health communication policies must take into account both what information to transmit and how to present it. If we don't believe the information's source or don't take into account certain factors, we won't change our assumptions. The review of nutritional labeling systems, according to Scott, shows that designers should concentrate on the conclusion they want to lead customers to, when developing health communication. Effective communication focuses on creating stimuli that will have the desired cognitive consequences rather than merely disseminating information. For instance, promoting healthy eating is distinct from discouraging consumption of unhealthy foods. Designers need to be aware of the presumptions that customers already have and consider how their messaging will interact with those assumptions. For instance, the information in warning systems can only combine with presumptions about what not to eat, leading a buyer to a "don't buy" conclusion. Warnings don't offer any information that may be combined with presumptions about wholesome food or nutrition, therefore they are less likely to help consumers comprehend nutrition or direct them to healthier options. The opposite is true for directive labeling that promotes health, such as health tick logos (van Herpen and Trijp, 2011) )(cited by Scott,2023)  . They are beneficial if the goal is to boost the consumption of healthy items, but they have less of an immediate effect if the goal is to minimize the purchase of harmful products because these can only be combined with existing preconceptions about what constitutes a healthy option. 

New information interacts with preconceived notions in the cognitive process of communication to produce outcomes. Relevance theory as a pragmatic framework for understanding variant acts of communication, Scott supports in her final conclusion, provides us with a model to analyze "the consumer’s journey as they process a piece of messaging". The assumptions that the intended audience already has must be taken into account when communicating successfully, and the assumptions we want them to hold must be made apparent. Designing effective messaging, Scott argues, is getting the audience from one set of assumptions to the next in as few interpretive steps as you can.

References

1. William Paisley, (1998). “Scientific literacy and the competition for public attention and understanding,” Science Communication 20, no. 1 (1998): 70–80.
2. Chris Bryant, (2002). “Does Australia need a more effective policy of Science Communication?,” International Journal of Parasitology in press (2002): 7.
3. Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004
4. Hojoon Choi & Jeffrey K. Springston (2014). How to Use Health and Nutrition–Related Claims Correctly on Food Advertising: Comparison of Benefit-Seeking, Risk- Avoidance, and Taste Appeals on Different Food Categories, Journal of Health Communication:International Perspectives, 19:9, 1047-1063, DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2013.872723
5. Bucchi, M. (2019). Facing the challenges of science communication 2.0: quality, credibility and expertise. EFSA Journal, 17. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170702 
6. Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (Eds.). (2021). Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039242
7. Scott K (2023), Nutritional labeling, communication design, and relevance. Front. Commun. 8:1125575. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2023.1125575

Thanasis Stathopoulos is a Food Science and Technology MSc, Science and Technology Studies MSc, 
PhD candidate - History of Technology of Food Packaging